Rivera v. Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York

Background

Victor Rivera, a public school history teacher, sued the New York City Department of Education (the “DOE”) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged race- and national-origin-based discrimination and retaliation at A.P. Randolph High School, including derogatory comments, heightened surveillance, unfavorable performance ratings, undesirable assignments, denial of school resources, and rejection of his application for a second term as a dean. His amended complaint asserted three hostile-work-environment claims based on race discrimination, national-origin discrimination, and retaliation.

The DOE moved to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to plausibly allege either a discriminatory policy or practice attributable to the DOE or conduct sufficiently severe or pervasive to support a hostile-work-environment claim.

Municipal-liability standard

Because Rivera sued a municipal agency under Section 1983, he had to plead a basis for municipal liability under the rule commonly called Monell. That rule does not allow a municipality to be held responsible merely because one of its employees allegedly violated someone’s rights. Rivera instead had to plausibly allege an official policy or custom that caused the denial of a constitutional right.

A municipal policy or custom can be shown through an express policy, authorization by a policymaker, deliberately inadequate employee training, or a sufficiently permanent and settled employee practice that senior policymakers effectively accepted. General or conclusory allegations are not enough.

The principal was not a final policymaker

Rivera argued that Principal David Fanning was a final policymaker whose conduct could be attributed to the DOE. The court rejected that argument. Under the governing legal principles, a final policymaker must have authority under state law to establish policy for the relevant area of municipal business. The power to make decisions at a school, even decisions that are not reviewed by a higher official, is not necessarily the power to establish municipal policy.

The court relied on New York law, which makes a principal’s authority over the school’s day-to-day operations subject to the chancellor’s regulations. The court also relied on a Second Circuit decision rejecting the idea that a public-school principal becomes a final policymaker whenever the principal controls the specific action that harmed the plaintiff. Rivera did not identify legal authority showing that Fanning could set DOE policy concerning the matters at issue. The court therefore held that Rivera had not adequately alleged that Fanning was a final policymaker for purposes of municipal liability.

No adequately pleaded DOE custom or acceptance

Rivera also argued that the DOE had effectively accepted a discriminatory policy or custom because it allegedly knew about Fanning’s conduct and failed to stop it. The court found the allegations insufficient. It concluded that the allegations about conduct directed at Rivera did not show conduct so widespread and obvious that senior DOE policymakers must have known about and accepted it.

The court also found Rivera’s allegations about other employees too vague. Rivera referred to other faculty members who allegedly suffered consequences after opposing Fanning and stated that at least four colleagues had complained about discrimination or retaliation, but he did not provide enough detail about what happened, whom the employees contacted, or how their treatment compared with his. His reference to multiple lawsuits against the DOE likewise lacked information showing that those lawsuits established notice of, or liability for, a widespread DOE policy or practice.

Disposition

The court granted the DOE’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Because Rivera had not pleaded a basis for municipal liability, the court did not need to decide whether he adequately alleged a constitutional violation or a hostile work environment. Rivera had not requested permission to amend again, and the court concluded that another amendment would not cure the deficiencies. The court dismissed Rivera’s claims against the DOE with prejudice, terminated the pending motions, adjourned the remaining dates, and closed the case.