Harden v. Adams

Decision Date20 May 1985
Docket NumberNo. 84-7243,84-7243
Citation760 F.2d 1158
Parties24 Ed. Law Rep. 739 T. Dewey HARDEN, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ralph ADAMS, individually and as President of Troy State University, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit

J. Victor Price, Jr., Montgomery, Ala., for plaintiff-appellant.

Richard F. Calhoun, Troy, Ala., Dow T. Huskey, Dothan, Ala., for defendants-appellees.

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

Before KRAVITCH and JOHNSON, Circuit Judges, and TUTTLE, Senior Circuit Judge.

JOHNSON, Circuit Judge:

T. Dewey Harden brought this action under 42 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1983, for violation of his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights in connection with his termination by Troy State University. The United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama granted summary judgment in favor of all defendants. Because the district court erred in finding that four of these defendants were entitled to qualified or "good faith" immunity from the claims raised against them in their individual capacities, we reverse in part. We affirm the grant of summary judgment as to these defendants in their official capacities, and as to all other defendants in both their official and individual capacities.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

T. Dewey Harden was a tenured faculty member at Troy State University. On March 25, 1982, University administrators received a written complaint from Harden's Department Chairman concerning derogatory comments that Harden had made about him. This complaint prompted a series of discussions about Harden among University administrators. On May 6, 1982, Robert Paul, Vice-President of the University and Chief Executive Officer of the Dothan/Ft. Rucker branch of the University, notified Harden that he was terminated as of June 30, 1982. The grounds cited by Paul for the termination were:

1. Unacceptable statements concerning the qualifications of the Chairman of the Department.

2. Making or attempting to make extra charges to students beyond those fees listed in the quarterly schedule.

3. Failure to keep adequate or required office hours.

4. Failure to keep appointments with students.

5. Failure to submit course outlines as required.

6. Failure to teach the course material as set out in the course outline.

7. Failure to teach course material adequately.

8. Continually bringing or requesting that food be brought into the classroom with students, after being requested not to do so.

9. Requiring personal information and pictures from students, after being requested not to do so.

10. Grievances from students regarding professional duties.

11. Failure to follow established procedure for changing a grade.

12. Advising students improper procedure for changing a grade.

13. Advising students to draft a petition and get the signatures of other students in contravention of University policy.

14. Advising students to draft a petition which was derogatory to the Chairman of the Department.

15. Advising or agreeing the petition be taken to a local newspaper.

16. Failure to follow established procedures by notifying students of grades given by another professor.

17. Fomenting disharmony and dissension among the students and staff of the University in the handling and sponsorship of Gamma Beta Phi.

18. Fomenting disharmony with administration of the University in writing letters to faculty, specifically, the March 1, 1982, letter.

19. Alleged sexual impropriety.

20. Making misleading or incorrect statements to the local news media.

On May 14, 1982, Harden responded through his attorney to Ralph Adams, President of Troy State University. He asked to be afforded the administrative remedies available to him, and to have a clarification of the charges against him. On June 8, 1982, Adams advised Harden that he had delegated to Paul all authority to terminate faculty personnel, and administrative remedies would be handled through Paul's office. Unsatisfied by this response, Harden filed suit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama. On June 17, 1982, the same day the suit was filed, the University responded, stating that Harden would be granted a hearing before the Faculty Personnel Advisory Committee on June 30, 1982. On June 21, 1982, the Chairman of the Faculty Personnel Committee advised Harden in writing of all of the details of the hearing.

At Harden's request, the hearing was rescheduled for July 7, 1982. Between that date and July 14, 1982, the Committee heard testimony and received documents from both parties. Harden was represented by his attorney and an AEA representative, and was permitted to call and cross-examine witnesses. On August 3, 1982, the Committee delivered its written decision, supporting the termination decision of which Harden had been notified. On August 31, 1982, Paul advised Harden in writing that, based upon the decision and recommendation of the Committee, his termination was final.

A. The Course of Proceedings

On June 17, 1982, Harden filed an action under 42 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1983, alleging that his termination from Troy State University violated his right to free speech and due process. The complaint named as defendants Troy State University; Ralph Adams, individually and as President of Troy State; Robert Paul, individually and as Vice-President of Troy State; and the members of the Board of Trustees, in their official and individual capacities. The complaint sought back pay, punitive damages, reinstatement and injunctive relief.

On August 31, 1982, appellees filed their answer to the complaint. They amended their answer on September 10, 1982, adding several grounds of defense. On September 13, 1982, appellant was granted leave to amend, and did amend his complaint, adding as defendants Troy State Deans Grimmer, Thornton and Kirkland, in their official and individual capacities. Appellees answered this amended complaint on October 25, 1982.

A pretrial conference was held on September 1, 1982. An order was issued pursuant to this hearing on September 3, 1982. This order was amended to limit appellant's right to a jury trial to the issue of damages, and to reserve to the court the right to determine the issue of liability, after appellees filed a motion requesting such limitation.

