Coggin v. Longview Independent School Dist.

• Decision Date: 02 July 2003
• Docket Number: No. 00-40731.,00-40731.
• Citation: 337 F.3d 459
• Parties: Randall COGGIN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LONGVIEW INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT; et al., Defendants, Longview Independent School District, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

Page 459

337 F.3d 459

Randall COGGIN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LONGVIEW INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT; et al., Defendants Longview Independent School District, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 00-40731.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

July 2, 2003.

Andy Wade Tindel (argued), Provost, Umphrey, Youngdahl & Sadin, Charles H. Clark, Clark, Lea & Ainsworth, Tyler, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Eric W. Schulze (argued), JoAnn S. Wright, Walsh, Anderson, Brown, Schulze & Aldridge, Austin, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Denise Nance Pierce, Bickerstaff, Heath, Smiley, Pollan, Kever & McDaniel, Austin, TX, for Texas Ass'n of School Boards Legal Assistance Fund, Amicus Curiae.

Paul Michael Shirk, Texas State Teachers Ass'n, Austin TX, for Texas State Teachers Ass'n, Amicus Curiae.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.

Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, JONES, SMITH, WIENER, BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, DeMOSS, BENAVIDES, STEWART, DENNIS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.^*

DENNIS, Circuit Judge:

Randall Coggin brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against his former employer, a Texas independent school district, because its board of trustees terminated his employment contract without any kind of a hearing. After a bench trial, the district court rendered judgment in favor of Coggin. A divided panel of our court affirmed.¹ A majority of the judges in active service voted to rehear the case en banc.² We now affirm the judgment of the district court.

I. Statutory Procedure for Termination of School Board Employees' Term Contracts

Under the Texas Education Code, a school board has the power to terminate a term contract and discharge a teacher at any time "for good cause as determined by the board."³ Prior to terminating a term contract, however, the board must give the teacher notice of its proposed action.⁴ If the teacher desires a pre-termination hearing under state law, he must file a written request with the state commissioner of education ("Commissioner") within 15 days of receiving notice of his proposed termination.⁵ Within 10 business days of receiving a timely request for a hearing, the Commissioner must assign a hearing examiner to conduct a hearing in that particular case.⁶ Not later than 45 days after the Commissioner receives a request for a hearing, the hearing examiner shall complete the hearing and recommend findings of fact, conclusions of law, and, if appropriate, the granting of relief.⁷ The school board, not the Commissioner, is taxed with the costs of the hearing examiner, the shorthand reporter, and the production of a hearing transcript.⁸

After receiving the examiner's recommendation and the record of the hearing, the school board or its designated subcommittee must consider them and allow each party to present an oral argument to the board or subcommittee.⁹ Within 10 days of that meeting, the board must announce a decision that includes findings of fact and conclusions of law and that may include a grant of relief.¹⁰ The board may adopt, reject, or change the hearing examiner's conclusions of law or proposal for granting relief, and it may reject or change the hearing examiner's finding of facts not supported by substantial evidence in the record.¹¹

Section 7.057(d) of the Texas Education Code provides that "[a] person aggrieved by an action of the agency or decision of the Commissioner may appeal to a district court in Travis County."¹² This appeal must be made by serving the Commissioner as in a civil suit, and the court shall determine all issues of law and fact at trial.¹³

II. Factual and Procedural Background

Randall Coggin worked for the Longview Independent School District ("LISD") for more than 30 years. From 1983 until his discharge on September 13, 1999, Coggin supervised the LISD Career and Technology Education department. At the time of his discharge, Coggin was employed under a two-year term contract spanning the 1998-1999 and 1999-2000 academic years. Before receiving notice of his proposed termination, his performance appraisals were generally complimentary. On August 12, 1999, however, Coggin received a letter from the LISD's new superintendent notifying him that the school board proposed to terminate his employment contract for engaging in various alleged improprieties, including sexually harassing female subordinates, using LISD resources for his personal benefit, impeding the LISD's investigation of his behavior, and falsifying asbestos records. On August 24, Coggin deposited copies of his written request for a hearing with the U.S. Postal Service for delivery via certified mail, properly stamped and addressed to the Commissioner and the school board. The school board received its copy of Coggin's request on August 26, but the Commissioner did not receive the request until August 30. Because the Commissioner mistakenly thought that Coggin's request must have been received, rather than filed, by August 27, 1999, he refused to appoint a hearing examiner. On September 2, 1999, the Commissioner mailed copies of a letter addressed to both Coggin and the LISD's counsel stating that (1) the Commissioner had received Coggin's written request for the appointment of a hearing examiner; (2) the request was dated and postmarked before the August 27 deadline for filing; (3) the Commissioner received the request on the third day following the deadline; but (4) the Commissioner would not appoint a hearing examiner because Coggin's request was received after the deadline. After Coggin received the Commissioner's September 2 letter, Coggin's attorney and the Commissioner engaged in a "flurry of correspondence" regarding the timeliness of Coggin's request for a hearing, but the Commissioner declined to reconsider his refusal to appoint a hearing examiner.¹⁴

