Praprotnik v. City of St. Louis

United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1988 · Federal Courts

Federal CourtsSection 1983Municipal Liability§ 1983municipal liabilityfinal policymaking authoritystate lawcity charter

Facts

Praprotnik sought to hold the City of St. Louis liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for his transfer and later layoff, asserting that supervisors retaliated against him for appealing a 1980 suspension to the Civil Service Commission. The officials responsible for the transfer and layoff were CDA Director Frank Hamsher and H & UD Director Robert Killen. Under the St. Louis City Charter, the Civil Service Commission had authority over adoption, administration, and enforcement of civil service rules and made final decisions on employment matters raised on appeal. The record contained no evidence that the Commission authorized a retaliatory policy or delegated its final policymaking authority to Praprotnik's supervisors.

Issue

Whether the City of St. Louis could be held liable under § 1983 for Praprotnik's transfer and layoff where the decisions were made by subordinate supervisors and where the record did not show an unconstitutional municipal policy or action by an official with final policymaking authority under state or local law.

Rule

A municipality may be held liable under § 1983 only for acts it has officially sanctioned or ordered. Only municipal officials with final policymaking authority may subject the municipality to liability, whether such authority exists is determined by state law, and the challenged action must have been taken pursuant to a policy adopted by the official or officials responsible under state law for making policy in that area of the municipality's business. Mere acquiescence in a subordinate's discretionary decisions, without more, does not amount to delegation of final policymaking authority, though express approval of a policy statement or a known custom or usage may support attribution to the municipality.

🔒

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.

Nina Flores worked for the City of Tulsa's housing inspection office. After she filed a formal safety complaint, the office director reassigned her to a dead-end clerical post; Tulsa's charter provides that a municipal personnel board adopts and enforces civil-service rules and issues final decisions on employee appeals, while department directors may make day-to-day staffing choices.

If Flores sues the city under § 1983 for retaliatory reassignment, which is the strongest argument against municipal liability?

Explanation. A municipality is liable only for acts it officially sanctioned or ordered. Only officials with final policymaking authority may subject the city to § 1983 liability, and that authority is determined by state or local law. Here, the charter places final personnel policymaking authority in the personnel board, not the department director; mere discretion in staffing does not equal final policymaking authority. Without evidence that the board adopted or approved a retaliatory policy, the city is not liable. (Derived from Praprotnik v. City of St. Louis (n.d.).)