Fast v. School Dist. of City of Ladue, 82-1906

• Decision Date: 23 February 1984
• Docket Number: No. 82-1906,82-1906
• Citation: 728 F.2d 1030
• Parties: 16 Ed. Law Rep. 747 Lois Ellen FAST, Appellant, v. The SCHOOL DISTRICT OF CITY OF LADUE; Dr. Henry E. Oppenheimer; James L. Zemelman; Edward A. O'Donnell; Janice E. Schoenfeld; Susan L. Bouma; Dr. Jerome F. Levy; Charles Cobaugh; Barbara Sacks; Arlene Jarett; Dr. William Raisch; and Dr. Charles D. McKenna, Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

Page 1030

728 F.2d 1030

16 Ed. Law Rep. 747

Lois Ellen FAST, Appellant, v. The SCHOOL DISTRICT OF CITY OF LADUE; Dr. Henry E.

Oppenheimer; James L. Zemelman; Edward A. O'Donnell;

Janice E. Schoenfeld; Susan L. Bouma; Dr. Jerome F. Levy;

Charles Cobaugh; Barbara Sacks; Arlene Jarett; Dr.

William Raisch; and Dr. Charles D. McKenna, Appellees.

No. 82-1906.

United States Court of Appeals,

Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 29, 1983.

Decided Feb. 23, 1984.

Marilyn S. Teitelbaum, Schuchat, Cook & Werner, St. Louis, Mo., Robert H. Chanin, Robert M. Weinberg, A. Richard Feldman, Bredhoff & Kaiser, Washington, D.C., for appellant.

Robert G. McClintock, St. Louis, Mo., for appellees.

Before LAY, Chief Judge, HEANEY, BRIGHT and ROSS, Circuit Judges, HENLEY, Senior Circuit Judge, and McMILLIAN, ARNOLD, JOHN R. GIBSON, FAGG, and BOWMAN, Circuit Judges, en banc.

ARNOLD, Circuit Judge.

Lois Ellen Fast brought this suit against the School District of the City of Ladue, Missouri, claiming that the process by which she was laid off from her job as a full-time tenured science teacher violated the Fourteenth Amendment. The District Court, 543 F.Supp. 785 (E.D.Mo.1982), rejected plaintiff's claim that she was constitutionally entitled to a pre-termination hearing. It did, however, hold that the defendants had violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by refusing to give plaintiff a post-termination hearing and a statement of the basis for their action in selecting her for lay-off. On motion of plaintiff for attorneys' fees under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1988, the District Court held that plaintiff was not a "prevailing party" within the meaning of the statute and declined to award fees. We reverse.

I.

On April 13, 1978, plaintiff received a letter from the school board informing her that because of a decline in pupil enrollment she would be placed on leave of absence at the beginning of the 1978-79 school year. Missouri law required the school board to lay off non-tenured teachers first and then tenured teachers on the basis of merit in the pertinent field of specialization. Mo.Ann.Stat. Sec. 168.124 (Vernon Supp.1983). Plaintiff appears to have been the only tenured teacher to be placed on leave of absence.

Plaintiff then wrote to the school superintendent objecting to the board's action and requesting information concerning its basis for selecting her for lay-off. The school superintendent replied simply that plaintiff had been selected for involuntary leave on the basis of merit in accordance with the applicable statutes. A representative of the National Education Association then wrote to the school superintendent requesting a meeting. No response was received, either from the school superintendent or from the president of the school board, except for the statement that defendants would not meet with "third parties."

Plaintiff then brought this suit. As already noted, she claimed that defendants had denied her procedural due process by refusing to give her a hearing and a statement of reasons or basis for her lay-off. She asked that she be reinstated and thereafter not be laid off without a pre-lay-off hearing. A second count of the complaint challenged as unconstitutionally vague the procedures that defendants had used in selecting plaintiff as the least meritorious of the tenured science teachers.

The District Court rejected plaintiff's claim for reinstatement and pre-lay-off process. It did, however, grant in part plaintiff's motion for summary judgment with respect to the first count of her complaint. The Court ordered defendants to provide plaintiff with a written statement of the basis for its decision, a description of the manner in which the decision was reached, the information relied on by the decision-makers, and an opportunity to respond before an impartial board. Defendants then did furnish plaintiff with a statement of the basis for their action, in compliance with the Court's order. A date was also fixed on which plaintiff could appear before the board to give her side of the case. After receiving this response, the plaintiff waived the hearing, dismissed Count II of her complaint, and moved for nominal damages and attorneys' fees in the amount of $22,980. The District Court awarded plaintiff one dollar in nominal damages but denied the motion for fees.

