City of St. Louis v. Praprotnik
485 U.S. 112, 99 L. Ed. 2d 107, 1988 U.S. LEXIS 1069 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For the purposes of municipal liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the identification of officials with "final policymaking authority" is a question of state and local law for a court to decide, not a question of fact for a jury. An official lacks such authority if their discretionary decisions are constrained by policies made by others and are subject to meaningful review by authorized policymakers.
Facts:
- James H. Praprotnik was an architect employed by the City of St. Louis's Community Development Agency (CDA).
- In April 1980, after years of positive performance reviews, Praprotnik was suspended by a supervisor, Charles Kindleberger, for undertaking outside employment without prior approval.
- Praprotnik appealed to the city's Civil Service Commission (CSC), which reversed the suspension and awarded him backpay.
- Following the appeal, Praprotnik's supervisors, including CDA Director Donald Spaid, were angry with him, and his subsequent performance evaluations became markedly less favorable.
- In 1982, the new CDA Director, Frank Hamsher, transferred Praprotnik to a different city agency, the Heritage and Urban Design Commission.
- In his new role, Praprotnik was assigned unchallenging clerical duties far below his professional qualifications.
- In December 1983, Praprotnik was laid off from his position at Heritage, with the stated reason being a lack of funds.
Procedural Posture:
- James Praprotnik filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court against the City of St. Louis and several individual officials, alleging his transfer and subsequent layoff were unconstitutional.
- At trial, a jury returned verdicts exonerating the individual defendants but found the City of St. Louis liable for violating Praprotnik's First Amendment and due process rights.
- The City of St. Louis, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals vacated the due process portion of the judgment but affirmed the verdict holding the city liable on the First Amendment claim.
- The City of St. Louis petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
For a municipality to be held liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, does an official possess "final policymaking authority" over an employment decision if that decision is subject to review by higher-level officials or a civil service commission, even if that review is limited or deferential?
Opinions:
Majority - O'Connor (plurality)
No. An official does not possess final policymaking authority if their decisions are constrained by policies established by others and are subject to review by the municipality's authorized policymakers. The identification of such policymakers is a question of state law for the court to decide, not a question of fact for the jury. Liability under § 1983 attaches only to acts which the municipality has officially sanctioned or ordered, which means the actions must be taken by those with final authority to establish municipal policy. The authority to make discretionary decisions, like hiring or transferring employees, is not the same as the authority to make final policy. Where a subordinate's decision is subject to review, the authorized policymakers have retained the final authority. The mere failure of a reviewing body, like the St. Louis Civil Service Commission, to investigate or overturn a subordinate’s decision does not constitute a delegation of policymaking authority.
Concurring - Brennan
No. The specific officials who transferred and laid off Praprotnik did not possess final policymaking authority for the City of St. Louis in employment matters. While the plurality's approach of looking only to state law is too rigid and unrealistic, the outcome is correct in this case. The identification of a policymaker should be a practical, factual inquiry into the city's actual power structure, not merely a formal one. However, the record here shows that Hamsher, the director who transferred Praprotnik, only had discretion to implement a citywide policy of budget cuts; he did not have the authority to establish final employment policy. His retaliatory act was an abuse of his discretion, not an act of municipal policy for which the city itself could be held liable.
Dissenting - Stevens
Yes. A municipality should be liable when its high-ranking officials cooperate to take retaliatory action against an employee for exercising constitutional rights. The jury reasonably concluded that top officials in the city's administration, possibly including the Mayor, retaliated against Praprotnik for his protected speech. The actions of high-ranking officials, even if not formally adopted as a rule, effectively constitute city policy because they signal how the city will act in similar situations and influence subordinates. The plurality's rigid test creates a loophole that allows a city to evade liability for unconstitutional actions committed by its top officials as long as those actions are informal or pretextual.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies, and narrows, the scope of municipal liability under § 1983. It establishes that the determination of who constitutes a 'final policymaker' is a question of law for the judge, to be resolved by examining state and local law, not a question of fact for the jury. This shift prevents plaintiffs from arguing for liability based on an official's 'de facto' or practical authority, making it more difficult to sue municipalities for the actions of supervisors who are not explicitly granted final policymaking power in a city charter or ordinance. The case reinforces the distinction between final decision-making authority and final policymaking authority, shielding cities from liability where a supervisor's unconstitutional act is merely an abuse of discretion rather than the implementation of official city policy.
