Civil rights – Respondeat superior – MCRA

Listen to this article

Where a plaintiff has brought suit contending that he was wrongfully convicted of certain crimes as a result of police misconduct, the plaintiff should be precluded from pursuing claims pursuant to the theory of respondeat superior under the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act against the defendant city of Springfield, as the plaintiff did not plead or otherwise alert the city that it was pursuing such a claim against it under the MCRA.

“Defendants first argue that plaintiff failed to adequately plead a claim under the MCRA against the City in his Amended Complaint (#126) or to disclose it to them through his responses in discovery. … They note that the only mention of ‘respondeat superior’ in the Amended Complaint is made in paragraph 19, in which plaintiff alleges that ‘Defendant City of Springfield is therefore liable for all torts committed by the Defendants pursuant to the doctrine of respondeat superior.’ …

“… The court finds that plaintiff did not plead or otherwise alert the city that it was pursuing a respondeat superior claim against it under the MCRA and so the defendants’ motion (#402) is allowed. Even if the court were to find that plaintiff had properly pled such a claim, however, the court finds that his claim is not legally cognizable, as explained below. …

“Defendants also maintain that plaintiff may not sue the city under the MCRA. Citing both state and federal authority, they argue that ‘the Commonwealth and its departments, as well as municipalities, are not subject to suit under the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act because they are not ‘persons’ within the meaning of the act.’ …

“This court agrees, and it finds that this alone would be grounds for allowing defendants’ motion. …

“Defendants’ ‘Motion in Limine to Preclude Plaintiff from Pursuing Claims Under Theory of Respondeat Superior’ (#402) is allowed. Plaintiff may introduce evidence as it relates to the MCRA claim against the individual defendants, but not against the City of Springfield.”

Perrot v. Kelly, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 02-502-24) (5 pages) (Kelley, U.S.M.J.) (Civil Action No. 18-10147-MPK) (Oct. 28, 2024).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.