As The Philadelphia Inquirer reported on Friday:

An association of black police officers has sued the Philadelphia Police Department in federal court for allowing its officers to post "blatantly racist . . . and offensive" content on a popular Web site devoted to law enforcement topics.

The suit, filed Wednesday, says, which bills itself as "the voice of the good guys," was founded by a Philadelphia police sergeant who uses the screen name "McQ" and "encourages the racially offensive conduct."

Guardian Civic League attorney Brian Mildenberg said that black officers had long reviled the site and that complaints had been been lodged with current and past police administrations to no avail.

Even the word domelights, which normally refers to the police lights on top of cruisers, has taken on an "insulting connotation" among black officers, according to the lawsuit.

Mildenberg said white officers post and moderate the forums while on duty and on department computers, creating "a racially hostile environment."

"It’s the same thing as you can’t hang racist material in the workplace," he said.

Of interest is the response "McQ" posted at the website: has two members (founders and co-owners) with global administration rights, along with several moderators of individual forums. I am the only current PPD employee among the moderators and administrators. I do not administer the site from work, and since the site is only lightly moderated, I barely administer the site from home (it is essentially an open forum to members). I have personally NEVER made a racist/sexist post on Domelights or anywhere else on the Internet. has no association, official or otherwise, with the Philadelphia Police Department. It is just a semi-popular social networking site that is geared towards cops/firefighters. There are THOUSANDS of city employees with blogs, facebook pages, myspace pages, twitter accounts and even websites, with ALL kinds of content, offensive and otherwise. I just happen to run the site that gets the most hits (at least for now).

WHYY has a copy of the complaint, available here.

There are plenty of sites offering analysis of the comments posted at the site and quoted in the complaint. For the moment, let’s assume that, consist with Third Circuit jury instructions on hostile work environments, the allegedly harassing conduct was not "generally harsh, unfriendly, unpleasant, crude or vulgar," but rather "could be objectively classified as the kind of behavior that would seriously affect the psychological or emotional well-being of a reasonable [member of plaintiff’s race]."

How could the Philadelphia Police Department, and thus the City of Philadelphia, be liable for posts on a website with "no association, official or otherwise, with the Philadelphia Police Department?"

Let’s go back to 1866.

Plaintiffs allege three counts, two of which are only against "Sgt. ‘McQ,’ a/k/a Domelights Enterprises, LLC and JOHN/JANE DOES ## 1-10,000," the other of which is:

42 U.S.C. § 1981 as enforceable through § 1983
Plaintiffs, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
The Philadelphia Police Department

The core language in 42 U.S.C. § 1981 was originally passed as part of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (over President Johnson’s veto), which included:

All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.

Such did little to halt the Ku Klux Klan’s frustration of Reconstruction. In 1871, Congress passed (and President Grant signed) a bill colloquially referred to as "the Ku Klux Klan Act," which included:

[A]ny person who, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of any State, shall subject, or cause to be subjected any person within the jurisdiction of the United States to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution of the United States, shall, any such law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage of the State to the contrary notwithstanding, be liable to the party injured in any action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress

The primary purpose of the Act was to create criminal penalties — "a fine not less than five hundred nor more than five thousand dollars, or by imprisonment, possibly with hard labor, for not less than six months nor more than six years or by both fine and imprisonment" — for a host of wrongful conduct, including witness intimidation, voter intimidation, obstruction of justice, and interference with federal government operations.

More than a century later, lawyers revived § 1981 to pursue discrimination actions against state governments, only to be shot down by Jett v. Dallas Independent School District, 491 U.S. 701 (1989). In January of this year, the Third Circuit "consider[ed] whether a private right of action against state actors can be implied under 42 U.S.C. § 1981," and held it could not. McGovern v. City of Philadelphia, 554 F.3d 114 (3d Cir. 2009).