On September 13, 1999, the LISD school board, without giving further notice to Coggin or any kind of a hearing, adopted a resolution discharging Coggin as an employee of the LISD. The LISD concedes that it was aware of the Commissioner's refusal to appoint a hearing examiner prior to the board's action. Thus, as the district court found, "[w]hen it terminated Coggin's contract, the LISD board had actual knowledge that Coggin had requested a hearing on the termination of his contract, the date on which he had requested it, and that no hearing of any kind had been held."¹⁵

On November 12, 1999, Coggin brought suit against the LISD, the Texas Education Agency ("TEA"), and the Commissioner under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for depriving him of his property without due process of law. After the district court expressed its opinion that the TEA and the Commissioner had a valid Eleventh Amendment defense, Coggin dismissed his § 1983 claim against them, and the case proceeded solely against the LISD. Following a bench trial, the district court concluded that (1) Coggin timely filed his request for a hearing as required by state law; (2) the board had notice that Coggin had not received a hearing despite his timely request; (3) the board deprived Coggin of his property without due process when it terminated his employment contract without any kind of a hearing; (4) the LISD failed to prove that Coggin had engaged in the alleged misconduct and therefore had no cause to terminate his employment contract; and (5) Coggin was entitled to $215,894 in damages and attorney's fees. The LISD appealed.

III. The LISD's Action Was the Sole Cause of The Violation of Coggin's Right to Due Process

On appeal the LISD does not dispute that its termination of Coggin's employment in the middle of his two-year term employment contract deprived him of a constitutionally protected property interest in continued employment, or that Coggin was entitled to constitutional due process in conjunction with the proposed termination of that employment.¹⁶ Nor does it challenge or point to any error in the district court's determination that Coggin timely filed his request for a hearing.¹⁷ LISD argues, instead, that any deprivation of Coggin's right to due process of law was caused by the Commissioner's refusal to appoint a hearing examiner, not by the school board's termination of his employment contract without a hearing: "The gravamen of this dispute is a question of causation."¹⁸ Thus, the LISD contends that the Commissioner's action, to the exclusion of its own, should be considered the sole cause of the deprivation of due process and, therefore, that it is not responsible for the violation.

The LISD's irrevocable discharge of Coggin without a hearing just 4 business days after Coggin's receipt of the Commissioner's notice of refusal was the sole cause of the violation of Coggin's right to due process of law.¹⁹ The LISD argues that the Commissioner's erroneous refusal to appoint a hearing examiner was the cause of the violation because Coggin waived his rights by not appealing the Commissioner's decision through the filing of a civil suit in state district court as provided for by § 7.057(d) of the Texas Education Code. We disagree.

Section 7.057(d) does not prescribe a time limit within which a person aggrieved by an action of the Commissioner must file an appeal in the district court. The Texas Administrative Procedures Act, however, provides that an aggrieved person is allowed 30 days to appeal from the decision of an administrative agency.²⁰ Thus, Coggin was afforded 30 days by the Texas procedure to file his appeal in district court contesting the Commissioner's refusal to assign a hearing examiner.²¹ But the LISD's discharge of Coggin just 4 business days after his receipt of the Commissioner's notice of refusal prematurely cut off Coggin's right to appeal under § 7.057(d) and unreasonably foreclosed the possibility of a pre-termination due process hearing in his case.

Consequently, we conclude that Coggin did not waive his rights, and that the LISD's action of peremptorily discharging Coggin without...