policymaking authority sufficient for imposition of municipal liability); Powell v. City of Pittsfield, 143 F.Supp.2d 94, 125 (D.Mass.2001)(failing to apply Praprotnik and holding that a may- or’s admission that he was the ultimate decision-maker regarding police appointments sufficient to establish final policy-making authority in that area); Martineau v. Kurland, 36 F.Supp.2d 39, 43 (D.Mass.1999) (Keeton, J.) (applying the Praprotnik finality framework and holding that city hospital director lacked final poli- eymaking authority because constrained by city’s formal policy against discrimination or retribution); Armstrong v. Lamy, 938 F.Supp. 1018, 1035-36 (D.Mass.1996) (Keeton, J.) rev’d on other grounds by Educadores Puertorriqueños en Accion v. Hernandez, 367 F.3d 61 (1st Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>) (citation omitted); Gonsalves v. City of New
holding a board of education independently liable despite the intentional nature of the conduct of its employee a school principal holding that the law of the state of incorporation applies holding that petitioners status as school board members does not permit them to step into the shoes of the school board and invoke its right to appeal holding that members of the board of trustees of an elementary school had standing to challenge the actions of the county board of education because they suffered an actual injury when the county board nullified their unanimous vote to reject a candidate for principal of the elementary school recognizing jetts incorporation of specific portions of praprotnik but holding that school committee members have final authority to establish school policy despite fact that state law subjected such authority to standards established by the board of education