Monell v. Department of Social Services

What Happened

A group of female employees of the New York City Department of Social Services and the Board of Education were forced to take unpaid maternity leave well before it was medically necessary. The city had an official policy requiring pregnant employees to leave work before the end of their pregnancy — regardless of whether they could still do their jobs.

The women sued under § 1983, naming the Department, the Board of Education, the city of New York, and their respective leaders as defendants. Each individual was sued only in their official capacity. The women sought backpay for the periods of unconstitutional forced leave.

The problem was Monroe v. Pape (1961), which had held that municipalities were completely immune from suit under § 1983. Under Monroe, even though the city’s policy was unconstitutional, the city itself couldn’t be sued. The District Court and Court of Appeals both followed Monroe and denied backpay, reasoning that any damages would ultimately come from the city’s coffers.

What the Court Decided

In a landmark 7-2 decision written by Justice Brennan, the Supreme Court overruled Monroe v. Pape and held that local governments are “persons” subject to suit under § 1983. The Court undertook an exhaustive re-examination of the legislative history of the Civil Rights Act of 1871 and concluded that Monroe had misread the historical record. Congress in 1871 did intend municipalities to be covered by the statute.

But the Court drew a critical line: a municipality can be sued only when the constitutional violation was caused by an official “policy statement, ordinance, regulation, or decision officially adopted or promulgated by those whose edicts or acts may fairly be said to represent official policy.” 436 U.S. at 690. Cities can also be liable for constitutional deprivations caused by governmental “custom” even if that custom hasn’t been formally adopted through official channels.

However — and this is the part that matters most in practice — “a local government cannot be held liable under § 1983 on a respondeat superior theory.” 436 U.S. at 691. You cannot sue a city simply because it employs a police officer who violated your rights. You must show that the city’s own policy or custom caused the violation.

What It Means in Practice

Monell opened the courthouse door to suits against cities, counties, school boards, and other local government entities — but it installed a demanding gatekeeper. The “no respondeat superior” rule means that the most common scenario — a single officer violating your rights — isn’t enough by itself to establish municipal liability. You need to connect the officer’s conduct to something bigger: a policy, a custom, a failure to train, or a deliberate choice by a final policymaker.

This matters enormously because qualified immunity often shields individual officers from damages. If you can’t get past QI against the officer and you can’t establish Monell liability against the city, you have no one left to pay damages — even if your rights were clearly violated.

Monell also established that municipalities cannot claim qualified immunity. Unlike individual officers, cities are on the hook if their policies or customs cause constitutional violations, regardless of whether the illegality was “clearly established.”

How You Can Use It

Monell is your pathway to holding a city responsible — and to recovering meaningful damages:

• Identify the policy or custom. A written policy, an unwritten but consistent practice, a deliberate decision by a final policymaker, or a failure to train that amounts to deliberate indifference.
• Key quote: “Local governing bodies … can be sued directly under § 1983 for monetary, declaratory, and injunctive relief in those situations where … the action that is alleged to be unconstitutional implements or executes a policy statement, ordinance, regulation, or decision officially adopted or promulgated by those whose edicts or acts may fairly be said to represent official policy.” 436 U.S. at 690.
• Show a pattern. If multiple officers engage in the same unconstitutional conduct over time, that pattern can establish a “custom” even without a written policy. Gather complaints, lawsuits, internal affairs files, DOJ reports, and news coverage showing a pattern of similar violations.
• No QI for municipalities. Unlike individual officers, cities cannot invoke qualified immunity. Owen v. City of Independence, 445 U.S. 622 (1980). This makes Monell claims particularly valuable when individual officers escape liability through QI.
• Template: “Under Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978), a municipality is liable under § 1983 when its official policy or custom is the ‘moving force’ behind a constitutional deprivation. Here, [describe policy/custom] directly caused the violation of Plaintiff’s rights.”

How It Can Be Used Against You

Monell’s “no respondeat superior” rule is the city’s most powerful defense:

• “Isolated incident” argument. The city will argue that one officer’s misconduct is just an isolated incident, not evidence of a policy or custom. Without a pattern, you’re stuck.
• “Not a final policymaker.” The city will argue that the person who made the decision wasn’t a “final policymaker” with authority to set municipal policy. A patrol officer’s choices, or even a sergeant’s, typically don’t represent “city policy.”
• Moving force requirement. Even if you identify a policy, you must show it was the “moving force” behind your specific constitutional injury. A vague connection isn’t enough — you need a direct causal link.
• Separate from the officer’s conduct. The city will try to sever its liability from the individual officer’s actions, arguing that the officer was acting on their own rather than carrying out city policy.

How to counter: Build your Monell case from the start. File public records requests for use-of-force data, training materials, internal affairs files, and prior complaints. Look for DOJ investigations or consent decrees involving the department. Depose the chief and policymakers about their knowledge of the pattern. The stronger your evidence of a systemic problem, the harder it is for the city to claim it was just one bad apple.