Hafer v. Melo et al.
502 U.S. 21 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
State officials sued in their individual capacities are "persons" subject to liability for monetary damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for actions taken under color of state law. The Eleventh Amendment does not bar such personal-capacity suits against state officials in federal court.
Facts:
- During her 1988 campaign for Pennsylvania Auditor General, Barbara Hafer received a list of office employees who had allegedly secured their jobs through payments to a former employee.
- Hafer publicly promised to fire all employees on the list if she were elected.
- After winning the election and taking office, Hafer dismissed 18 employees, including James Melo, Jr., on the basis that they had "bought" their jobs.
- Hafer also discharged another group of employees, including Carl Gurley, who alleged their termination was because of their Democratic political affiliation and their support for Hafer's opponent.
Procedural Posture:
- James Melo, Jr., Carl Gurley, and other terminated employees sued Auditor General Barbara Hafer in the U.S. District Court, seeking monetary damages and reinstatement under § 1983.
- The District Court consolidated the cases and dismissed the § 1983 claims against Hafer, ruling that she could not be held liable for employment decisions made in her official capacity.
- The plaintiffs (appellees) appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's decision, holding that Hafer (appellant) could be sued for damages in her personal capacity for actions taken under color of state law.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the question of whether state officers may be held personally liable for damages under § 1983 for actions taken in their official capacities.
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 42 U.S.C. § 1983 permit a suit for monetary damages against a state official in their individual capacity for actions taken in their official capacity?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice O'Connor
Yes. A state official may be held personally liable for monetary damages under § 1983 for actions taken in their official capacity. The Court clarified its prior holding in Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, explaining the crucial distinction between official-capacity and personal-capacity suits. Official-capacity suits are treated as actions against the State itself, which is not a "person" subject to damage claims under § 1983. In contrast, personal-capacity suits seek to impose individual liability on a government officer; in this context, the officer is a "person" under the statute. The Court rejected Hafer's argument that § 1983 liability depends on the capacity in which the official acted, rather than the capacity in which they are sued. Finally, the Court affirmed that the Eleventh Amendment, which protects states from being sued in federal court, does not shield state officials from personal-capacity suits seeking damages from their individual assets.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies a crucial ambiguity left by Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, solidifying the distinction between official-capacity and personal-capacity suits under § 1983. It prevents state officials from using their official role as an absolute shield against personal liability for constitutional violations performed while on the job. The ruling ensures that individuals have a viable path to seek monetary damages from state actors who violate their federal rights, reinforcing § 1983 as a key tool for civil rights enforcement. This holding makes it clear that the requirement of acting "under color of state law" is the basis for § 1983 liability, not a defense to it.
