Table of Contents Treatise Search Apps Home

View Legal Apps
for iPhone/iPad


Garland's Digest Treatise
on employment discrimination law
online since 1997
 

Sign up for Legal
Apps Newsletter

 



 

 


iPhone/iPad apps

Bar exam apps
Bar exam apps

State law apps
AL AK AR AZ CA
CO CT DC DE FL
GA HI IA ID IL
IN KS KY LA MA
MD ME MI MN MO
MS MT NC ND NE
NH NJ NM NV NY
OH OK OR PA PR
RI SC SD TN TX
UT VA VT WA WI
WV WY

Travel apps
Amsterdam
Frequent flyers
London, England
Miami
New York City
Paris, France
Rome, Italy
San Francisco
Seattle
Walt Disney World
Washington, D.C.

Movies on iTunes
Classic movies
Lawyer movies

Education apps
Algebra

Reference apps
General ref. apps
Pilot apps

Productivity apps
Top prod. apps

Utilities apps
Top utilities apps

 


Disclaimer: The Treatise is based upon federal appellate court decisions from 1996 to 2008. We are currently in the process of updating the Treatise. Until that update is complete, it is possible that certain cases cited in the Treatise may no longer represent current law.

-------------------------

Chapter 17 - 42 U.S.C. 1983
17.100 42 U.S.C. 1983 - General principles

17.140 Difference between "individual capacity" and "official capacity"

6th Circuit

Moore v. City of Harriman, 272 F.3d 769 (6th Cir. 2001) (en banc) is not an employment discrimination case. However, in this 42 U.S.C. 1983 action, the court does address how the determination is made whether a state actor has been sued in his individual capacity. This is a 7-6 decision. The majority holds that the determination is based on the "course of proceedings" test. The "course of proceedings" test considers such factors as the nature of the plaintiff's claims, requests for compensatory or punitive damages, and the nature of any defenses raised in response to the complaint, particularly claims of qualified immunity to determine whether the defendant had actual knowledge of the potential for individual liability. The test also considers whether subsequent pleadings put the defendant on notice of the capacity in which he or she is sued. The majority opinion states that most circuits follow the course of proceedings test, and the court lists decisions from the other circuits. Circuit Judge Gilman concurs in the result. While he agrees that the course of proceedings test should apply, Judge Gilman is critical of the majority for pretending that the Sixth Circuit has applied this test all along. The six-member dissent argues that the Sixth Circuit has never applied the course of proceedings test, but acknowledges that the Court has the power to adopt the test in this en banc decision. Even applying the course of proceedings test, the dissent does not believe that the officers in this case were sued in their individual capacity.

 

 



 

Table of Contents Treatise Contact Us Privacy


2011 Garland's Digest

Apple, the Apple logo, iPad, iPhone, iTouch, and iTunes are trademarks of Apple Inc., registered in the U.S. and other countries.

, iPad, iPhone, iTouch, and iTunes are trademarks of Apple Inc., registered in the U.S. and other countries.