Johnson v. Fraley

• Decision Date: 21 May 1971
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 71-C-51-A.
• Citation: 327 F. Supp. 471
• Parties: Evelyn J. JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. S. A. FRALEY, Jr., et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Virginia

327 F. Supp. 471

Evelyn J. JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. S. A. FRALEY, Jr., et al., Defendants.

Civ. A. No. 71-C-51-A.

United States District Court, W. D. Virginia, Abingdon Division.

May 21, 1971.

James P. Jones, Abingdon, Va., A. C. Epps and Michael L. Soffin, Richmond, Va., for plaintiff.

Robert T. Winston, Jr., Norton, Va., Brantley B. Griffith, Griffith, Bondurant & Owens, Lebanon, Va., for defendants.

OPINION

WIDENER, District Judge.

This action is alleged to have arisen under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983, which provides for redress of deprivation, under color of state law, of rights, privileges and immunities secured by the Constitution of the United States. Jurisdiction of such actions is authorized by 28 U.S. C.A. § 1343.

According to the complaint herein, defendants Fraley, Gilmer, and Taylor constitute the entire County School Board of Russell County, Virginia. It is alleged that plaintiff, Mrs. Evelyn Johnson, was employed under one-year contracts as a teacher in the Russell County public school system from 1942 until 1970. On April 13, 1970, or thereabouts, Mrs. Johnson received a letter from defendant Levicki, division superintendent of Russell County Public Schools, notifying her that she would not be reappointed to teach in the Russell County school system during the 1970-71 school term. The complaint avers that this failure to renew plaintiff's contract was arbitrary and evidenced a willful and wanton disregard of her rights; that defendants have, at no time, furnished plaintiff a written or verbal statement of reasons for non-renewal of her contract; that plaintiff has never been notified of nor afforded an opportunity for a hearing before the County School Board, which she alleges she was entitled to under the written personnel policy of the School Board, at which she could respond to such reasons, confront her "accusers" and submit relevant evidence on her behalf; that defendants, by their remarks to plaintiff and her friends, induced plaintiff to believe that she would receive some type of teaching position for the 1970-71 school year in spite of the notice of non-renewal, and that plaintiff did not realize until early 1971 that this expectation would not materialize; and that the failure to renew plaintiff's contract has irreparably damaged her professional reputation and impaired her ability to earn a livelihood. It is further claimed that the foregoing action on the part of the defendants was in breach of the County School Board's own personnel policy and deprived plaintiff of due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. United States Constitution, Amendment XIV. The court is alleged to have jurisdiction of the state claims under the pendent jurisdiction theory. United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 86 S.Ct. 1130, 16 L.Ed.2d 218 (1966).

The relief prayed for in the complaint is an order requiring the County School Board to reinstate plaintiff in her teaching position, $25,000.00 in compensatory damages, and $50,000.00 in punitive damages.

The defendants admit in their answer that the letter from Mr. Levicki was sent to Mrs. Johnson and that no written statement of the reasons for non-renewal of her contract was furnished her. They specifically deny that plaintiff has received no verbal notice of such reasons, averring that one Omer Elkins, Director of Instruction, advised plaintiff, both before and after notice of the non-renewal, of the reasons therefor and of her rights and remedies. It is also alleged that Mrs. Johnson has never requested a hearing on the matter of the non-renewal. The defendants deny that the County School Board was operating under the personnel policy alleged to have been breached, but rather under applicable Virginia statutes. They urge that, in any event, their action has deprived plaintiff of no right, privilege or immunity secured to her by the Constitution, and that her complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The defendants additionally claim that plaintiff's suit is barred by the statute of limitations in that it was filed more than one year after the alleged cause of action accrued.

The averment by the defendants that plaintiff has been deprived of no right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution being a plea to this court's jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C.A. § 1343(3), the attorneys for the parties have, in response to the court's request, submitted authorities regarding the jurisdictional aspects of the case. Particular requests were: How is this a violation of her civil rights? Or, in particular, which civil right has been violated?

The defendants take the position that plaintiff, since she is a non-tenure teacher, has no inherent right to renewal of her yearly contract, and that there is no constitutional requirement that their action in failing to re-employ her be attended by the elements of due process of law. They urge that plaintiff has a constitutional right to protection only against action based upon impermissible constitutional grounds, such as race, assertion of...