Chambers v. Omaha Public School Dist.

• Citation: 536 F.2d 222
• Decision Date: 11 May 1976
• Docket Number: No. 75-1666,75-1666
• Parties: 15 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 565, 11 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 10,911 Eddie CHAMBERS, Appellant, v. OMAHA PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT et al., Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

Page 222

536 F.2d 222

15 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 565,

11 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 10,911

Eddie CHAMBERS, Appellant, v. OMAHA PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT et al., Appellee.

No. 75-1666.

United States Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 1976.

Decided May 11, 1976.

Steven M. Luttberg, Omaha, Neb., for appellant.

Gerald P. Laughlin (argued), Omaha, Neb., for appellee; Michael G. Lessmann and Thomas E. Johnson, Omaha, Neb., on brief.

Before GIBSON, Chief Judge, and HEANEY and WEBSTER, Circuit Judges.

GIBSON, Chief Judge.

This appeal presents the recurring problem of determining what statute of limitations should be applied in an action arising under the federal Civil Rights Acts.

Plaintiff Eddie Chambers, a black man, was employed as a junior high teacher with defendant Omaha Public School District (District) in 1969. On June 3, 1970, he was promoted to guidance counselor in the District and was given a one-year contract which classified him as a probationary, non-tenured employee for that period of time. On March 1, 1971, plaintiff was notified by the School Board for the District that, pursuant to the provisions of Neb.Rev.Stat. § 79-1256 (Reissue of 1971), ¹ his contract would not be renewed for the succeeding year. Plaintiff thereafter requested and was granted an evidentiary hearing before the School Board for the purpose of amplifying the facts relating to his nonrenewal. At the conclusion of the hearing, the board reaffirmed its decision not to renew plaintiff's contract on the basis that plaintiff had not manifested the ability or desire to work with the faculty and administration within the District. Plaintiff then instituted a state mandamus action against the School Board seeking to compel the board to vote publicly on the nonrenewal issue and to state precisely the reasons why plaintiff was not being retained. This mandamus complaint was dismissed August 24, 1971.

During this period plaintiff simultaneously sought administrative relief on the federal level. On April 7, 1971, plaintiff brought his grievance to the attention of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (H.E.W.). After numerous interim intra-agency rulings, plaintiff was informed nearly four years later that the H.E.W. had concluded that his nonrenewal had not contravened any provision of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq. (1970).

Plaintiff instituted the present action on January 14, 1975, nearly four years after the School Board refused to renew his contract. Plaintiff bases his right to relief upon 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983 and 2000d et seq. (1970) and seeks $280,000 in compensatory and punitive damages, claiming that his employment was terminated for constitutionally impermissible reasons: (1) partly, because he was black, and (2) primarily, in retaliation for his exercise of his First Amendment right to freely express himself. The District Court did not resolve the merits of the dispute, as it concluded that the 180-day statute of limitations contained in the Nebraska Fair Employment Practices Act (F.E.P.A.), Neb.Rev.Stat. § 48-1101 et seq. (Reissue of 1974), controlled in this action and dismissed plaintiff's complaint as untimely filed.

I

Since 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983 ² contain no specified period of limitations, it is well-settled that federal courts must apply the most analogous state statute of limitations to these federally created causes of action. O'Sullivan v. Felix, 233 U.S. 318, 322, 34 S.Ct. 596, 598, 58 L.Ed. 980 (1914); Reed v. Hutto, 486 F.2d 534, 535 (8th Cir. 1973). In making this determination, we select the state period of limitations which best effectuates the federal policy underlying the federal claims. Savage v. United States, 450 F.2d 449, 451 (8th Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 405 U.S. 1043, 92 S.Ct. 1327, 31 L.Ed.2d 585 (1972). In applying these general principles, the District Court treated this case basically as one involving a charge of racial discrimination in employment and placed less significance on plaintiff's First Amendment claim. Accordingly, the court concluded that plaintiff's case is closely aligned with the justiciable racial discrimination matters which are normally submitted to the Nebraska Equal Opportunity Commission (Commission) pursuant to the Nebraska F.E.P.A. Relying upon this court's holding in Warren v. Norman Realty Co., 513 F.2d 730 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 855, 96 S.Ct. 105, 46 L.Ed. 81 (1975), the District Court ruled that plaintiff's federal cause of action is governed by the F.E.P.A.'s 180-day period of limitations for filing a charge with the Commission.

