With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". had authority to hire and fire BPW employees, those decisions were reviewed by no one at the BPW or the City, and those decisions were not constrained by any mandatory City employment policy. As such, the Court concludes that Morawski possessed official policymaking authority for the BPW and the City. As such, neither the BPW nor Morawski in his official capacity are protected from liability bjMonell. However, because there is no evidence that Esparaza was empowered to make employment decisions on behalf of the BPW, there is no basis for concluding that she was an official policymaker. As such, official liability as to Esparaza is barred. Count One: Individual Liability The Sixth Circuit has explained that three elements are necessary to est . 274, 97 S.Ct. 568, 50 L.Ed.2d 471 (1977) (<HOLDING>). Although Defendants suggest that Plaintiffs

A: holding that intraconspiracy doctrine applied to plaintiffs claims against school board teacher school principal and district superintendent
B: holding that a school acted impermissibly when a public school teacher was not rehired because allegedly he had relayed to a radio station the substance of a memorandum relating to teacher dress and appearance
C: holding that a school district was not liable for sexual molestation of plaintiffs daughter by a teacher even though the acts occurred on school property and during school hours
D: holding the school did not violate the teachers constitutional rights by prohibiting the teacher from reading the bible in class
B.