Nolan v. Ramsey
| Decision Date | 22 June 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 77-2251,77-2251 |
| Citation | 597 F.2d 577 |
| Parties | Ann NOLAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ben RAMSEY et al., Defendants-Appellees. George H. HICKMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ben RAMSEY et al., Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
David R. Richards, Austin, Tex., for plaintiff-appellant.
John L. Hill, Atty. Gen., David M. Kendall, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for R. R. Comm.
J. David Hughes, Asst. Atty. Gen., Donald S. Thomas, Jr., Austin, Tex., for defendants-appellees as individuals.
Joyce Beasley, Asst. Atty. Gen., Transp. Div., Austin, Tex., for Railroad Comm. of Tex.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.
Before WISDOM, CLARK and FAY, Circuit Judges.
Appellants attack the validity of a reporting standard established by the Texas Railroad Commission which abolished their positions as reporters. The trial court denied relief and we affirm.
Appellants Ann Nolan and George Hickman are court reporters formerly employed by the Transportation Division of the Railroad Commission of Texas (the Commission), a state agency having broad regulatory authority over the oil and gas, transportation, and gas utilities industries. In May of 1975, the Commission determined that its official record in contested proceedings should be reported by stenographic means, I. e., by shorthand or stenotype machine, and the Commission issued an order to this effect. In keeping with this determination, the appellants were terminated as employees of the Commission because their stenomask reporting technique 1 no longer complied with the Commission's reporting standards.
Shortly thereafter, appellants instituted this suit against the three Commissioners and the Director of the Transportation Division, in both their official and individual capacities, alleging, Inter alia, that the Commission's actions violated appellants' due process and equal protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. Appellants requested injunctive and monetary relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983 (1976).
The district court denied the appellants' applications for a preliminary injunction, holding that appellants had no "property" or "liberty" interests protectible under the Due Process Clause and that no violation of the Equal Protection Clause had been shown. In response to appellants' contention that the Commission's actions were based on its erroneous conclusion that changes in state law required it to discontinue the use of stenomask reporters, the trial court stated that such matters were appropriate for determination by the Texas courts.
The appellants counsel then instituted suit in the name of appellant Hickman in a state district court attacking the validity of the Commission's rule regarding standards of reporting. The state court decreed that, while state law did not prohibit the use of stenomask reporting, the Commission's rule permitting only stenographic reporting was valid.
Subsequently, the district court tried the case on the merits and denied relief to appellants. The court again rejected the appellants' due process claims. Addressing appellants' equal protection claim, the court applied the "minimal rationality" test, and held that appellants failed to carry their burden of showing that the Commission's presumptively valid rule specifying reporting standards is totally arbitrary and that a preference for stenographic records is without any factual foundation. Appellants appeal from the final judgment in favor of the Commission.
Appellants argue that the Commission's rule eliminating stenomask reporters has no relationship to its purpose. As a part of its reason for eliminating stenomask reporters, the Commission stated that a change in Texas law required it to record its proceedings by means of "full shorthand notes" in conformity with Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 2324 (Supp.1978). Appellants then obtained a declaratory judgment from a Texas court stating that the Commission may, but is not required to, continue the use of stenomask reporting. Appellants contend that, since the Commission's decision was based on an erroneous interpretation of Texas law, once the reason for excluding stenomask reporters no longer existed, the continued exclusion of them would be without any rational basis.
In this context, the requirements of equal protection are not so exacting: "Unless a classification trammels fundamental personal rights or is drawn upon inherently suspect distinctions such as race, religion, or alienage, our decisions presume the constitutionality of the statutory discriminations and require only that the classification challenged be rationally related to a legitimate state interest." New Orleans v. Dukes, 427 U.S. 297, 303, 96 S.Ct. 2513, 2516-2517, 49 L.Ed.2d 511 (1976). Accord, Massachusetts Bd. of Retirement v. Murgia, 427 U.S. 307, 96 S.Ct. 2562, 49 L.Ed.2d 520 (1976). Although the Texas declaratory judgment makes clear that the Commission was incorrect in its assessment of Texas law, it does not establish that elimination of stenomask reporting is without rationality. The exclusive use of stenographic reporting is consistent with the rules applicable in Texas courts, where stenomask reporting may not be used. Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 2324 (Supp.1978). We cannot conclude that the Commission acted arbitrarily by conforming its reporting standards to those of the district courts of Texas. Moreover, the Commission could reasonably decide that the stenographic method is preferable in that it provides for a written record created simultaneously to the proceedings or that it is preferable because it is not subject to unknown mechanical malfunctions. Our standard of review is not so strict that we will hold the Commission to the one reason which it gave for its decision, especially when these other reasons are entirely consistent and may have been mentioned but for the assumed compulsion of state law. Cf. New Orleans v. Dukes, 427 U.S. at 305, 96 S.Ct. 2513 (). We therefore conclude that the Commission's decision to discontinue stenomask reporting did not violate the appellants' rights to equal protection of the law.
Appellants also contend that the Commission's rule deprives them of liberty and property interests without due process of law.
In addition to being terminated from their jobs with the Commission, appellants are barred, along with all other stenomask reporters, from privately contracting to report contested proceedings before the Commission. Appellants do not contend that the Commission's rule has implicated a liberty interest by the stigmatizing effect of losing their jobs. See, e. g., Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 92 S.Ct. 2701, 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972); Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593, 92 S.Ct. 2694, 33 L.Ed.2d 570 (1972). Since the decision here was to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jackson Court Condominiums v. City of New Orleans
...of Equalization, 239 U.S. 441, 36 S.Ct. 141, 60 L.Ed.2d 372 (1915); United States v. LULAC, 793 F.2d 636 (5th Cir.1986); Nolan v. Ramsey, 597 F.2d 577 (5th Cir.1979); Q.C. Construction Co. v. Gallo, 649 F.Supp. 1331 (D.R.I.1986). The Supreme Court, in Bi-Metallic, explained this constitutio......
-
U.S. v. LULAC
...(1978); cf. Massachusetts Bd. of Retirement v. Murgia, 427 U.S. 307, 314, 96 S.Ct. 2562, 2567, 49 L.Ed.2d 520 (1976).30 Nolan v. Ramsey, 597 F.2d 577, 580 (5th Cir.1979); J. Nowak, A Rotunda, J. Young, Constitutional Law 556 (2d ed. 1983).31 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000d.32 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1701 et se......
-
State ex rel. Spire v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co.
...procedural due process by the legislative process itself and they have no right to individual attention"). See, further, Nolan v. Ramsey, 597 F.2d 577 (5th Cir.1979). In City of Scottsbluff v. United Tel. Co. of the West, 171 Neb. 229, 240, 106 N.W.2d 12, 18-19 (1960), after noting the legi......
-
Teong-Chan Gaw v. Commissioner
...those pertinent to legal reasoning that assist a court in deciding questions of law, policy, and discretion. See Nolan v. Ramsey, 597 F.2d 577, 580581 n. 2 (5th Cir. 1979); see also Notes of the Advisory Committee on the Federal Rules of Evidence, 28 U.S.C. app. at 738 (1988); 1 Weinstein &......