In a failure to train lawsuit, the key is to prove that the defendant showed a "deliberate indifference" to proper training.  Plaintiff attorneys use the weak defenses below to prove deliberate indifference:

Defendant:  We can't afford expert training.

Judge: You have enough money to gamble on a lawsuit that may cost you $250,000 and up, but you don't have enough money to pay for expert training that costs a fraction of the lawsuit damages.  

Defendant: We thought a written policy was enough.

Judge:  The Supreme Court has spoken on this issue. Written policies must be reinforced with in-depth training.  Handing out policies to employees and having a staff attorney explain the policy is not adequate notice. See City of Canton, Ohio v. Harris 489 US 378 (1989) and Faragher v. City of Boca Raton 118 S. Ct. 2257 (1998)

Defendant:  We have a staff attorney who trains us.

Judge: Does your staff attorney specialize in mass communications liability and train full time? Most staff attorneys don't have time to follow the case law and develop in-depth training materials.
 

Defendant:  We already had this type of training.

Judge:  I would like to review your training records and see exactly the level of your training.  Also, if you never attended Attorney Fiedelholtz's training, how would you know the material is the same as your in-house training.

Defendant:  Why train, we have never been sued.

Judge:  You may not have been sued, but I would like to review your disciplinary records.  I am interested in knowing if any employee has been punished for e-mail or other electronic violations.  Is it your policy to expose employees to harm and then after the harm occurs, decide that training is necessary.  This type of thinking is negligent and violates the inadequate training law under 42 USCS 1983 exists.