Gargiul v. Tompkins, 1267
| Decision Date | 06 July 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 1267,D,1267 |
| Citation | 739 F.2d 34 |
| Parties | 18 Ed. Law Rep. 844 Lorraine GARGIUL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Virgil E. TOMPKINS, Individually and as District Superintendent of Liverpool Central School District, James Johnson, Individually and as Acting Superintendent of Liverpool Central School District, Dennis Jones, Individually and as Coordinator of Personnel of Liverpool Central School District, Dr. Paul Day, Individually and as Chief Medical Inspector for the Liverpool Central School District, F. Robert Kolch, Individually and as Clerk of the Board of Education of the Liverpool Central School District, Arthur D. Little, Bruce C. Vojt, Emilio Chasse, Doris Ann Connor, David A. Files, Marie Hartwell, Richard J. Hayko, Toni Anne Morris, Lloyd J. Spafford, as Individuals and as Members of the Board of Education of the Liverpool Central School District, the Board of Education of the Liverpool Central School District, Liverpool, New York, and Arnold Dettor, as Hearing Officer appointed pursuant to New York State Education Law, Defendants-Appellees. ocket 82-7482. . Originally |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
James M. Sullivan, Jr., P.C., Syracuse, N.Y., for plaintiff-appellant.
Kenneth A. Windstein, Syracuse, N.Y., O'Hara, Fletcher, Felice & Crough, Syracuse, N.Y., for defendants-appellees.
Before FEINBERG, Chief Judge, OAKES, Circuit Judge, and TENNEY, District Judge. *
This action is before the Court pursuant to an order of the Supreme Court, Tompkins v. Gargiul, --- U.S. ----, 104 S.Ct. 1263, 79 L.Ed.2d 670 (1984), which vacated our prior judgment and remanded the case for consideration in light of Migra v. Warren City School Dist. Bd. of Educ., --- U.S. ----, 104 S.Ct. 892, 79 L.Ed.2d 56 (1984). We, in turn, reverse and remand for consideration in light of New York law regarding the preclusive effect of prior state court proceedings.
A full history of the administrative and judicial proceedings instituted by plaintiff-appellant on the state level is set out in our prior opinion, Gargiul v. Tompkins, 704 F.2d 661 (2d Cir.1983), and will not be repeated here. In summary, Lorraine Gargiul ("Gargiul"), a tenured schoolteacher in the Liverpool Central School District in New York, was dismissed from her position in 1977 on the ground of incompetency. The dismissal followed over two years of suspension without pay. She had been suspended when she refused, after an extended sick leave, to submit to a physical examination by the male school district physician. She explained that it was against her "creed" to be examined by a male physician and offered to be examined, at her own expense, by a female physician. Her offer was refused. She unsuccessfully challenged her suspension in state administrative proceedings and in a separate state court proceeding under Article 78, brought against the Board of Education of the Liverpool Central School District ("Board"). Subsequent to her dismissal, Gargiul instituted a second Article 78 proceeding against the Board and Arnold Dettor ("Dettor"), a hearing officer, in which, without success, she again raised the propriety of her suspension and, for the first time, challenged her dismissal. Gargiul sought to appeal both state court decisions, but leave to appeal was denied.
Early in the course of the state proceedings, Gargiul commenced this action in federal district court under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 (Supp. V 1981) ("Sec. 1983"), challenging both her suspension without pay and her dismissal on the ground that defendants impermissibly infringed on her right to substantive due process, and particularly, on her right to privacy. In this action, she names as defendants not only the Board and Dettor, who were defendants in the state court proceedings, but also the members of the Board and various officials and employees of the Liverpool Central School District, in their individual as well as their official capacities. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants and dismissed the action on the ground that plaintiff had failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted.
In our prior opinion, we considered, inter alia, whether the prior state proceedings barred Gargiul's present claims under Sec. 1983, and we affirmed in part and reversed in part. We applied what was then the law in this circuit concerning res judicata and collateral estoppel in Sec. 1983 actions, and we found that Gargiul's claims regarding her dismissal were precluded under collateral estoppel, but that the two claims challenging her suspension were not barred. Following Lombard v. Board of Educ., 502 F.2d 631, 635-37 (2d Cir.1974), and its progeny, we stated that, notwithstanding the federal full faith and credit statute, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1738 (1982) ("Sec. 1738"), 1 a prior state court proceeding does not bar federal court consideration of constitutional claims not actually litigated and determined in the state court proceeding. Applying this rule, we first found that the suspension claim which was never considered on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- HP Hood, Inc. v. COM'R OF AGRICULTURE, Civ. No. 90-0193-B.
-
Elliott v. University of Tennessee
...v. Tompkins, 704 F.2d 661, 667 (2d Cir.1983), vacated on other grounds, --- U.S. ----, 104 S.Ct. 1263, 79 L.Ed.2d 670 on remand, 739 F.2d 34 (1984); 6 Patsy v. Florida International University, 634 F.2d 900, 910 (5th Cir.1981) (en banc), rev'd on other grounds sub nom. Patsy v. Board of Reg......
-
In re Cohen
...96, 101 S.Ct. at 415; Kelleran v. Andrijevic, 825 F.2d at 694; Gorin v. Osborne, 756 F.2d 834, 836-37 (11th Cir.1985); Gargiul v. Tompkins, 739 F.2d 34, 36 (2d Cir.1984); Winters v. Lavine, 574 F.2d 46, 54 (2d Cir.1978). Section 1738, in pertinent part, mandates that state judicial proceedi......
-
Gargiul v. Tompkins
...effect to Gargiul I or Gargiul II with respect to Gargiul's constitutional challenge to the denial of suspension pay. Gargiul v. Tompkins, 739 F.2d 34 (2d Cir.1984). On that remand, the District Judge held that the New York law of res judicata barred this section 1983 action. This appeal In......