Collins v. City of Harker Heights
503 U.S. 115 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A municipality's failure to train or warn its employees about known workplace hazards does not, by itself, constitute a violation of the substantive component of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Facts:
- Larry Michael Collins was an employee in the sanitation department for the City of Harker Heights, Texas.
- The city had a custom and policy of not training its sanitation employees about the dangers of working in sewer lines and manholes.
- The city also did not provide safety equipment or issue safety warnings regarding the known risks of the job.
- A city supervisor had previously been rendered unconscious in a manhole, giving the city notice of the specific dangers involved.
- A Texas statute required the city to provide safety equipment and training to its employees.
- On October 21, 1988, Collins entered a manhole to unstop a sewer line as part of his employment duties.
- While inside the manhole, Collins died of asphyxia.
Procedural Posture:
- Myra Jo Collins, the widow of Larry Michael Collins, filed a lawsuit against the City of Harker Heights in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
- The District Court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, ruling that no constitutional violation had been alleged.
- Collins (appellant) appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, but on the different theory that the city's conduct was not an 'abuse of governmental power.'
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the Court of Appeals' decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a city's failure to train or warn its employees about known hazards in the workplace amount to a constitutional deprivation of life and liberty under the Due Process Clause, creating a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Stevens
No. A city's failure to provide its employees with a safe working environment is not an abuse of governmental power that violates the Due Process Clause. The Court reasoned that the Due Process Clause is a limitation on the state's power to act, not an affirmative guarantee of minimal levels of safety and security. It was intended to prevent the government from acting as an instrument of oppression, rather than to supplant state tort law for workplace injuries. Collins voluntarily entered into an employment relationship with the city, unlike individuals in state custody (such as prisoners or pretrial detainees) to whom the state does owe a duty of care. The city's alleged deliberate indifference, while potentially tortious under state law, was not arbitrary or conscience-shocking in a constitutional sense. Finally, the Court clarified that the 'deliberate indifference' standard from Canton v. Harris applies only to the second step of a § 1983 municipal liability claim (whether a policy caused the harm), not the first step (whether a constitutional violation occurred at all).
Analysis:
This decision significantly narrows the scope of substantive due process claims against public employers under § 1983. It establishes a clear distinction between common law torts and constitutional violations, preventing the federalization of public-sector workplace safety law. The Court solidified a crucial two-step analytical framework for § 1983 municipal liability: a plaintiff must first establish an underlying constitutional violation before the question of municipal policy or custom is even considered. This prevents plaintiffs from using a city's 'deliberate indifference' in its policies as a substitute for proving an independent constitutional deprivation.
Unlock the full brief for Collins v. City of Harker Heights