Lavigne v. Great Salt Bay Community School Board, 146 F.4th 115

Background

Amber Lavigne sued the Great Salt Bay Community School Board and various school officials, alleging violation of her constitutional parental rights after learning her child, A.B., received a chest binder and was allowed to use different name and pronouns at school without parental notification.
Lavigne claimed the school had a policy of withholding information about gender-affirming support from parents.
The school's written policy, the "Transgender Students Guidelines," stated that plans for transgender students should be developed in consultation with parents "as appropriate" but did not mandate parental involvement or specify chest binders.
The district court dismissed claims against individual officials and dismissed the municipal liability claim, finding insufficient factual allegations of a Board policy or custom of withholding information.
Lavigne appealed, arguing the existence of an unwritten policy or Board ratification of the conduct at issue.
The First Circuit affirmed, holding there was no plausible allegation of a policy/custom or ratification and thus no municipal liability.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Lavigne plausibly alleged a school policy or custom of withholding information from parents about gender-affirming actions	The Board had a de facto, unwritten policy—as shown by staff actions and official statements—not to disclose gender-affirming measures to parents	No such policy exists; Board actions and written policies actually encourage parental involvement where appropriate	Lavigne failed to plausibly allege the existence of any policy or custom of withholding
Whether Board or officials later ratified the staff's decision to withhold information as a basis for municipal liability	Board and administrators' statements and contract renewal for social worker Roy show ratification	Official statements were generic, referenced state law confidentiality, and showed no active approval of the conduct	No active ratification; no plausible municipal liability established
Whether the court could resolve the case on Monell's second element (municipal responsibility) without addressing whether there was a constitutional violation	Must address constitutional question first	Court can resolve municipal liability issues first and avoid unnecessary constitutional rulings	District court properly addressed only municipal liability prong
Whether individual staff actions or statements could infer a widespread policy	Actions by social workers and staff, and lack of parent notice, demonstrate custom/practice	Two isolated incidents and written policy prohibit secrecy; no evidence of concerted custom	No factual basis for widespread custom or policy of withholding

Key Cases Cited

Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs. of N.Y., 436 U.S. 658 (establishes that a municipality can only be liable under § 1983 if a policy or custom caused a constitutional violation)
Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51 (a municipality is liable only when official policy or custom causes a deprivation of rights)
City of St. Louis v. Praprotnik, 485 U.S. 112 (ratification as a limited basis for municipal liability)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (sets pleading standard requiring more than conclusory allegations)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (complaints require factual plausibility, not just conclusory recitations)
Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469 (single decision by municipal policymaker can sometimes establish liability)
Young v. City of Providence ex rel. Napolitano, 404 F.3d 4 (outlines elements of municipal liability under § 1983)
Abdisamad v. City of Lewiston, 960 F.3d 56 (discusses custom or usage as a basis for liability)
Bordanaro v. McLeod, 871 F.2d 1151 (concerted actions of employees may show existence of custom or policy)
Collins v. City of Harker Heights, 503 U.S. 115 (municipal liability analysis focuses on policy or custom, not respondeat superior)