Why Choose Us?

• Proven track record in complex civil rights matters
• Free initial consultations
• Personalized guidance throughout your case
• Decades of combined courtroom experience
• Strong client communication and transparency

Understanding Section 1983 Hiring Violation Claims

Individuals seeking public sector employment are protected by federal civil rights laws, and Section 1983 is a key tool for enforcing those protections. This statute allows applicants to take legal action when state or local governments, or those acting with government authority, violate established constitutional or statutory rights. If you believe a hiring decision was influenced by race, sex, disability, or another protected category, a Section 1983 claim may allow you to pursue compensation.

What You Should Know About Section 1983

A Section 1983 claim allows an applicant to sue a state or local actor for violating an existing federal right. In simple terms, the law acts as a mechanism for enforcing rights protected under the Constitution or federal statutes. To build a valid claim, a plaintiff must show that the defendant acted with government authority and that this conduct infringed on a legally protected civil right.

What Must a Plaintiff Prove?

A Section 1983 plaintiff must demonstrate, within the first 100 words, two essential elements:

1. That the defendant acted under color of law, meaning the conduct involved government authority or the appearance of such authority.
2. That the conduct violated a federal right, such as those found in the Constitution or federal civil rights laws.

These points create the framework for determining whether a hiring-related action may give rise to liability.

Who Can Be a Defendant in a Section 1983 Claim?

A Section 1983 defendant may include employees or agents of local or municipal governments, sued in either their official or personal capacity. Plaintiffs can sue state employees only in their personal capacities. While local governments can be named as defendants, states and the federal government are not subject to Section 1983 lawsuits.

Can Private Individuals Be Defendants?

Yes, private individuals may be defendants if they acted under color of law. This is where the analysis of government authority becomes critical. A private party may be liable if they exercised power granted by a government entity or acted in a way that reasonably appeared to involve government authority.

What Does “Color of Law” Mean?

Color of law refers to conduct that involves real or apparent authority granted by a government. A person does not need to be a government employee to act under color of law, and not all conduct by government personnel qualifies. The focus is on whether the individual used authority connected to a governmental position or acted in a way that suggested such authority, even if their actions were improper.

What Federally Protected Classes Apply?

Section 1983 claims often intersect with protections related to discrimination. These protections extend to members of federally recognized protected classes, including:

• Race
• Color
• Religion
• Sex (gender identity, sexual orientation, pregnancy)
• National origin
• Age
• Disability
• Genetic information

If a hiring process targets one of these characteristics, the applicant may have grounds for a Section 1983 lawsuit.

How Does Section 1983 Apply to Hiring Practices?

Section 1983 does not create new hiring rights. Instead, it provides a pathway to enforce existing civil rights during the public-sector hiring process. Violations occur when state or local actors rely on discriminatory practices, misuse authority, or act in ways that interfere with an applicant’s established federal rights.

What Hiring Violations Lead to Claims?

Below are common hiring-related actions that may violate civil rights:

1. Refusing to Provide an Application or Interview

Turning away applicants based on protected characteristics can support a Section 1983 claim, though proving intent requires detailed evidence.

2. Asking Improper Interview Questions

Interviewers must avoid questions related to marital status, citizenship status, or other protected categories unless directly relevant to job requirements.

3. Misusing Background Checks

Employers must follow Fair Credit Reporting Act rules for notice, disclosure, and consent. Improper use of background information may violate federal rights.

4. Basing Decisions on Stereotypes

Assumptions tied to disability, age, or other protected traits cannot be used to deny employment opportunities.

5. Inappropriate Testing

Tests must relate directly to job duties and cannot be used to exclude applicants based on irrelevant factors.

6. Denying Reasonable Accommodation

Public-sector employers must provide accommodations for applicants with disabilities unless doing so creates significant difficulty or cost.

What Damages Are Available in a Section 1983 Hiring Case?

Plaintiffs may seek compensatory damages for lost opportunities and emotional harm. Punitive damages may be available when conduct is particularly harmful. Attorney’s fees and court costs are also recoverable, helping plaintiffs manage the financial burden of litigation.

Contact Our Hiring Practices Attorney

If you believe your rights were violated during a government hiring process, our team at Mitchell, Sheahan & Slippen, P.C. is ready to help. We can review your situation, explain your legal options, and guide you through the next steps.

FAQs

What is the purpose of a Section 1983 lawsuit?

A Section 1983 lawsuit allows individuals to enforce federal rights when state or local actors violate them. It is a mechanism for holding public entities accountable during the hiring process and other official actions.

Can I sue a local government for discrimination under Section 1983?

Yes, applicants may sue a city or town for discriminatory hiring practices if the conduct violated an existing federal right and involved official authority.

What if a private contractor conducted the hiring process?

A private contractor may be liable if they acted under color of law, meaning their conduct involved authority granted by a government entity or reasonably appeared to involve that authority.