Brown-Brunson v. Hunter, BROWN-BRUNSON
| Decision Date | 20 October 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 92-1853,BROWN-BRUNSON,92-1853 |
| Citation | 8 F.3d 816 |
| Parties | NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Vanille C.; Alexander Brunson, Sr., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Richard C. HUNTER, Superintendent, Baltimore City Board of Education; Willie Kimbrow; Board of Education of Baltimore County; Joseph L. Shilling, Superintendent, Maryland State Department of Education; Jennifer Burdick, Executive Director, State of Maryland Commission of Human Relations; J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General; Larry Lorton; Donna Digrazia; John Makell; Rose Cardamone; Ray R. Keech; Donald Judy; Maryland State Teacher's Association; Teachers Association of Baltimore County Maryland, Incorporated; Board of Education of Anne Arundel County, Defendants-Appellees, and Robert Y. DUBEL, Superintendent, Board of Education of Baltimore County; Robert H. Chapman, III, Northeast Area Superintendent, Board of Education of Baltimore County; Anthony G. Marchione, Associate Superintendent, Board of Education of Baltimore County; Frank H. Grieb, Jr.; Margaret Shrewsbury; Anne Wright; George Sparks, Jr.; Donald E. Pearce; Calvin Disney; Hilda W. Hillman; Gwendolyn B. Tisdale; Phillis Shimonkevitz; Margaret Rowe; Robert C. Embry, Jr.; Joan C. Maynard; Herbert Fincher; Wendy Prioleau; Rosalie Hellman; Ronald L. Jacoby; Ronald R. Stokeley; Victor Delibera, Sr.; Robert L. Hawkins; Nancy S. Grasmick; Donald P. Hutchinson; Wilson H. Parran; John C. Sprague; Benjamin Swinson; Ernest G. Barnes; Louis Martin, Deputy Director, State of Maryland Commission of Human Relations; Patricia A. Wood; Carolyn Jasmin; Jonathan O. Riddix; Valerie V. Cloutier; Michael A. Butera, Executive Director, Maryland State Teachers' Association; James R. Whattam; Walter S. Levin; Susan W. Russell; Martin D. Peters, President, Teachers Association of Baltimore County, Maryland, Incorp |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Herbert F. Murray, Senior District Judge. (CA-90-1545-HM)
Vanille C. Brown-Brunson, Alexander Brunson, Sr., Appellants Pro Se.
Burton Harry Levin, Office of the City Solicitor, Baltimore, Maryland; Leslie Robert Stellman, Littler, Mendelson, Fastiff & Tichy, Baltimore, Maryland; Carolyn Annette Quattrocki, Office of The Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland; Sally Lotz Swann, Maryland Commission on Human Relations, Baltimore, Maryland; John Francis Breads, Jr., Annapolis, Maryland; M. Albert Figinski, Weinberg & Green, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Before PHILLIPS, MURNAGHAN, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.
Vanille Brown-Brunson and her husband, Alexander Brunson, Sr., filed a multi-count Complaint against approximately fifty-one Defendants, 1 alleging racial discrimination in employment and sexual harassment in violation of Title VII (42 U.S.C.A.s 2000e et seq. (West 1981 & Supp. 1993)), 42 U.S.C.A. § 1981 (West Supp. 1993), and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986 (1988), after Brown-Brunson's teaching contract with the Baltimore County Public Schools was not renewed following a one-year probationary period. They also alleged due process violations, and asserted state law claims for wrongful discharge, tortious breach of contract, defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The Complaint was later amended to add an additional eight Defendants. 2
The district court found for the Defendants in six separate orders. The district court first determined that the allegations against the MSTA and TABCO Defendants failed to give rise to liability under any federal statute, and thus granted the Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss filed by these Defendants. The district court determined that the State Defendants and those Defendants affiliated with the Maryland Commission on Human Relations were immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment and likewise granted Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal. The district court granted summary judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 as to all claims against the County Defendants, including those stating violations of Maryland law, after thoroughly discussing the merits of each and concluding that these claims were factually or legally unsupported. The Harford County and Anne Arundel County Defendants were dismissed without prejudice for the Plaintiffs' failure to effect adequate service within 120 days of filing their Amended Complaint, as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(j) and local rule. Finally, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial