Kelly v. City of Omaha, No. 14-3446 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1985 against the City, code inspector Peterson, and chief code inspector Denker, and various other defendants, alleging federal and state constitutional violations, and that defendants conspired to deter her from seeking judicial relief from their conduct and to deprive her of equal protection of the law and equal privileges and immunities under the law. The district court granted defendants' motion to dismiss. The court concluded that plaintiff's allegations of sexual harassment against Peterson failed to state a claim of municipal liability under section 1983; plaintiff failed to state a claim with respect to the alleged actions of Denker and the unidentified Jane and John Does - either in connection with her sexual harassment claim against Petersen or as an independent claim that these defendants violated her federally protected rights; and plaintiff failed to state a claim independent of Petersen’s alleged sexual harassment. Because plaintiff’s complaint contained no facts showing that Denker or any unnamed City employee violated her constitutional rights, the court did not reach whether Denker, as chief code inspector, was a policymaking official or whether his role in the alleged conduct permits an inference that the City adopted a policy targeting plaintiff. Further, plaintiff failed to allege a conspiracy under section 1985 because the City could not conspire with itself through its agents acting within the scope of their employment. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Gruender, Author, with Wollman and Beam, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Civil rights. Plaintiff's sexual harassment allegations against defendant Petersen, a city employee,failed to state a claim for municipal liability under Section 1983 because she did not plead facts showing that his harassment represented part of a municipal policy or custom supporting such behavior; the claims against defendant Denker and unnamed Doe defendants contained no facts showing they violated her constitutional rights, and the court would not reach the question of whether Denker, as chief code inspector was a policymaking official; no error in dismissing plaintiff's Section 1985 claim as she failed to show that any harassment or subsequent retaliation arose from an agreement between Petersen and Denker or other city officials; even if the court were to infer that Denker and the unidentified officials did reach an agreement, the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine precluded the claim, as the city could not conspire with itself through its agents acting within the scope of their employment. [ February 17, 2016
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.