Opinion

Busby v. City of Orlando

  • 931 F.2d 764
  • 1991 WL 66704
Court
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Filed
May 17, 1991
Status
Published
Author
Allgood
On the bench
Allgood, Fay, Johnson
Cited by
825 cases

holding that the proper method for an employee to recover under Title VII is by suing the employer, either by naming supervisory employees as agents of the employer or by naming the employer directly; individual capacity suits under Title VII are inappropriate

How later courts described this case

  • holding that the proper method for an employee to recover under Title VII is by suing the employer, either by naming supervisory employees as agents of the employer or by naming the employer directly; individual capacity suits under Title VII are inappropriate
  • stating that in law enforcement agencies, “comments concerning co-workers’ performance of their duties and superior officers’ integrity can ‘directly interfere with the confidentiality, esprit de corps and efficient operation of the police department’ ”
  • finding that the balance would not inevitably weigh in favor of the plaintiff police officer because the defendants merely sought to delay access to a public forum until the police department's internal affairs division could investigate the complaints
  • recognizing that “when an officer is sued under Section 1983 in his or her official capacity, the suit is simply another way of pleading an action against an entity of which an officer is an agent.” (internal quotations and citations omitted)

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

ALLGOOD, Senior District Judge,

concurring:

When we first discussed this case, I told my learned brothers, both of whom I greatly admire and respect, that this ease was full of problems. Various aspects of the case troubled me very much, including the fund raising scheme that Busby used.

After reading the briefs and hearing the oral arguments, it was my conclusion that we should affirm the district court with a short per curiam. However, I was open to the fact that after the entire record was reviewed, it might be necessary to reconsider my initial impression. Both Judge Fay and Judge Johnson have now, not only read, but studied the record thoroughly and are convinced that we cannot affirm.

I am bound by the law regardless of whether or not I approve of it. While I do not like the action we are taking, I yield to Judge Fay’s judgment and interpretation of the law and concur in his opinion.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.