Day v. Wayne County Bd. of Auditors
| Decision Date | 06 December 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 83-1378,83-1378 |
| Citation | 749 F.2d 1199 |
| Parties | 36 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 743, 35 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 34,816, 53 USLW 2310 James M. DAY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WAYNE COUNTY BOARD OF AUDITORS, Wayne County Civil Service Commission, County of Wayne, and Wayne County Board of Commissioners, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Eleanor Cattron Smith, argued, Detroit, Mich., for plaintiff-appellant.
W.B. McIntyre, Jr., Bob Anderson, argued, Detroit, Mich., for defendants-appellees.
Before LIVELY, Chief Judge, WELLFORD, Circuit Judge, and GIBBONS, District Judge. *
This is an appeal by the plaintiff who is dissatisfied with the relief granted to him by the district court. The district court referred plaintiff's employment discrimination claim to a master who found that the defendant, Wayne County Board of Auditors, a state agency, discriminated against plaintiff in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (the Act) by retaliating against him for filing a claim of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). However, the master also held that the plaintiff did not prove racial or age discrimination and that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for recovery of monetary damages under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1981 or Sec. 1983. The district court affirmed these holdings. The important question presented by this appeal is whether, upon finding a violation of Title VII, the district court erred in holding the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of violation of Sec. 1983.
The plaintiff, a white male, was hired by the Wayne County Board of Auditors in 1970. Over the next eight years the plaintiff sought and was denied several promotions and was twice demoted. On these occasions he filed charges with various state agencies and the EEOC which were largely unproductive. In 1978, after the plaintiff objected to the reclassification of another employee, the defendant demoted him. The plaintiff then filed yet another complaint with the EEOC which led to the present action. After receiving a right to sue letter the plaintiff filed suit in the district court charging violation of Title VII Upon determining that the case had not been scheduled for trial within 120 days after the issues were joined, the district judge referred the matter to a magistrate "as Master pursuant to Rule 53 ...." The order of reference was made "[o]n the authority of 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e-5(f)(5)" which provides:
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e, et seq. (1976), and the Civil Rights Acts of 1870 and 1871, 42 U.S.C. Secs. 1981 and 1983 (1976). In his complaint the plaintiff sought a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief as well as compensatory and punitive damages and reinstatement to the position he held before his most recent demotion.
It shall be the duty of the judge designated pursuant to this subsection to assign the case for hearing at the earliest practicable date and to cause the case to be in every way expedited. If such judge has not scheduled the case for trial within one hundred and twenty days after issue has been joined, that judge may appoint a master pursuant to rule 53 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The magistrate conducted a trial and issued his "Master's Report and Recommendations" in which he found that the plaintiff's employer had demoted him in retaliation for filing discrimination charges. Such retaliation is specifically prohibited by Sec. 704 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e-3(a). The master found, however, that the plaintiff had failed to establish discrimination on the basis of age or race. In his report the master recommended an award of back pay and compensatory damages to the plaintiff for violation of Title VII and an injunction requiring the defendants to permit Day to sit for future competitive or promotional examinations. The master found that the plaintiff had not proven a violation of Sec. 1981 or Sec. 1983 and denied punitive damages as relief sought only in connection with the Sec. 1981 claim.
The plaintiff filed objections to the master's report and the district court held a hearing. Thereafter the district judge filed a memorandum opinion in which he agreed with the master's findings with respect to violations, but ordered different relief. The district court allowed back pay representing the difference between the plaintiff's actual earnings and the amount he would have earned except for the defendants' discrimination by retaliation. The district court also awarded "front pay" by requiring the defendants to pay the plaintiff at the rate of the position from which he was demoted until his retirement date or until he is promoted to a position which pays an amount equal to or greater than that of the position he held before demotion. The district court denied compensatory and punitive damages, finding that such damages are not permitted for Title VII violations, and accepting the master's conclusion that the plaintiff had failed to establish a violation of Sec. 1981 or Sec. 1983. The district court enjoined the defendants from retaliating against the plaintiff for this litigation and denying him the opportunity to take any examination for promotions "for which he is otherwise entitled to sit." The plaintiff appealed from the district court judgment.
