Doyle v. University of Alabama in Birmingham

• Citation: 680 F.2d 1323
• Decision Date: 19 July 1982
• Docket Number: No. 81-7697,81-7697
• Parties: 29 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 777, 30 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 33,052, 5 Ed. Law Rep. 172, 1 A.D. Cases 357 Maryellen H. DOYLE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA IN BIRMINGHAM, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit

Page 1323

680 F.2d 1323

29 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 777,

30 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 33,052, 5 Ed. Law Rep. 172,

1 A.D. Cases 357

Maryellen H. DOYLE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA IN BIRMINGHAM, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 81-7697.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

July 19, 1982.

David H. Thomas, Birmingham, Ala., for plaintiff-appellant.

Ina Leonard, University of Alabama in Birmingham, Birmingham, Ala., for defendants-appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.

Before GODBOLD, Chief Judge, MERRITT ^* and HENDERSON, Circuit Judges.

MERRITT, Circuit Judge:

Maryellen Doyle, an employee of the University of Alabama for over 20 years, was by her own admission an alcoholic in the Fall of 1979. In October 1979, after her condition had come to the attention of her supervisors on several occasions, Ms. Doyle was placed on involuntary sick leave with full pay and was asked to seek treatment. A memorandum to that effect was placed in her personnel files. She was permitted to return to work on January 23, 1980, but was informed that she would be put on "probation" for 60 days. Doyle worked at full pay during the probationary period. In fact, "probation" was no more than a warning to Doyle that her continued employment was conditioned upon a showing that her alcoholism was under sufficient control to enable her to perform satisfactory work at the University. Thereafter, Doyle continued working for the University. In May 1980, the University decided not to grant her a raise in salary that had earlier been recommended by a salary review committee. In February 1981, Doyle sued the University of Alabama and three university employees individually under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1976) alleging a deprivation of property without due process because she was placed on involuntary sick leave, placed on probation and denied a salary increase, all without prior notice and hearing. Apart from the damages associated with the salary raise claim, the only deprivation Doyle alleges under § 1983 is injury to reputation which she asserts was caused by the job-related sanctions imposed upon her and by the inclusion in her files of a memorandum about her alcoholism. Doyle further claimed that by imposing these sanctions the University permitted discrimination against her on the basis of her admitted handicap, alcoholism, and, therefore, was liable to her under § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794, which creates a private right of action against federally funded programs which discriminate against the handicapped.

The District Court dismissed the claims under § 1983 and § 504 on various grounds including eleventh amendment immunity, statute of limitations, and failure to state a claim. We find that except for the salary claim, all the § 1983 claims are barred by the one-year Alabama statute of limitations; that the claims regarding denial of a salary increase are not actionable under § 1983; and the allegations under § 504 fail to state a claim under that statute. We, therefore, affirm the judgment of the District Court on those issues but do not reach the question whether a state university is entitled to sovereign immunity under § 1983.

The § 1983 Claims

There is no dispute that Alabama's one-year statute of limitations applies to all the § 1983 claims raised here. See Sewell v. Grand Lodge of Int'l Ass'n of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, 445 F.2d 545 (5th Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 1024, 92 S.Ct. 674, 30 L.Ed.2d 674 (1972); Ala.Code § 6-2-39(a)(5) (1975). Since Doyle did not bring her suit until February 11, 1981, any permissible cause of action must have accrued no earlier than February 11, 1980. The former Fifth Circuit has held that under § 1983 a cause of action for employment discrimination accrues when " 'facts supportive of a ... civil rights action are or should be apparent to a reasonably prudent person similarly situated' " Dumas v. Town of Mount Vernon, 612 F.2d 974, 978 (5th Cir. 1980), quoting Hamilton v. General Motors Corp., 606 F.2d 576, 579 (5th Cir. 1979); see also Esslinger v. Spragins, 236 Ala. 508, 513, 183 So. 401 (1938) (cause of action accrues in Alabama "as soon as a party is entitled to begin prosecution thereon"). The only claim brought under § 1983 that clearly satisfies this requirement is that regarding the denial of Doyle's salary increase in May 1980. The other claims both accrued more than a year before institution of the suit: (1) On October 16, 1979, Doyle was placed on involuntary sick leave and a memorandum to that effect was placed in her personnel files soon thereafter. (2) Upon her return to work on January 23, 1980, Doyle was placed on "probation" i.e., was warned that her job was contingent on her satisfactory performance over a sixty-day period. In each case, the only injury she claims is that her reputation was damaged because of the actions of her supervisors. Even assuming that damages to reputation alone were actionable under § 1983 and that a cause of action for injury to reputation could be stated here where the plaintiff admits her alcoholism, the action is barred. It is clear that the defendant's actions each were complete no later than January 23, 1980, and that the plaintiff-appellant was aware of the fact that sanctions were being imposed upon her because of what her supervisors believed to be her alcoholism. All elements of the alleged injury were known or should have been known to the plaintiff-appellant by January 23, 1980. Under Alabama defamation law injury to reputation accrues upon publication, which in this case would be no later than January 23, 1980. The statute does not toll during the length of time that the plaintiff allegedly suffers the effect of the injury. Thus there is no support for the plaintiff's argument that the statute would toll for the 60-day period that the probationary "warning" was in effect. Any injury to her reputation was complete and actionable when she was warned.

Nor is there any merit to the argument that the statute should be tolled because the University failed to notify Doyle of her right to a hearing before she was deprived of a constitutionally protected property...