Gros v. City of Grand Prairie

What This Case Is About

This case tests the limits of deliberate indifference in police hiring. Two women — Danette Gros and Edith Sikes — alleged that a Grand Prairie police officer sexually assaulted and used excessive force against them during separate encounters. They sued Police Chief Harry Crum, arguing he was deliberately indifferent to their constitutional rights when he hired the officer despite red flags in the officer’s background. The Fifth Circuit reversed the denial of qualified immunity for the chief, finding insufficient evidence of deliberate indifference.

The Facts

Officer Rogers, formerly a campus police officer at the University of Texas at Arlington, was hired by the Grand Prairie Police Department under Chief Crum’s authority. His pre-employment file contained multiple concerning items: notes that he was “almost badge heavy,” “too quick to draw his weapon,” and “reacts in an aggressive manner”; letters of reprimand for insubordination and losing track of another officer; a sustained complaint for being overbearing during a traffic stop; an unsustained complaint about improperly drawing his weapon; and a high school incident where he was suspended for continuing to approach a girl who had rejected him.

After being hired, Rogers allegedly committed serious violations. During a traffic stop, Rogers allegedly grabbed Gros’s arm, threw her on her car, reached into her blouse and grabbed her breast, handcuffed her, locked her in a hot car with windows closed and radio turned up. An internal investigation found Gros’s complaint “not sustained.”

In a separate incident, Rogers allegedly sexually assaulted Sikes during a traffic stop — fondling her, reaching into her pants, and making lewd comments. After an investigation, Rogers admitted to the conduct, was placed on indefinite suspension, and pleaded guilty to criminal official oppression.

What the Court Decided

The Fifth Circuit reversed the denial of summary judgment and held that Chief Crum was entitled to qualified immunity. Under Board of County Commissioners v. Brown, deliberate indifference in hiring requires a “strong connection” between the applicant’s background and the specific type of constitutional violation that later occurred. Mere negligence in reviewing an applicant’s file — even a file containing red flags — is not enough.

The court found that Rogers’s pre-employment file, while containing scattered negative comments about aggressiveness, also contained numerous positive evaluations and recommendations. Every officer who noted problems also ultimately recommended Rogers as a good hire. Rogers had never sexually assaulted anyone, never committed a serious crime, and the most damaging complaint (improper weapon draw) was not sustained.

Comparing this case to Aguillard v. McGowen (where a deputy with a far worse record — including an alleged pistol-whipping — was still found to not trigger deliberate indifference), the court concluded that the “at worst, mixed” evidence in Rogers’s file was insufficient to demonstrate that the “plainly obvious consequence” of hiring him would be sexual assault and excessive force.

Why This Case Matters for Your § 1983 Case

Gros is critical for understanding the extremely high bar for hiring liability under § 1983. Even when a hired officer’s background contains significant warning signs, courts will not find deliberate indifference unless the red flags point specifically to the type of misconduct that actually occurred. General aggressiveness in a prior job does not create a “strong causal connection” to later sexual assault.

This case also demonstrates the problem of mixed evidence — when negative comments in a personnel file are accompanied by positive evaluations and recommendations, courts view the overall picture as inadequate to establish deliberate indifference, even though a more careful review might have prevented the hire.

Key Takeaway

Proving that a police chief was deliberately indifferent in hiring a bad officer is extraordinarily difficult. Under Fifth Circuit law, you must show a “strong connection” between the officer’s specific background and the specific type of constitutional violation that later occurred. Red flags about general aggressiveness or poor judgment are not enough if the officer never engaged in conduct similar to the later violation. With the benefit of hindsight, a hire may be clearly bad — but hindsight is not the standard. The question is whether the obvious consequence of hiring that person was the particular type of harm that occurred.