## Facts

- Bruce Baron worked as a corrections officer at the Suffolk County House of Correction beginning in 1995.
- On January 27, 1997, Baron and his supervisor observed, on a video monitor, another officer playing cards with inmates in violation of institutional policy.
- At his supervisor’s direction, Baron called a senior official to view the monitor, effectively reporting the misconduct.
- Baron alleged that, after he broke an informal “code of silence,” fellow officers subjected him to threats, ostracism, and hazardous work assignments.
- Baron claimed Department leadership failed to stop the retaliatory conduct and tolerated a practice of harassing officers who reported wrongdoing.
- Baron resigned and alleged he was constructively discharged by the retaliation and the Department’s inaction.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence supported municipal liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on a Department custom of tolerating retaliation against officers who reported misconduct, attributable to a final policymaker and causally linked to Baron’s injury.
2. Whether the jury instructions were reversibly erroneous because they did not identify a specific final policymaker who must have condoned the unlawful custom.
3. Whether the district court erred in denying the Department’s post-trial motions for judgment as a matter of law, a new trial, or remittitur of the $500,000 award.

## Decision

- The First Circuit affirmed the judgment against the Suffolk County Sheriff’s Department.
- The court held that the evidence permitted a reasonable jury to find an entrenched custom of retaliatory harassment known to and tolerated by Department leadership, and that the custom caused Baron’s constitutional injury.
- The court found only an arguable flaw in the instructions concerning identification of a final policymaker, but treated the claim as unpreserved and reviewed it for plain error.
- Applying plain-error review, the court concluded the instructional issue did not warrant reversal.
- The court upheld the denial of the Department’s post-trial motions and left the $500,000 damages award intact.

## Legal Principles

- A municipal entity may be liable under § 1983 when a persistent and widespread custom causes a constitutional deprivation and is attributable to an official with final policymaking authority (including through knowing tolerance or deliberate indifference).
- Post-verdict sufficiency review considers the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and asks whether a reasonable jury could find for the prevailing party.
- An unpreserved challenge to jury instructions is reviewed for plain error; reversal requires a clear error affecting substantial rights and seriously impairing the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.
- Denial of judgment as a matter of law, a new trial, and remittitur will be upheld absent a showing that the verdict lacked evidentiary support or that the damages award was legally unsustainable.

## Conclusion

The First Circuit sustained a jury finding that the Sheriff’s Department maintained a retaliatory custom against officers who reported misconduct and affirmed a $500,000 § 1983 judgment, holding that any unpreserved error in the final-policymaker instruction did not meet the plain-error standard and that the district court properly denied post-trial relief.


Baron v. Suffolk Cnty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, 402 F.3d 225 (1st Cir. 2005)