Purnell v. Smart
| Decision Date | 22 September 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 92-2052,92-2052 |
| Citation | 976 F.2d 735 |
| Parties | NOTICE: Seventh Circuit Rule 53(b)(2) states unpublished orders shall not be cited or used as precedent except to support a claim of res judicata, collateral estoppel or law of the case in any federal court within the circuit. David R. PURNELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Winston I. SMART, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Before CUMMINGS, MANION and KANNE, Circuit Judges.
This interlocutory appeal arises from the denial of a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to bar a private party, Winston I. Smart, from making any further public release of David R. Purnell's educational transcripts. Purnell, Smart, and another applicant were on the short-list for a position to teach agricultural law at the University of Illinois. Purnell and the third applicant are white males, Smart is a black male. During the hiring period, both Purnell and Smart were LL.M. candidates at the University of Arkansas School of Law, a degree both now hold. Purnell was hired for the position in the College of Agriculture at the University of Illinois. Smart filed a pre-employment grievance with the University claiming that he had not been hired because of his race. An administrative hearing was scheduled so Smart could air his racial discrimination charges and the University could defend against them.
In preparation for the hearing, the head of the Department of Agricultural Economics sent a letter with copies of all the candidates' transcripts to the hearing officer. A copy of the letter and transcripts was also sent to Smart. This was done notwithstanding a notation on the reverse side of Purnell's transcripts prohibiting the release of the transcripts to a third party without Purnell's written consent. Purnell's transcripts reflected two grades as "F* ". Smart believed these to be failing grades and used them as support for his charges of racial discrimination.
At the administrative hearing, Smart walked out, apparently angered by the evidentiary rules being used. Unsatisfied with the attention that he believed his discrimination charges were receiving, Smart mailed more than 1500 letters complaining of the University's hiring procedure. Many of the letters sent by Smart had copies of Purnell's law school transcripts attached. The mailings were sent to the Governor of Illinois, Illinois legislators, University of Illinois faculty, administrators, and trustees, University of Arkansas School of Law, members of the Agricultural Law Association--and the news media.
Among other things, Smart's letters stated that Purnell had failed the courses carrying the "F*" notation; "flunked out" of the LL.M. program; and would not receive his LL.M. degree without physically returning to the Arkansas campus and retaking the failed courses. News stories appeared in the media based on the allegations contained in the mailings sent out by Smart. Thereafter, Smart wrote to the University of Arkansas asking for clarification of the "F* " grade. He was told that the grade was interim in nature. In fact, Purnell's "F* " grades were "incompletes" and he later received a passing grade or credit for each course.
Purnell instituted this action seeking to enjoin Smart from further publishing his allegations and the transcripts. Purnell also seeks compensatory damages. The case was filed in state court, and later removed to federal district court based on diversity jurisdiction. Although the state judge granted a preliminary injunction, upon removal to federal court the state court's preliminary injunction was vacated, and the district judge denied preliminary injunctive relief. Purnell appeals the denial of a preliminary injunction.
To receive a preliminary injunction, a moving party must show (1) that there is some likelihood of success on the merits, and (2) that "no adequate remedy at law" exists, and that without the injunction the moving party will suffer "irreparable harm." If the moving party can establish both of these prerequisites, the district court must then determine (3) any irreparable harm the non-moving party will suffer if preliminary injunctive relief is granted, balancing that against the irreparable harm suffered by the moving party if such relief is denied. Finally, the district court must consider (4) the consequences to non-parties of granting or denying the preliminary injunction--the interest of the public. Abbott Laboratories v. Mead Johnson & Co., No. 91-3492, slip op. at 7 (7th Cir. July 23, 1992).
We review the grant or denial of injunctive relief under an abuse of discretion...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Grossman v. Smart
...Court already has held, and the Seventh Circuit affirms, that racial discrimination involves a matter of public concern. Purnell v. Smart, 976 F.2d 735 (7th Cir.1992). As public officials for a public university alleged to have discriminated in employment, the matters involving Grossman and......