A panel of this Court affirmed, Fast v. School District of Ladue, 712 F.2d 379 (8th Cir.1983), one judge dissenting. Plaintiff's petition for rehearing en banc was then granted, and the case was reargued before the Court en banc.

II.

The question presented on this appeal is whether plaintiff was a "prevailing party" under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1988. This issue is governed by the Supreme Court's recent decision in Hensley v. Eckerhart, --- U.S. ----, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983), in which the appropriate test was set forth in the following language:

A plaintiff must be a "prevailing party" to recover an attorney's fee under Sec. 1988. The standard for making this threshold determination has been framed in various ways. A typical formulation is that "plaintiffs may be considered 'prevailing parties' for attorney's fees purposes if they succeed on any significant issue in litigation which achieves some of the benefit the parties sought in bringing suit." Nadeau v. Helgemoe, 581 F.2d 275, 278-279 (CA 1 1978). This is a generous formulation that brings the plaintiff only across the statutory threshold. It remains for the district court to determine what fee is "reasonable."

103 S.Ct. at 1939 (footnotes omitted). ¹ We hold that Fast has met this standard.

The words and phrases selected by the Supreme Court ² to describe who is a "prevailing party" are significant. A plaintiff is a prevailing party if he or she succeeds "on any significant issue ... which achieves some of the benefit the parties sought in bringing suit." 103 S.Ct. at 1939 (emphasis ours). It is not necessary that a plaintiff succeed on all of the significant issues, or that the court award all of the benefit sought by the complaint. In addition, the Supreme Court describes its test as "a generous formulation" and stresses that a plaintiff who meets it is only brought "across the statutory threshold" of eligibility for a fee award. The amount of the award, as is fully explained by the Hensley opinion, is another matter entirely. A plaintiff may be a "prevailing party" and still, because of failure to prevail on other issues, not receive full compensation for all of the time and expense invested in a case.

Here, the District Court granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on Count I of the complaint and held that the defendants had deprived her of property without due process of law, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The Court found that the so-called statement of basis given to plaintiff to justify her lay-off was constitutionally inadequate and directed defendants to give her a proper statement of reasons, a description of the manner in which the decision to lay her off had been reached, a summary of the information relied on by the board in reaching its decision, and an opportunity to respond before an impartial body. The plaintiff thus secured both declaratory and injunctive relief. In addition, the District Court awarded her one dollar in nominal damages.

It is true that the plaintiff, for reasons of her own, chose not to pursue the matter and did not appear before the board for a post-lay-off hearing. It is also true that she failed with respect to a number of other claims made in her suit: her contention that a pre-lay-off hearing was required, for example, was rejected. The District Court held that plaintiff had not requested, either in her complaint or in her motion for summary judgment, a post-lay-off hearing, which it described as the only substantive relief she obtained, but we respectfully disagree with that reading of the record. It is true that the plaintiff's prayer for relief with respect to Count I of her complaint stresses her desire for a pre-lay-off hearing and does not specifically request, in the alternative or otherwise, that a post-lay-off hearing be afforded. On the other hand, Paragraph 6 of the prayer for relief, D.R. 7, does generally request that jurisdiction of the cause be maintained "until such time as Defendants establish a hearing procedure in conformity with the requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment," and Paragraph 9, ibid., requests "such other additional relief as may appear to the Court equitable and just in the premises." One of the allegations of Count I of the complaint, Paragraph 19, D.R. 4, is that "[a]lthough requested to do so, Defendants have failed and refused to ... furnish Plaintiff with a pre- or post -layoff hearing" (emphasis ours). Surely it is a fair inference that, although plaintiff's first preference was naturally for reinstatement and a pre-lay-off hearing, she was also requesting, in the alternative, a post-lay-off hearing. Furthermore, even if the complaint is read not to request a post-lay-off hearing, the District Court held that plaintiff was entitled to such a procedure, and that the failure to afford it was unconstitutional. A party is entitled to whatever relief is appropriate under the proof, "even if the party has not demanded such relief in his pleadings," Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(c). In determining who is a "prevailing party" for fee purposes, the important thing is what relief was awarded on the facts and the law, not what relief was expressly requested by the pleadings.

The relief secured here was not insignificant. First of all, the simple holding that the board has deprived plaintiff of her property without due process of law, in and of itself, is an important vindication of constitutional rights. When public officials violate the rights of citizens, and courts so declare, an important deterrent effect results. Other public officials are less likely to...