The plaintiff's first contention on appeal requires little discussion. In accepting the master's findings of fact, the district court stated that they were not "clearly erroneous." The plaintiff argues that the district court should have reviewed the master's findings under a de novo standard as required by 28 U.S.C. Sec. 636(b)(1), which relates to findings and recommendations of magistrates. The problem with this argument is that Day's case was not referred to the magistrate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 636. The order of reference was made "[o]n the authority of 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e-5(f)(5)" and stated that the magistrate was appointed "as Master pursuant to Rule 53 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ...." Rule 53(e)(2) provides, "In an action to be tried without a jury the court shall accept the master's findings of fact unless clearly erroneous." The plaintiff did not object to the order of reference and recognized
throughout the proceedings that the magistrate was appointed as, and was acting as, a master in this case. The district court correctly reviewed the findings of fact under the clearly erroneous standard. None of the arguments of the plaintiff on this issue recognizes the fact that the district judge followed the procedures of Sec. 2000e-5(f)(5) with exactitude and reviewed the master's findings in precisely the manner provided for when an order of reference is made pursuant to that provision of Title VII. 1
The district court accepted, without discussion, the master's holding that the plaintiff failed to make a prima facie case for relief under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1981 or Sec. 1983. In arguing her objections to the master's report before the district court, counsel for the plaintiff stated: "We have not waived our right to damages under 1983 and it's my understanding of the law that the Master was correct in finding since it is a state agency there would be no liability under 1981 which is probably why he didn't find liability under 1983." Later in her presentation, counsel argued, "[I]f we prevail under Title VII we can see no reason why there should not also be liability under 42 U.S.C. 1983." From these statements and from the arguments in appellant's brief in this court we conclude that plaintiff abandoned his Sec. 1981 claim. However, the plaintiff continues to contend that he was entitled to monetary damages under Sec. 1983.
Two elements are required for a prima facie case under Sec. 1983: There must be conduct by someone acting under color of state law and this conduct must deprive the plaintiff of rights secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States. Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 535, 101 S.Ct. 1908, 1912, 68 L.Ed.2d 420 (1981). Section 1983 is a remedial statute which does not create substantive rights. Chapman v. Houston Welfare Rights Organization, 441 U.S. 600, 616-18, 99 S.Ct. 1905, 1915-16, 60 L.Ed.2d 508 (1979). It provides a remedy for the violation of rights created elsewhere. As the Supreme Court made clear in Maine v. Thiboutot, 448 U.S. 1, 100 S.Ct. 2502, 65 L.Ed.2d 555 (1980), Sec. 1983 provides a remedy for actions under color of law which contravene federally protected rights, whether those rights derive from the Constitution or from a federal statute.
It is not denied that the defendants in this case acted under color of state law. Nor do the defendants question the finding that they violated Title VII, a federal statute, by retaliating against the plaintiff for his complaints and protests concerning their employment practices. Thus, the two elements required for a prima facie case under Sec. 1983 appear to have been satisfied. This leads to the inquiry whether there is something about the relationship between Title VII and Sec. 1983 which requires a different conclusion.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hargrave v. County of Atlantic
...Title VII's filing requirement by utilizing § 1983 as a vehicle for asserting his Title VII claim"); Day v. Wayne County Board of Auditors, 749 F.2d 1199, 1204 (6th Cir.1984) (holding that "Title VII provides the exclusive remedy when the only § 1983 cause of action is based on a violation ......
-
Racetrac Petroleum, Inc. v. Prince George's County
...101 S.Ct. at 2626-27. See also Hymes v. Harnett County Board of Education, 664 F.2d 410, 412 (4th Cir.1981); Day v. Wayne County Board of Auditors, 749 F.2d 1199 (6th Cir.1984); Chesapeake Bay Foundation v. Virginia State Water Control Board, 501 F.Supp. 821 (E.D.Va. 30 The ordinance which ......
-
Sanders v. Univ. of Idaho
...665 F.2d 531, 534 (5th Cir. 1982) ; Allen v. Denver Pub. Sch. Bd. , 928 F.2d 978, 982 (10th Cir. 1991) ; and Day v. Wayne Cty. Bd. of Auditors , 749 F.2d 1199, 1205 (6th Cir. 1984) —none of the plaintiffs raised a claim that their employer had violated their constitutional rights. Thus, the......
-
Mitchell v. Yates
...relief when the § 1983 claim is based directly on a constitutional violation, not a statutory one"), and Day v. Wayne County Bd. of Auditors, 749 F.2d 1199, 1205 (6th Cir.1984) (Title VII plaintiffs may bring § 1983 claims where the "employer conduct ... violates both Title VII and rights d......