In Norman Realty this court was confronted with a case instituted pursuant to, inter alia, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1982 in which the plaintiffs alleged that defendants had practiced racial discrimination in the leasing of a home. In searching for the proper state period of limitations, the court noted that Nebraska had enacted a housing discrimination law which proscribed the precise conduct involved in the federal civil rights action. Neb.Rev.Stat. § 20-105 et seq. (Reissue of 1974). Therefore, the court applied the 180-day period of limitations contained in the state housing law and affirmed a dismissal of plaintiff's complaint. 513 F.2d at 734-35.

We do not view Norman Realty as controlling in the instant case. The statute of limitations applied in Norman Realty provided that when an aggrieved person chose to pursue his complaint in a state district court in lieu of proceeding administratively through the Nebraska Equal Opportunity Commission, he must file the civil action within 180 days of the occurrence of the allegedly discriminatory housing practice. Neb.Rev.Stat. § 20-119. The statute, therefore, imposed a time limitation upon an individual's right to seek relief through the courts. The 180-day period contained in the Nebraska F.E.P.A. and adopted by the District Court in the present case is not a limitation upon the filing of a civil action, but rather is a limitation upon filing a formal charge with the Equal Opportunity Commission for the purpose of seeking administrative relief. Neb.Rev.Stat. § 48-1118. The F.E.P.A. contains no statute of limitations equivalent to the one applied in Norman Realty. Moreover, that case provides no support for the application of the F.E.P.A. administrative statute of limitations to § 1981 or § 1983 actions. Norman Realty drew a clear distinction between judicial and administrative avenues of relief. 513 F.2d at 735. The state housing law in that case contained an administrative period of limitations, which is identical to the one contained in the F.E.P.A., requiring a complainant to file a housing discrimination complaint with the Equal Opportunity Commission within 180 days. Neb.Rev.Stat. § 20-114(3). However, the Norman Realty court did not discuss the applicability of this administrative limitations period to that case and opted instead for the statute of limitations for the filing of judicial actions.

We have been unable to find nor have we been directed to any decisional authority which has applied, in § 1981 or § 1983 actions, the limitations period for filing complaints with an administrative agency. The Seventh Circuit, in Waters v. Wisconsin Steel Works, 427 F.2d 476 (7th Cir. 1970), refused to apply the Illinois F.E.P.A.'s 120-day period of limitations for filing discrimination charges with the Illinois Fair Employment Practices Commission (F.E.P.C.) in a § 1981 action. See Ill.Rev.Stat. ch. 48, § 858 (1969), as amended, P.A. 79-465 (1975). Language in that case is particularly pertinent here:

We are not convinced that the Illinois F.E.P.A. is the most analogous state action under these provisions. The Illinois act provides only for an administrative remedy and review of the F.E.P.C.'s findings in the state courts. Different considerations obviously apply to suits by private litigants in courts of law. In contrast to the Illinois F.E.P.A., the entire burden of investigating and developing a case under section 1981 lies with the private litigant. Furthermore, the short limitations period contained in the Illinois act is designed to encourage conciliation and private settlement. When an aggrieved party seeks court relief, conciliation has generally failed.

427 F.2d at 488.

Without particularizing the distinctions between the Illinois F.E.P.A. and the Nebraska F.E.P.A., it is sufficient to note that they are roughly equivalent in nature and scope. Each of the statutes vests substantial authority in the respective administrative agencies to order affirmative remedial steps to eliminate the effects of the discriminatory employment practices. Ill.Rev.Stat. ch. 48, § 858 (1969), as amended, P.A. 79-465 (1975); Neb.Rev.Stat. § 48-1119(3). Both agencies possess the authority to compel testimony through the issuance of subpoenas in order to fulfill their statutory obligation to investigate and conciliate discrimination complaints. However pervasive the authority of these F.E.P.A. established agencies may be, we do not think that the procedures and remedies which are administratively available pursuant to the F.E.P.A. can be equated with the plenary judicial powers available in § 1981 and § 1983 actions. ³ We hold that the F.E.P.A. period of limitation cannot be applied in the present case. This conclusion is particularly appropriate in this case since, as will be discussed later, there is another Nebraska statute of limitations which is directly applicable to plaintiff's claims.

A second reason why Norman Realty is inapplicable to the instant case is due to the dualistic nature of plaintiff's claim for relief. The District Court's belief that plaintiff's case was solely or principally based upon racial discrimination was unduly circumscribed. In his complaint, plaintiff has significantly implicated various First Amendment claims which are wholly unrelated to his racial discrimination claim. Since the Nebraska...