recognizing that Monell liability under a “practice or custom” theory requires showing that the decisions of “those officials who have the power to make official policy on a particular issue . . . caused the deprivation of rights at issue . . . by acquiescence in a longstanding practice or custom which constitutes the ‘standard operating procedure’ of the local governmental entity” (citation omitted)
How later courts described this case
- recognizing that Monell liability under a “practice or custom” theory requires showing that the decisions of “those officials who have the power to make official policy on a particular issue . . . caused the deprivation of rights at issue . . . by acquiescence in a longstanding practice or custom which constitutes the ‘standard operating procedure’ of the local governmental entity” (citation omitted)
- holding that because the “express ‘action at law” provided by § 1983 ... provides the exclusive federal damages remedy for [a] violation of the rights guaranteed by § 1981”, plaintiff “must show that the violation of his ‘right to make contracts’ protected by § 1981 was caused by a custom or policy within the meaning of Monell and subsequent cases”
- recognizing that for plaintiff to succeed on § 1981 race-discrimination claim brought under § 1983, he “must show that the violation of his ‘right to make contracts’ protected by § 1981 was caused by a custom or policy within the meaning of Monell and subsequent cases”
- stating that, “[r]eviewing the relevant legal materials, including state 25 and local positive law, as well as custom or usage having the force of law, the trial judge must identify those officials or governmental bodies who speak with final policymaking authority”
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Reported abrogated by statute, as recognized in Moonblatt v. District of Columbia — not on the Supreme Court's list
Jett was abrogated by the Civil Rights Act of 1991. See Moonblatt v. District of Columbia, 572 F.Supp.2d 15, 26 n. 4 (D.D.C.2008).
Called into doubt on other grounds by Philippeaux v. North Central Bronx Hospital, 871 F. Supp. 640 (1994)
491 U.S. 701, 737, 109 S.Ct. 2702, 2724, 105 L.Ed.2d 598 (1989) (relying upon state law "the trial judge must identify those officials or governmental bodies who speak with final policy making authority for the local governmental actor ... it is for the jury to determine whether their decisions have caused the deprivation of rights at issue by policies that affirmatively command that it occur or by acquiescing in a l…
The opinion
Justice Stevens,
dissenting.
My agreement with Justice Brennan’s dissent is buttressed by the views I expressed in Middlesex County Sewerage Authority v. National Sea Clammers Assn., 453 U. S. 1, 22 (1981) (opinion concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part), and in Oklahoma City v. Tuttle, 471 U. S. 808, 834 (1985) (dissenting opinion).