But suit can be brought against "state actors," including municipalities themselves, by using § 1983 to apply § 1981. Yet, to recover against a municipality under § 1983 requires proving more than just purposeful discrimination that creates a hostile work environment; plaintiffs’ complaint reveals how they intend to recover against the City specifically:

50. By and through their conduct, the Philadelphia Police Department has evidenced a
policy, practice or custom of allowing the use of their computers for a racially hostile purpose, and allowing its employee Police Officers to engage publically in racially offensive and hostile commentary and postings.

 The key words are "policy, practice or custom." As the McGovern case above noted,

In Monell v. New York Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 98 S. Ct. 2018, 56 L. Ed. 2d 611 (1978), the Supreme Court held that a municipality may not be held vicariously liable for the federal constitutional or statutory violations of its employees. See id. at 694. "Instead, it is when execution of a government’s policy or custom, whether made by its lawmakers or by those whose edicts or acts may fairly be said to represent officially policy, inflicts the injury that the government as an entity is responsible under § 1983." Id.

McGovern at 121.

And that’s what’s going to pose the greatest challenge for the plaintiffs here. The City and Police Department are not vicariously liable for civil rights violations by their employees. Moreover, and perhaps most importantly, unlike in a typical case alleging a constitutional violation — in which neither the City nor the plaintiff disputes that the defendant was acting in their official capacity when they crossed the line — it seems unlikely the City would indemnify "McQ" or anyone else for comments made on a website with "no association, official or otherwise, with the Philadelphia Police Department."

That is to say, the City / Police Department are only liable if the plaintiffs can show that the government policy itself inflicted injury on the plaintiffs. Hence the references to the use of "Domelights" in the office as a pejorative term and the use of work computers.

Can they prove that? Ironically, since § 1981 lay dormant for so long, it never really had any "organic" development of case law and precedent. Thus, courts in recent years have simply taken the McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), framework for deciding cases under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and applied it wholesale to § 1981 employment discrimination cases.

The details of such a framework can fill — and has filled — shelves of books. For a glimpse, start at page 10 of the Third Circuit model jury instructions. Assuming McQ is right, it appears the core question will likely be if the Philadelphia Police Department should have taken action to stop off-the-job discriminatory remarks by its employees.

That’s a tricky question; just ask Sonia Sotomayor, who dissented in the Pappas v. Giuliani, 290 F.3d 143, 154 (2d Cir. 2002) case, in which the New York Police Department fired an officer for off-the-job hate speech. The Second Circuit upheld the termination; Sotomayor would have held the termination violated the officer’s free speech rights:

Today the Court enters uncharted territory in our First Amendment jurisprudence. The Court holds that the government does not violate the First Amendment when it fires a police department employee for racially inflammatory speech — where the speech consists of mailings in which the employee did not identify himself, let alone connect himself to the police department; where the speech occurred away from the office and on the employee’s own time; where the employee’s position involved no policymaking authority or public contact; where there is virtually no evidence of workplace disruption resulting directly from the speech; and where it ultimately required the investigatory resources of two police departments to bring the speech to the attention of the community. Precedent requires us to consider these factors as we apply the Pickering balancing test, and each counsels against granting summary judgment in favor of the police department employer. To be sure, I find the speech in this case patently offensive, hateful, and insulting. The Court should not, however, gloss over three decades of jurisprudence and the centrality of First Amendment freedoms in our lives because it is confronted with speech it does not like and because a government employer fears a potential public response that it alone precipitated.

As Popehat notes,

Of course in some ways the Pappas case is easier than what’s alleged here.  Pappas’s speech was far more loathsome than the “locker room” casual redneck racism that’s complained of in Domelights.  But in others the Pappas case is harder.  There was no evidence Pappas’s speech was repeated on the job, while the Philly PD allegedly allows officers to post at Domelights from work computers.

This case, if its litigated fully (and it should be, as it presents interesting issues on the First Amendment and the Civil Rights Act), may wind up before Sonia Sotomayor one day.  If and when that happens, she may have the opportunity, in the most emphatic way, to reverse her Second Circuit colleagues.

An interesting case to follow.