OR · 42usc1983:deprivation.substantive-due-process
Protects fundamental rights and guards against executive abuse of power that "shocks the conscience" (County of Sacramento v. Lewis), but does not constitutionalize ordinary state tort law or impose an affirmative workplace-safety duty absent custody (DeShaney; Collins).
Exact element source
to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and lawsSource:
docroot/ir/usc/title42.jsonl#title42_sec1983; Unicode character offsets [306:402] (end exclusive); SHA-256 88fe01322b9d94860a669ec452f558146e2745845070bc43583671ce12acb2bb.All variants
| Variant | Description | Merits instance blocks | Distinct cases | Example cases (up to 3 per group) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| affirmative-duty/government-employer-unsafe-workplace | 1 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 1; excluded context 0 | 1 | /us/503/0115-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 1992 — not |
How courts decided this element
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Variant | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| /us/503/0115-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 1992 | Deprivation of Fourteenth Amendment Substantive Due Process | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: pleaded Two theories both fail: (a) affirmative duty of workplace safety -- no custody, employment was voluntary (DeShaney line); (b) conscience-shocking arbitrariness -- failure to train/warn is an ordinary tort omission and a resource-allocation choice. A state-law (Texas Hazard Communication Act) entitlement, assumed to be a liberty interest, does not change the result. | affirmative-duty/government-employer-unsafe-workplace | On October 21, 1988, Larry Michael Collins, an employee in the sanitation department of the city of Harker Heights, Texas, died of asphyxia after entering a manhole to unstop a sewer line.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_503.jsonl#/us/503/0115-01; Unicode character offsets [527:715] (end exclusive); SHA-256 cdcb0d53dc7d297333c59be23c4699c1e9264a24434e59748ddb5fbaeb69f046.Her complaint alleged that the city violated that right by following a custom and policy of not training its employees about the dangers of working in sewer lines and manholes, not providing safety equipment at jobsites, and not providing safety warnings.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_503.jsonl#/us/503/0115-01; Unicode character offsets [1049:1304] (end exclusive); SHA-256 cdcb0d53dc7d297333c59be23c4699c1e9264a24434e59748ddb5fbaeb69f046.Petitioner does not claim that the city or any of its agents deliberately harmed her husband.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_503.jsonl#/us/503/0115-01; Unicode character offsets [13299:13392] (end exclusive); SHA-256 cdcb0d53dc7d297333c59be23c4699c1e9264a24434e59748ddb5fbaeb69f046.In fact, she does not even allege that his supervisor instructed him to go into the sewer when the supervisor knew or should have known that there was a significant risk that he would be injured.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_503.jsonl#/us/503/0115-01; Unicode character offsets [13393:13588] (end exclusive); SHA-256 cdcb0d53dc7d297333c59be23c4699c1e9264a24434e59748ddb5fbaeb69f046.Neither the text nor the history of the Due Process Clause supports petitioner’s claim that the governmental employer’s duty to provide its employees with a safe working environment is a substantive component of the Due Process Clause.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_503.jsonl#/us/503/0115-01; Unicode character offsets [14135:14370] (end exclusive); SHA-256 cdcb0d53dc7d297333c59be23c4699c1e9264a24434e59748ddb5fbaeb69f046.we have previously rejected claims that the Due Process Clause should be interpreted to impose federal duties that are analogous to those traditionally imposed by state tort lawSource: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_503.jsonl#/us/503/0115-01; Unicode character offsets [17237:17414] (end exclusive); SHA-256 cdcb0d53dc7d297333c59be23c4699c1e9264a24434e59748ddb5fbaeb69f046.Petitioner cannot maintain, however, that the city deprived Collins of his liberty when it made, and he voluntarily accepted, an offer of employment.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_503.jsonl#/us/503/0115-01; Unicode character offsets [16445:16594] (end exclusive); SHA-256 cdcb0d53dc7d297333c59be23c4699c1e9264a24434e59748ddb5fbaeb69f046.In sum, we conclude that the Due Process Clause does not impose an independent federal obligation upon municipalities to provide certain minimal levels of safety and security in the workplace and the city’s alleged failure to train or to warn its sanitation department employees was not arbitrary in a constitutional sense.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_503.jsonl#/us/503/0115-01; Unicode character offsets [19841:20164] (end exclusive); SHA-256 cdcb0d53dc7d297333c59be23c4699c1e9264a24434e59748ddb5fbaeb69f046. |
Court interpretations
interpretation
Neither the text nor the history of the Due Process Clause supports petitioner’s claim that the governmental employer’s duty to provide its employees with a safe working environment is a substantive component of the Due Process Clause.
/us/503/0115-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 1992
Neither the text nor the history of the Due Process Clause supports petitioner’s claim that the governmental employer’s duty to provide its employees with a safe working environment is a substantive component of the Due Process Clause.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/us_503.jsonl#/us/503/0115-01; Unicode character offsets [14135:14370] (end exclusive); SHA-256 cdcb0d53dc7d297333c59be23c4699c1e9264a24434e59748ddb5fbaeb69f046.Protects fundamental rights and guards against executive abuse of power that "shocks the conscience" (County of Sacramento v. Lewis), but does not constitutionalize ordinary state tort law or impose an affirmative workplace-safety duty absent custody (DeShaney; Collins).
interpretation
we have previously rejected claims that the Due Process Clause should be interpreted to impose federal duties that are analogous to those traditionally imposed by state tort law
/us/503/0115-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 1992
we have previously rejected claims that the Due Process Clause should be interpreted to impose federal duties that are analogous to those traditionally imposed by state tort lawSource:
docroot/ir/caselaw/us_503.jsonl#/us/503/0115-01; Unicode character offsets [17237:17414] (end exclusive); SHA-256 cdcb0d53dc7d297333c59be23c4699c1e9264a24434e59748ddb5fbaeb69f046.Protects fundamental rights and guards against executive abuse of power that "shocks the conscience" (County of Sacramento v. Lewis), but does not constitutionalize ordinary state tort law or impose an affirmative workplace-safety duty absent custody (DeShaney; Collins).