Michel v. Hartford, 226 Conn. App. 98 (2024)

Citation: Michel v. Hartford, 226 Conn. App. 98 (2024)
Parent Document: Michel v. Hartford, 226 Conn. App. 98 (2024)
Jurisdiction: Connecticut (state)
Effective Date: 2024-06-11
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10131855/michel-v-hartford/ ↗

Full Text

2,398 chars

has not directly inflicted an injury, but nonetheless has
       caused an employee to do so, rigorous standards of
       culpability and causation must be applied to ensure
       that the municipality is not held liable solely for the
       actions of its employee.’’ (Citation omitted; internal quo-
       tation marks omitted.) Edgewood Street Garden Apart-
       ments, LLC v. Hartford, 163 Conn. App. 219, 231–32, 135
       A.3d 54, cert. denied, 321 Conn. 903, 136 A.3d 642 (2016).
          In the present case, the plaintiff failed to sufficiently
       plead facts that, if proven, would establish retaliation
       pursuant to an official policy, practice or custom, such
       that the defendant, as a municipality, could be held
       liable pursuant to § 1983 for the actions of its employ-
       ees. The plaintiff acknowledges that the conduct at
       issue does not involve a formal or official policy. Never-
       theless, he contends that he alleged a pattern of adverse
       employment actions taken against him by his superiors,
       who were ‘‘effectively the policymakers of the depart-
       ment,’’ which was sufficient to constitute a policy or
       custom required for municipal liability. ‘‘[M]unicipal lia-
       bility may be imposed for a single decision by municipal
       policymakers under appropriate circumstances.’’ Pem-
       baur v. Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469, 480, 106 S. Ct. 1292,
       89 L. Ed. 2d 452 (1986). In addition, ‘‘Monell’s policy or
       custom requirement is satisfied where a local govern-
       ment is faced with a pattern of misconduct and does
       nothing, compelling the conclusion that the local gov-
       ernment has acquiesced in or tacitly authorized its sub-
       ordinates’ unlawful actions. . . . Such a pattern, if suf-
       ficiently persistent or widespread as to acquire the force
       of law, may constitute a policy or custom within the
       meaning of Monell.’’ (Citations omitted.) Reynolds v.
       Giuliani, 506 F.3d 183, 192 (2d Cir. 2007).
         The plaintiff failed to allege any facts to demonstrate
       that the officers who engaged in the alleged retaliatory
       conduct were ‘‘responsible for establishing final policy
       with respect to the subject matter in question,’’ in order
Page 12                    CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                        0, 0

Other Sections in This Document (77)

Full Text