762 F. Supp. 2d 764
M.D.N.C.2011Background
- Plaintiffs are African‑American GPD officers alleging racially motivated discriminatory practices by City officials and GPD personnel led by Wray, Brady, Sanders, and Wade.
- Allegations include use of a “Black Book,” discriminatory investigations, disparately hostile discipline and promotion practices, and improper testing of black officers aside from CID procedures.
- RMA conducted an external review (RMA Report) finding disparate treatment and improper practices; keystroke monitoring allegedly used on black officers’ computers.
- Plaintiffs allege a 2005–2006 pattern of discriminatory acts, culminating in settlement negotiations resolved by a confidential Stipulation signed in 2008.
- Wade’s public records disclosure of Plaintiffs’ identities and the monetary terms of the settlement allegedly disrupted settlement negotiations and violated confidentiality; City sought to settle in closed session.
- Plaintiffs sought damages and injunctive relief across federal and state claims; Defendants moved to dismiss and Plaintiffs sought leave to amend to SAC.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Municipal policy vs. custom for §1983 claim | Plaintiffs contend Wray/Brady/Sanders acted as final policymakers. | City did not delegate policymaking; acts fall short of policy. | Court dismisses §1981/1983 claims against City for lack of policy or custom. |
| §1981/§1983 viability against GPD defendants | Plaintiffs allege individual discriminatory acts by Wray/Brady/Sanders/Wade. | Domino's Pizza to require contractual relation; pleadings insufficient. | §1981/§1983 claims against GPD defendants allowed to proceed for some plaintiffs (hostile environment, certain disparate treatment/discipline claims) but many claims dismissed. |
| Conspiracy claims under §1985(3) against City/GPD | Discrimination/conspiracy alleged by Plaintiffs. | Intracorporate conspiracy doctrine bars conspiracy claims. | Conspiracy claims dismissed as precluded by intracorporate doctrine. |
| Official capacity claims and injunctive relief | Plaintiffs seek ongoing injunctive relief against officials. | Official capacity claims duplicative; plaintiffs lack ongoing harm. | Official capacity claims dismissed; some injunctive relief requests denied as moot. |
Key Cases Cited
- Monell v. Dept. of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability requires policy or custom and causation)
- Fire Fighters Ass’n, Local 3157 v. City of Greensboro, 64 F.3d 962 (4th Cir.1995) (final policymaking authority limited to city managers and council; not fire chief)
- Domino’s Pizza, Inc. v. McDonald, 546 U.S. 470 (U.S. 2006) (§1981 claims require rights under the contract; standing considerations)
- Buschi v. Kirven, 775 F.2d 1240 (4th Cir.1985) (intracorporate conspiracy doctrine applies to §1985(3) claims)
- Iglesias v. Wolford, 539 F. Supp. 2d 831 (E.D.N.C. 2008) (intracorporate conspiracy doctrine; municipalities cannot conspire with themselves)
- Randall v. Prince George’s Cnty., 302 F.3d 188 (4th Cir.2002) (knowledge and deliberate indifference required for municipal custom)