.

Case Law Alerts

Vague assertions that existing policies were inadequate are not enough to impose Monell municipal liability.

Tamra Roper v. Luzerne County, et al., Additional Party Names: Mark Rockovich, Sam Hyder, No. 3:22-CV-00307, 2023 WL 2563082, at *1 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 17, 2023)

April 1, 2023

by Jordan L. Mazzoni

This federal civil rights and employment discrimination action was brought by the plaintiff, a correctional officer employed at Luzerne County Correctional Facility (LCCF), against her employer, Luzerne County, and two of her supervisors, one of whom was the division head and the other was the warden. While the plaintiff was on a five-day preplanned vacation, she alleges that the warden announced that he was dealing with the plaintiff’s sexual activities and relationships. The Division Head took no corrective action or attempted to intervene during or after the warden’s comments. 

In her complaint, the plaintiff alleges that over the course of years she was subjected to workplace sexual harassment and a hostile work environment, such as offensive and demeaning statements made by her supervisors to her co-workers. She brought claims of violation of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (PHRA), 43 P.S. § 951 et seq. She further claimed, because she was a municipal employee, this same conduct constituted a violation of her Fourteenth Amendment equal protection rights, made actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as well as related state law claims.

The defendants filed a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to partially dismiss the complaint for failure to a state claim upon which relief may be granted. Regarding municipal liability claims under § 1983, the plaintiff sought to hold Luzerne County liable for the conduct of the individual defendants. The court analyzed this under the Monell standard, when execution of government’s policy or custom inflicts the injury that the government entity is responsible under § 1983. In this matter, the plaintiff did not rely on the affirmative implementation or execution of a policy, but relied on the county policy strictly prohibiting unlawful discrimination or harassment. The court found that, beyond the vague assertions that existing policies were inadequate, the plaintiff failed to point to prior incidents that the county and its governing officials had actual or constructive knowledge of the purported policy deficiencies upon which the plaintiff’s § 1983 Monell claims are based upon. 

 

Case Law Alerts, 2nd Quarter, April 2023 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2023 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

Appellate Division Affirms Dismissal of Legal Malpractice Counterclaim Against Martin Law Firm

In Martin v. Loury, 2026 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1617 (App. Div. July 15, 2026), Martin Law Firm represented Kirk Loury in an employment matter Mr. Loury filed against his former employer, Concord Equity Group Advisors LLC (“Concord”). The allegations included, among other things, that Loury was not fairly compensated for his employment with Concord. After a bench trial finding in Loury’s favor, the Appellate Division remanded this matter in February 2016 for a second trial. During the second trial, Concord CEO, Lee Argush, testified to lower compensation estimate than first trial. On remand, the second trial judge awarded Mr. Loury the same damages as the first judge, finding Mr. Argush not credible. After the findings during the second trial, Martin Law Firm filed an action against Mr. Loury to recover legal fees and costs of representing Mr. Loury in a second bench trial and Mr. Loury filed a counterclaim against Martin Law Firm for legal malpractice, alleging he should have received an even higher award in the second bench trial. In this allegation, Mr. Loury, through his expert, claimed that Martin Law Firm should have recalled Mr. Loury to the stand to rebut Mr. Argush’s testimony to allege an alternative theory of damages. Mr. Loury’s expert admitted that the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's theory and accepted Loury's damages theory. The trial court barred Mr. Loury’s expert and dismissed Loury's counterclaim with prejudice before convening the collection trial, and the jury ruled in Martin Law Firm’s favor. Mr. Loury appealed the trial court's pretrial rulings barring his liability expert from testifying in support of his legal malpractice counterclaim, denying his motion for summary judgment on that counterclaim, and denying his motion to amend his counterclaim by adding attorney Joseph A. Martin as a codefendant. In affirming the trial court’s decision, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly excluded Loury’s expert testimony in the counterclaim against Martin Law Firm because the expert could not explain how calling Loury as a rebuttal witness would have increased damages when the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's testimony and accepted Loury's damages theory, making the expert’s causation opinion speculative. The Appellate Division also held that the trial court properly denied Mr. Loury's summary judgment motion on his malpractice counterclaim because reasonable minds could differ on whether Mr. Martin's alleged failures would have changed the second judge's damages award, given the judge already found Mr. Argush not credible, creating genuine factual disputes precluding summary judgment. Also, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly denied Loury's May 2023 motion to add Joseph Martin individually because the statute of limitations expired in February 2022, six years after the 2016 appellate remand when Mr. Loury incurred new legal costs, and relation back did not apply because Mr. Loury knew Mr. Martin's identity throughout and strategically chose to sue only Martin Law Firm in his 2019 counterclaim.