No municipal liability where Port Authority medical visit was captured on video

This Port Authority employee was examined by a Port Authority doctor for an injury that resulted from an altercation at work. Unbeknownst to plaintiff and her doctor, the doctor's visit was actually captured on video, though it did not record any audio. Port Authority said the camera was installed to prevent the theft of prescription drugs, and the curtain that would have given plaintiff medical privacy was not fully drawn. Can plaintiff sue Port Authority over this? She cannot.

The case is Talarico v. Port Authority, a summary order issued on March 30. The district court dismissed the case, holding that plaintiff did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the Office of Medical Services room. The Court of Appeals affirms, but on different grounds, dismissing the case. The Court of Appeals (Parker, Lynch and Lohier) holds that plaintiff cannot sue Port Authority, the only defendant in the case, under Monell, which governs when you can sue a City agency whose policy or practice violates the Constitution.

Monell derives from a Supreme Court case from 1978 that makes it difficult to sue municipal governments and agencies. You have to show the rights violation resulted from a policy or practice. It is easier to sue individual governmental defendants, who cannot invoke Monell as a defense, though they can get qualified immunity if the law was not clearly established at the time of the rights violation.

Plaintiff loses because she cannot show the camera/privacy violation resulted from Port Authority policy. Under Monell, policies do not have to be in writing. You can prove a policy if the unlawful practice was widespread. But no senior or subordinate Port Authority employees engaged in any persistent or widespread practice of recording medical examinations in the Port Authority medical office. A single incident of unconstitutional activity is not enough to overcome a Monell objection. Cases on this issue include Lucente v. County of Suffolk, 980 F.3d 284 (2d Cir. 2020), and Mitchell v. City of New York, 841 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 2016). As plaintiff conceded this was "probably a one-off" event, and field to identify any other comparable event, this is a classic case where Monell kills off the case, and the lawsuit is over.