Supreme Court to Clarify Liability of Cities, Counties

Cities and counties can be forced to pay huge damage verdicts to victims of police brutality if a jury concludes that top local officials had a “policy” that allows violating the civil rights of its citizens.

But can a single mistake by a single top official amount to an unconstitutional policy?

The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a county’s appeal raising that question, and it may signal a move to shield local governments from the growing number of damage verdicts.

For at least a decade, the justices have been closely divided on whether cities and counties can be held liable if one of their employees violates a person’s civil rights. Often, these cases involve claims of police brutality, but they also can concern allegations of racial discrimination or free-speech violations.

In the past, the liberal justices supported the broad use of damage claims against local governments as a means to ensure that civil liberties are protected.

But the conservative justices have argued that taxpayers should not have to pay whopping verdicts simply because a public employee or a police officer overstepped his bounds.

Of course, plaintiffs can always bring a damage suit against the officer himself. But, as a practical matter, juries are not likely to hand down a large verdict unless the government agency is included as a defendant.

The justices will revisit the issue in a lawsuit brought by an Oklahoma woman who was pulled from her husband’s pickup truck by a rookie officer, handcuffed and thrown to the pavement on her knees. She suffered severe injuries to her knees and has undergone four operations since then.

She later filed a damage suit against the officer, Deputy Stacy Burns, as well as his employer, Bryan County, Okla. She contended that she was the victim of a false arrest and excessive use of official force.

Trial testimony revealed that Burns had a long criminal record for drunken driving, assault and driving with a suspended license before he was hired. Despite that, his uncle, County Sheriff B. J. Moore, hired him and put him to work with little training.

The jury concluded this action showed an official “policy of deliberate indifference” toward the rights of its citizens, and it handed down a verdict and lawyer’s fees of $819,000 against the county.

A federal appeals court upheld the verdict, but the county appealed. It argued that “a single incident” could not prove a local government had an unconstitutional policy.

In a brief order, the justices said they would hear the case of Board of County Commissioners of Bryan County vs. Brown, 95-1100, in the fall.

Last month, the court on a 5-4 vote shielded states from most lawsuits filed in federal court. The new case gives the same conservative majority a chance to shield local governments from many such suits.

*

Meanwhile, the court also agreed to rule on whether former employees can file civil-rights suits against a previous employer.

Charles T. Robinson, a sales representative for the Shell Oil Co., was fired in 1991. Robinson, who is black, contended he suffered racial discrimination, but his suit was rejected by a federal judge after a trial.

He then sought a job with the Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., which contacted Shell for a reference. A supervisor rated him below average and said he had been fired.

Robinson then filed a second suit against Shell, contending the company had retaliated against him for filing the first suit. A federal appeals court threw out Robinson’s retaliation suit on the grounds that he was not an employee. But the justices agreed to hear his appeal in Robinson vs. Shell Oil, 95-1376.