Chicago Ry Co v. Perry

• Decision Date: 05 June 1922
• Docket Number: No. 19,19
• Citation: 66 L.Ed. 1056,259 U.S. 548,42 S.Ct. 524
• Parties: CHICAGO, R. I. & P. RY. CO. v. PERRY. Re
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

259 U.S. 548

42 S.Ct. 524

66 L.Ed. 1056

CHICAGO, R. I. & P. RY. CO.

v PERRY.

No. 19.

Reargued and Submitted October 6, 1921.

Decided June 5, 1922.

Messrs. C. O. Blake and W. R. Bleakmore, both of El Reno, Okl., John W. Willmott and R. J. Roberts, both of Wewoka, Okl., and T. P. Littlepage and Sidney F. Taliaferro, both of Washington, D. C., for plaintiff in error.

Messrs. Phil D. Brewer and Ed. S. Vaught, both of Oklahoma City, Okl., for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice PITNEY delivered the opinion of the Court.

This writ of error was sued out to test the validity, in view of the due process and equal protection provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment, of the Service Letter Law of Oklahoma (Act April 24, 1908; Oklahoma Laws 1907-08, p. 516; Revised Laws Oklahoma 1910, § 3769), applicable to public service corporations and the like, in a case that arose under the following circumstances.

Daniel J. Perry, defendant in error, brought suit against Jacob M. Dickinson, then receiver of the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company (the company itself afterwards was substituted in his place while the cause was pending in the Supreme Court of the state. Plaintiff alleged that while in the employ of the company which operated a railway in Oklahoma and by which he had been employed continuously for a period of years, and while in the performance of his duties as switchman, he received severe personal injuries caused by a defect in a car brake, which either was known or in the exercise of due care by its employees would have become known to the railway company; the latter acknowledge responsibility for his injuries, settled with him through its claim agent on the basis of the company's negligence, furnished him with hospital treatment before and after the settlement, after some months dismissed him from the hospital as able to resume work, then refused to re-employ him on the ground that he was ineligible by reason of physical incapacity, and after he had unavailingly sought re-employment at intervals during two years, furnished him through its superintendent with a service letter certifying (correctly) that he had been employed upon the company's lines as switchman for a period named, and (contrary to the fact) that he had been dismissed on account of his responsibility in a case of personal injury to himself June 30, 1913, his service being otherwise satisfactory, and he averred that because of this letter he had been unable to secure employment, although competent, able, and willing.

Defendant, besides a general denial, averred that the statute upon which the action was based was void, because it deprived defendant of the due process of law, and denied to it the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, and also because it violated a section of the state Constitution in denying to defendant freedom of speech, including the right to remain silent. A trial by jury resulted in a verdict and judgment for plaintiff, which on appeal was affirmed by the Supreme Court. Dickinson v. Perry, 75 Okl. 25, 181 Pac. 504.

That court overruled the contention that the proof failed to show that the service letter given to plaintiff did not truly state the cause of his discharge, then proceeded to discuss the constitutional questions, sustained the act, and affirmed the judgment.

Defendant in error moves to dismiss the writ of error on the ground that the constitutionality of the act was not really at issue; that the trial judge's instructions to the jury show that the only substantial question was whether the statements made in the letter actually given by the defendant were false and derogatory, and whether plaintiff had suffered damage thereby. But since the court of last resort of the state actually dealt with and passed upon the question raised by plaintiff in error as to the validity of the statute upon the ground of its being repugnant to the Constitution of the United States, and decided in favor of its validity, it is clear that, under the first paragraph of section 237, Judicial Code, as amended by Act of September 6, 1916, c. 448, 39 Stat. 726 (Comp. St. § 1214), we have jurisdiction to pass upon the question, and the motion to dismiss must be denied. Miedreich v. Lauenstein, 232 U. S. 236, 243, 34 Sup. Ct. 309, 58 L. Ed. 584; North Carolina R. R. Co. v. Zachary, 232 U. S. 248, 257, 34 Sup. Ct. 305, 58 L. Ed. 591, Ann. Cas. 1914C, 159.

Again, in discussing the merits, defendant in error insists that the federal question is not necessarily involved; that the constitutional objection was waived when the company, instead of refusing to give a letter, of its own volition gave to Perry upon his dismissal a service letter which was false and derogatory, and which caused special damage that was pleaded and proved. At first blush, it seems somewhat strange for the company to aver that it acted under compulsion of a void statute, when what it did was contrary to the command of the statute; it almost looks as if it were merely held in damages for what ordinarily might be called a libel. But the case cannot properly be dealt with upon this ground. The Supreme Court of Oklahoma, not only passed upon the question of the constitutionality of the Service Letter Law, but deemed it necessary to pass upon it. So far as can be gathered from its opinion, there was no other legal ground upon which the judgment could be supported. Apparently, under the law of Oklahoma apart from the statute, no legal duty was imposed upon the employer in such a case to speak the truth in a communication made respecting a discharged employee, nor was there other ground of liability for damages in case of its falsity. The statute is the essential foundation upon which the judgment rests, and we cannot find that the objections to its validity have been waived.

The act (Oklahoma Laws 1907-08, p. 516; Revised Laws Oklahoma 1910, § 3769) reads as follows:

'3769. Corporation to Give Letter to Employee Leaving Service. Whenever any employee of any public service corporation, or of a contractor, who works for such corporation, doing business in this state, shall be discharged or voluntarily quits the service of such employer, it shall be the duty of the superintendent or manager, or contractor, upon request of such employee, to issue to such employee a letter setting forth the nature of the service rendered by such employee to such corporation or contractor and the duration thereof, and truly stating the cause for which such employee was discharged from or quit such service; and, if any such superintendent, manager or contractor shall fail or refuse to issue such letter to such employee, when so requested, or shall willfully or negligently refuse or fail to state the facts correctly, such superintendent, manager or contractor shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine of not less than one hundred dollars...