# Busby v. City of Orlando

> Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 17, 1991 · 931 F.2d 764

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8989885

## Case

- **Full name:** Annie R. BUSBY v. CITY OF ORLANDO, Frederick J. Walsh, individually and in his official capacity as Chief of the Orlando Police Department, Captain Ed Paden, individually and in his official capacity as Captain for the Orlando Police Department, Lt. Richard Noble, individually and in his official capacity as Lt. for the Orlando Police Department, Richard Mays, individually and in his official capacity as Major for Orlando Police Department
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
- **Decided:** May 17, 1991
- **Citations:** 931 F.2d 764; 1991 WL 66704
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Allgood
- **Judges:** Allgood, Fay, Johnson
- **Cited by:** 825 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8989885

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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)
- holding that “[i]ndividual capacity suits under Title VII are . . . inappropriate” because “relief granted under Title VII is against the employer, not individual employees whose actions constituted a violation of [Title VII]”

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8989885. Public record. Not legal advice.