Monell v. Department of Social Services of the City of New York

Supreme Court of the United States · 1978 · Federal Courts

Federal CourtsTortsSection 1983Municipal Liability§ 1983municipal liabilityofficial policycustom

Facts

Petitioners were a class of female employees of the Department of Social Services and the Board of Education of the city of New York. They alleged that, as a matter of official policy, pregnant employees were compelled to take unpaid leaves of absence before such leave was medically necessary. After suit was filed, the city and the Board changed their maternity leave policies, making the claims for injunctive and declaratory relief moot. The district court nevertheless concluded the prior policies were unconstitutional but denied backpay because any damages would ultimately be paid by the city.

Issue

Are local governments and local governing bodies "persons" subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 when the alleged constitutional deprivation was caused by an official policy or custom? If so, may they be held liable solely because they employ a tortfeasor?

Rule

Municipalities and other local government units are "persons" within the meaning of § 1983 and may be sued directly for monetary, declaratory, or injunctive relief when the constitutional deprivation is caused by execution of an official policy, ordinance, regulation, decision, or governmental custom. A municipality may not be held liable under § 1983 solely because it employs a tortfeasor; § 1983 does not impose municipal liability on a respondeat superior theory.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

The city council of Akron, Ohio passes an ordinance requiring all street vendors to obtain police approval before distributing leaflets in public parks. Maya Ortiz is denied permission under the ordinance and sues the city under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging the ordinance violates the First Amendment.

Is the city a proper defendant under § 1983?

Explanation. A local government is a "person" under § 1983 and may be sued directly for monetary, declaratory, or injunctive relief when the constitutional deprivation was caused by execution of an official policy, ordinance, regulation, or decision officially adopted by the body's officers. Here, the challenged ordinance is the city's own formal policy, so the city is a proper defendant. The majority rejected complete municipal immunity, but also made clear liability must rest on the municipality's own policy or custom.