On November 12, 1982, the members of the Board of Trustees of Troy State University moved for summary judgment. This motion was granted January 14, 1983. On January 28, 1983, Troy State University moved for summary judgment. This motion was granted on March 29, 1983. On July 6, 1983, Grimmer, Kirkland and Thornton moved for summary judgment. Their motion was granted on September 27, 1983. On January 12, 1984, Adams moved for summary judgment. The motion was granted by the trial court on March 19, 1984. On February 16, 1984, the last appellee, Robert Paul, moved for summary judgment. On March 19, 1984, the court granted this motion. In each case appellant was ordered to respond, and did in fact respond, to appellees' motions.

On March 2, 1984, appellant filed a motion for summary judgment. The court denied this motion seven days later, without opinion and without having required appellees to respond.

Appellant filed his notice of appeal on April 9, 1984.

II. ISSUES AND DISCUSSION
A. Eleventh Amendment Immunity

The district court found that appellant's action against Troy State University, and against each of the appellees in his official capacity, was barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Appellant contests this finding of sovereign immunity on the grounds that Troy State University and the individual appellees who administer it are not "arms" or "agencies" of the state, and that the funds used to provide relief need not come from the state treasury. There is little merit to either of these claims.

In Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 663, 94 S.Ct. 1347, 1355, 39 L.Ed.2d 662 (1974), the Court held that the Eleventh Amendment barred suits by private parties "seeking to impose a liability which must be paid from public funds in the state treasury." This rule applies whether the action is instituted against a state, a state agency or instrumentality, or a state official. Id. In Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781, 98 S.Ct. 3057, 57 L.Ed.2d 1114 (1978), the Court held that actions for injunctive relief against a state or its instrumentality were also barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Under either standard the critical inquiry is whether the entity sued can be considered an "agency or instrumentality" of the state; this inquiry is generally conducted by reference to state law. Mt. Healthy Board of Education v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 97 S.Ct. 568, 50 L.Ed.2d 471 (1977); Sessions v. Rusk State Hospital, 648 F.2d 1066 (5th Cir.1981). Factors that bear on this determination include the definition of "state" and "political subdivision"; the degree of state control over the entity; and the fiscal autonomy of the entity. Fouche v. Jekyll Island-State Park Authority, 713 F.2d 1518, 1520 (11th Cir.1983). Where the budget of an entity is submitted to the state for approval, this suggests that the entity is an agency of the state for purposes of the last two factors. Id.

The Alabama Supreme Court has held on at least two occasions that state universities, including Troy State University, are agencies or instrumentalities of the state. See Massler v. Troy State University, 343 So.2d 1 (Ala.1977); Ellison v. Abbot, 337 So.2d 756 (Ala.1976). Moreover, Troy State University is subject to substantial state control: its Board of Trustees, which reports to the state legislature yearly on the condition of the University, is composed in part of state officials and in part of gubernatorial appointees. Sections 16-56-1 and 16-56-3, Code of Alabama (1975). Troy State must also submit its budget to, and receive appropriations from, the state legislature. Section 16-56-10, Code of Alabama (1975). The Alabama Supreme Court...

To continue reading

Request your trial
109 cases
  • Angle v. Dow, Civ. A. No. 92-0344-AH-C.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Alabama
    • 1 Junio 1993
    ...Law Handbook, § 23.5 at 491, n. 57 (1990) & 1992 Supp. at 140 (collecting cases of unsuccessful outrage claims). 102 See Harden v. Adams, 760 F.2d 1158, 1166 (11th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom. Grimmer v. Harden, 474 U.S. 1007, 106 S.Ct. 530, 88 L.Ed.2d 462 (1985) ("strong policy reflected i......
  • Parker v. Williams
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit
    • 20 Septiembre 1988
    ...Lucius Amerson( ) ( ) Macon County, Alabama2 Eleventh Amendment immunity is generally decided by reference to state law. Harden v. Adams, 760 F.2d 1158 (11th Cir.1985); see also Mt. Healthy City Bd. of Ed. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 280, 97 S.Ct. 568, 572, 50 L.Ed.2d 471 (1977) ("depends, at l......
  • J.A.W. v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • 15 Mayo 1995
    ...and "political subdivision," the degree of state control over the entity, and the fiscal autonomy of the entity. Harden v. Adams, 760 F.2d 1158, 1163 (11th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1007, 106 S.Ct. 530, 88 L.Ed.2d 462. Some cases have placed particular emphasis on the entity's abili......
  • El-Bey v. Menefee
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Alabama
    • 27 Octubre 2014
    ...not "persons" subject to liability under § 1983. Edwards v. Wallace Cmty. Coll., 49 F.3d 1517, 1524 (11th Cir.1995); Harden v. Adams, 760 F.2d 1158, 1163-64 (11th Cir. 1985); Rigby v. Auburn Univ., 448 So. 2d 345, 347 (Ala. 1984). Further, in City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507, 117 (199......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • CHAPTER 8 TRIAL PRESENTATION AND EVIDENCE
    • United States
    • FNREL - Special Institute Natural Resources and Environmental Litigation (FNREL)
    • Invalid date
    ...2(d) deals with the waiver of objections as to testimony, form of question or answers and other irregularities. [4] Harden v. Adams, 760 F.2d 1158 (11th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1007 (1985) (waiver of jury trial). [5] Assoc. Press v. Cook, 513 F.2d 1300 (10th Cir. 1975). [6] John ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT