Managing without Immunity: The Challenge for State and Local Government Officials in the 1980s

Groszyk, Walter; Madden, Thomas J.

doi:10.2307/3110084

Cited by 9 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…of Social Services (1978), the U.S. Supreme Court held that local government employees could collect money damages against a local government if a municipal policy led to a violation of the employee’s constitutional rights (Lee, 1987). And in Owen v. City of Independence (1980), the U.S. Supreme Court held that municipal governments, unlike government employees, may not seek protection under the qualified immunity doctrine (Groszyk & Madden, 1981). If federal courts recognize a broader waste, fraud, abuse, public corruption, and official misconduct exception to Garcetti , a police officer who learns of illegal gift taking by other police officers in the course of performing his official duties and then reports such conduct to his superiors might be able to college money damages from his local government although the “clearly established” constitutional right doctrine might limit damages against those officials who retaliated against the officer for making the allegations.…”

Section: Lane V Franks and A Public Employee Freedom Of Speech Rights Continuummentioning

confidence: 99%

Public Service, Public Corruption and the First Amendment

Roberts

2014

Review of Public Personnel Administration

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The 2006 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Garcetti v. Ceballos imposed significant new restrictions on the First Amendment freedom of speech rights of public employees. Specifically, the Garcetti majority held that the First Amendment did not provide any protections for internal or external communications made in the course of performing their official duties. The 2014 case of Lane v. Franks provided the U.S. Supreme Court the opportunity to decide whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit properly denied First Amendment protection for testimony given by an employee of an Alabama community college who testified during a federal public corruption trial. The U.S. Supreme Court, by a vote of 9 to 0, held that Garcetti did not block the employee from proceeding with a claim that the community college retaliated against him for his trial testimony. The U.S. Supreme Court recognized a public corruption testimony exception to Garcetti.

show abstract

Section: Lane V Franks and A Public Employee Freedom Of Speech Rights Continuummentioning

confidence: 99%

Public Service, Public Corruption and the First Amendment

Roberts

2014

Review of Public Personnel Administration

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The ruling in Monell v. Department of Social Services for the State of New York , however, did not elaborate on what municipal decisions or actions might be considered a policy or custom for purposes of liability (Manley 2006). In Maine v. Thiboutot (100 S. Ct. 2502 [1980]), the Court also ruled that liability under § 1983 extended to all federal statutes, not just those pertaining to equal or civil rights (Groszyk and Madden 1981). While qualified immunity often shields public officials from liability for civil rights violations committed during the exercise of their official duties, these officials must demonstrate both reasonable grounds and a good faith belief for their actions under the circumstances (Littman 2008; Riccucci 2006).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Eleventh Amendment Immunity in Contemporary Practice: Revisiting the Legal Liability of Local Government in the United States

French

2009

Politics & Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sovereign immunity is deeply rooted in the American system of government, and its role in balancing individual rights with democratic rule is crucial in litigation still today. This research highlights the fundamental principle of sovereignty and reviews relevant cases as it examines the legal liability of local governments in the twenty‐first century. While the U.S. Supreme Court continues to reject immunity below the state level, the lower courts have extended Eleventh Amendment immunity to local government entities in some cases. The author posits that the modernization and delegation of powers to cities, counties, and other local political subdivisions warrant a more contemporary and explicit interpretation of sovereignty by the U.S. judicial system. La inmunidad soberana estatal está profundamente arraigada en el sistema americano de gobierno, y su papel en ajustar el gobierno democrático a los derechos individuales es crucial en la litigación aún hoy. Esta investigación destaca el principio fundamental de la soberanía y revisa casos relevantes mientras examina la responsabilidad legal de los gobiernos locales en el siglo XXI. Mientras la Suprema Corte de Justicia continúa rechazando la inmunidad del nivel estatal para abajo, en algunos casos las cortes estatales han ampliado la inmunidad de la Onceava Enmienda a las entidades de los gobiernos locales. El autor propone que la modernización y la delegación de poderes a las ciudades, condados, y otras subdivisiones políticas locales garantizan una interpretación más contemporánea y explicita de la soberanía del sistema judicial de los Estados Unidos.

show abstract

“…Accordingly, when a local council eliminates an entire position, rather than merely terminating the employment of a specific individual, the council is regarded as having acted in a legislatively-protected manner. Conversely, when the city council terminates a specific individual but does not eliminate the position itself, the council is not acting in a legislative capacity, and is therefore not protected by legislative immunity (Groszyk and Madden, 1981).…”

Section: Defenses To An Allegation Arising From a 42 Usc § 1983 Claimmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although a state or local government cannot claim governmental immunity, government officials and employees sued in their individual capacities are entitled to assert the affirmative defense of qualified immunity (Groszyk and Madden, 1981). Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from individual liability for civil damages under § 1983.…”

Section: International Journal Of Human Resource Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In some jurisdictions, local governing bodies are entitled to governmental (or sovereign) immunity unless the governing entity, whether it be a city, county or school board, waives its immunity through the purchase of liability insurance, participation in a statutory risk pool, or otherwise consents to be sued (Groszyk and Madden, 1981).…”

Section: International Journal Of Human Resource Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Human Resource Management in State and Local Government in the United States: Avoiding Liability for Discrimination Under Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983

Sample

2017

IJHRS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this review is to summarize Title 42 U.S.C. §1983, sometimes known as the "other" or "original" federal discrimination law in the United States that applies to elected officials, their appointed public administrators, and other employees in state and local governments. This federal statute provides a procedural process that allows a person to bring a private right of action to seek redress when just laws and policies are administered unjustly by state and local governmental entities. A hypothetical set of facts from a municipal setting is used to explore a typical Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983 proceeding. Included in the review are typical defenses and immunities that make these proceedings for both the complaining party and the political entity complex, if not paradoxical. Strategies to prevent such claims are also discussed.

show abstract

Managing without Immunity: The Challenge for State and Local Government Officials in the 1980s

Cited by 9 publications

References 0 publications

Public Service, Public Corruption and the First Amendment

Public Service, Public Corruption and the First Amendment

Eleventh Amendment Immunity in Contemporary Practice: Revisiting the Legal Liability of Local Government in the United States

Human Resource Management in State and Local Government in the United States: Avoiding Liability for Discrimination Under Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About