Evans v. Page

Decision Date15 May 1975
Docket NumberNo. 74-1509,74-1509
Citation516 F.2d 18
PartiesMrs. Minnie L. EVANS, Appellant, v. Elbert PAGE, Jr., et al., Appellees.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

James H. McKenzie, Prescott, Ark., for appellant.

Charles L. Honey, Prescott, Ark., for appellees.

Before BRIGHT, STEPHENSON and WEBSTER, Circuit Judges.

BRIGHT, Circuit Judge.

Minnie L. Evans brought this action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and damages for violation of her civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. She alleged that the school board of Oak Grove School District No. 4, Nevada County, Arkansas, violated her constitutional rights by declining to rehire her as a teacher's aide for the succeeding school year because she had served as an election official for the school board election. The district court 1 dismissed the action and Evans brings this appeal. We affirm.

Plaintiff-Evans was employed by the school district as a teacher's aide during the 1968-1969 and 1969-1970 school years, and again during the 1971-1972 school year. 2 The district hired her for each nine-month school term by a vote of its board of directors. As a teacher's aide, she was paid $1.60 per hour and was considered a member of the instructional staff.

An election of members to the Oak Grove school board took place on March 14, 1972. Prior to that date, the county election commission had appointed Evans as an election clerk. 3 The district court found that the school superintendent had advised Evans that the school board did not approve of her serving as an election official and that she would lose one day's wages if she took the time off from school. Evans told the superintendent that she nevertheless intended to serve as an election clerk. After receiving permission from her supervising teacher to be absent from school, Evans then served on the election board.

In May of 1972 the school board met to consider employment contracts for the next school year. The board, by a three to two vote, decided not to rehire Evans. In response to Evans' request for the reason for its action, the board, by letter dated June 9, 1972, gave the following explanation:

The reason the school did not renew your contract for the 1972-73 school term was because you worked in the school election and you were under contract with the district and the board did not give you permission to work on the election.

This suit followed.

Evans makes these principal contentions on appeal: (1) The district court committed error in finding that she was officially advised not to serve as an election clerk. (2) The decision of the school board not to rehire her infringed her constitutional right to vote and her civil right to serve as an election official. (3) The arbitrary and capricious action of the school board violated her right to substantive due process.

The superintendent testified below that the school board directed him to tell plaintiff-Evans that she did not have its permission to work as an election clerk during the school board election and that she would not be paid by the school district if she did so. He testified that he relayed this information to Evans prior to the date of the election. Thus, the record supports the trial court's finding that "plaintiff made a deliberate choice to leave her chores as a teacher aide and serve as an election official when the school officials had advised her not to do so." Accordingly, we reject plaintiff's first contention.

Evans' second contention, that the board abridged her constitutional right to vote, rests upon the argument that the service of qualified election officials is a necessary prerequisite to the conduct of an "honest" election and that the limitation of the right of a qualified person to serve as an election official is an infringement of the right to vote. This argument, although ingenious, is highly tenuous. The privilege of serving when appointed to an election board cannot be elevated to a federal constitutional right merely because such service is tangentially related to the constitutionally recognized right to vote. Consequently, we concur with the district court in its holding that Evans' right to vote was not impaired or violated in any way.

Evans relies upon Bomar v. Keyes, 162 F.2d 136 (2d Cir. 1947), to support her argument that the school board's decision not to rehire her violated her civil right to serve as an election official. In Bomar, a school board discharged a probationary teacher during the school year because she was absent from her teaching for nearly one month in order to serve on a federal jury. In reversing a summary judgment of dismissal on jurisdictional grounds, Judge Learned Hand, writing for the court, construed the Civil Rights Act as encompassing deprivation of rights secured by the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Stratford v. State-House, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Kentucky
    • August 6, 1982
    ...641 n.17 (4th Cir. 1976); Weathers v. West Yuma County School Dist. R-J-I, 530 F.2d 1335, 1340-1341 (10th Cir. 1976); Evans v. Page, 516 F.2d 18, 21 (8th Cir. 1975); Buhr v. Buffalo Public School Dist. No. 38, 509 F.2d 1196, 1200 ff. (8th Cir. 1974); McKnight v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Tr......
  • McKnight v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transp. Authority, Civ. A. No. 76-3060.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • October 4, 1977
    ...can recover. See Jeffries v. Turkey Run Consolidated School District, 492 F.2d 1, 3-5 (7th Cir. 1974) (Stevens, J.); Evans v. Page, 516 F.2d 18, 21 (8th Cir. 1975); Buhr v. Buffalo Public School District No. 38, 509 F.2d 1196, 1200-03 (8th Cir. 1974); Weathers v. West Yuma County School Dis......
  • Johnson v. Morales
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • January 7, 2020
    ...be set aside as arbitrary and capricious if there is ‘some factual basis’ for the administrative action." Id. (quoting Evans v. Page , 516 F.2d 18, 21 (8th Cir. 1975) ). And we held that the application of these standards was "a matter of law for the court." Id.14 I cannot conclude that the......
  • Mittelstaedt v. BD. OF TRUSTEES OF UNIVER. OF ARK.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Arkansas
    • March 6, 1980
    ...reason. The Roth decision has been widely accepted. It is the rule in Arkansas federal courts and in the eighth circuit. Evans v. Page, 516 F.2d 18 (8th Cir. 1975); Williams v. Day, supra; Freeman v. Gould Spec. Sch. Dist., 405 F.2d 1153 (8th Cir. 1969), cert. denied 396 U.S. 843, 90 S.Ct. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT