symbiotic relationship test
symbiotic-relationship test. The standard by which a private person may be considered a state actor — and may be liable for violating someone’s constitutional rights — if the relationship between the private person and the government is so close that they can fairly be said to be acting jointly. • Private acts by a private person do not generally create liability for violating someone’s constitutional rights. But if a private person violates someone’s constitutional rights while engaging in state action, the private person, and possibly the government, can be held liable. State action may be shown by proving that the private person and the state have a mutually dependent (symbiotic) relationship. For example, a restaurant in a public parking garage was held to have engaged in discriminatory state action by refusing to serve African-Americans. Burton v. Wilmington Parking Auth., 365 U.S. 715, 81 S.Ct. 856 (1961). There, the Court found a symbiotic relationship because the restaurant relied on the garage for its existence and significantly contributed to the municipal parking authority’s ability to maintain the garage. But the symbiotic-relationship test is strictly construed. For example, the fact that an entity receives financial support from — or is heavily regulated by — the government is probably insufficient to show a symbiotic relationship. Thus, although a state had granted a partial monopoly to a public utility, the Court refused to find a symbiotic relationship between them. Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co., 419 U.S. 345, 95 S.Ct. 449 (1974). See JOINT PARTICIPATION. Cf. STATE-COMPULSION TEST; NEXUS TEST. [Cases: Civil Rights 1326(5, 7); Constitutional Law 82(5), 213(4), 254(4). C.J.S. Civil Rights §§ 92–94; Constitutional Law §§ 456, 619, 629, 631, 705, 719, 954–958.]
