or decision officially adopted and promulgated by that body’s officers.” However, the Court went on to hold that the language of § 1983, read against the background of the ... legislative history, compels the conclusion that Congress did not intend municipalities to be held liable unless action pursuant to official municipal policy of some nature caused a constitutional tort.... [I]t is when execution of a government’s policy or custom, whether made by its lawmakers or by those whose edicts or acts may fairly be said to repr in enforcing a contract may not act under color of state law. For example, it is well-established that a municipality may be liable for employment discrimination under § 1983. See, e.g„ Rodriguez v. Municipality of San Juan, 659 F.3d 168, 181 (1st Cir. 2011) (<HOLDING>). However, in such instances, the municipal
holding that discrimination against a municipal employee could trigger municipal liability under  1983 through official policy or custom holding that although municipalities are persons within the meaning of 42 usc  1983 no municipal liability lies under that statute unless action pursuant to official municipal policy of some nature caused a constitutional tort holding that a policy for purposes of municipal liability may be established by an officials single decision holding that a plaintiff must identify a municipal policy custom or practice  to support a claim against a municipality under monell holding that municipal liability for purposes of claims brought under 42 usc  1983 must stem from an unconstitutional policy or custom rather than simply from respondeat superior