Kompara v. Board of Regents of the State Univ.

• Decision Date: 22 September 1982
• Docket Number: No. 82-3346.,82-3346.
• Citation: 548 F. Supp. 537
• Parties: Diane Mae KOMPARA, Plaintiff, v. BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE STATE UNIVERSITY and COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM of TENNESSEE, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Tennessee

548 F. Supp. 537

Diane Mae KOMPARA, Plaintiff, v. BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE STATE UNIVERSITY and COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM of TENNESSEE, et al., Defendants.

No. 82-3346.

United States District Court, M. D. Tennessee, Nashville Division.

September 22, 1982.

Charles Hampton White and William Prentice Cooper, Nashville, Tenn., for plaintiff.

Susan Short-Kelly, Asst. Atty. Gen., Nashville, Tenn., for defendants.

MEMORANDUM

WISEMAN, District Judge.

Plaintiff's complaint arises under the fourteenth amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging deprivation of rights secured by the laws of the United States and the due process and equal protection clauses of the fourteenth amendment. Specifically, plaintiff complains that defendants have denied her tenure as a member of the faculty at East Tennessee State University ETSU, thereby violating the due process and equal protection guarantees of the fourteenth amendment. Defendants are the Board of Regents of the State University and Community College System of the State of Tennessee Board of Regents; Roy S. Nicks, Chancellor of the State University and Community College System of Tennessee; ETSU; and ETSU's President, Ronald E. Beller. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, including reinstatement, and also seeks back pay.

In her complaint, plaintiff alleges that she served as a member of the ETSU faculty in the Department of Social Work continuously from the school year 1970-71 through the school year 1976-77. Upon return from a one-year leave of absence, plaintiff contends that she returned to the faculty with academic rank. Plaintiff's complaint alleges that she submitted a written application to ETSU on December 5, 1975, for an award of tenure and that this application was rejected on June 4, 1976. As to these events, plaintiff alleges that the denial of tenure in 1976 violated Sections 49-1412 and 49-3255, Tennessee Code Annotated, and was contrary to the then-operative regulations on tenure as adopted by the Board of Regents. The complaint further alleges that defendant Nicks retroactively applied new regulations to plaintiff's tenure application, thus violating her due process and equal protection rights.

Plaintiff applied a second time for tenure as a member of ETSU's faculty on November 29, 1978. On June 29, 1979, the Board of Regents conferred tenure on her, contingent upon her receiving a terminal degree, but plaintiff alleges that the Board of Regents has since that date continuously intended to deprive her of tenure. Further, plaintiff alleges that defendant Beller wrote her a letter on April 7, 1981, advising her that she would be terminated as a faculty member unless she earned a terminal degree by the end of the 1981-82 school year. According to plaintiff, this letter violated her constitutional rights in two ways. First, plaintiff alleges that by conditioning her position on the faculty on the receipt of a terminal degree prior to the end of the 1981-82 school year, defendants acted to deprive her of her property without due process of law. Second, plaintiff alleges that the requirement stated in the April 7, 1981, letter violated her rights to equal protection of the law because defendants allegedly permitted male members of the faculty to attain tenured positions and continue teaching without first receiving terminal degrees in any specified time.

Defendants have moved to dismiss this complaint or, in the alternative for summary judgment, on three grounds: (1) the complaint was not filed within the statute of limitations; (2) the eleventh amendment bars this proceeding against these defendants, and (3) defendants ETSU and the Board of Regents are not "persons" for purposes of section 1983 and therefore plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action as to these defendants.

Statute of Limitations

Defendants assert that plaintiff's action is barred by the statute of limitations. In this federal civil rights action, the Court must look to state law for the applicable statute of limitations. Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, Inc., 421 U.S. 454, 95 S.Ct. 1716, 44 L.Ed.2d 295 (1975). Tennessee Code Annotated § 28-3-104 provides a one-year statute of limitations for civil actions brought under the civil rights statute. The one-year statute of limitations also applies to actions brought under the fourteenth amendment. Wright v. Tennessee, 613 F.2d 647 (6th Cir. 1980).

Defendants contend that the statute of limitations was triggered on July 29, 1979, when plaintiff was awarded tenure contingent upon her receiving a terminal degree. Plaintiff, on the other hand, points to the letter from ETSU's President dated April 7, 1981, advising plaintiff that she would be terminated unless she earned her terminal degree by the end of the 1981-82 school year. Plaintiff contends that she in fact met the one-year statute of limitations by filing this suit on April 6, 1982.

After looking at the facts as stated by the parties, upon which there is no major disagreement, and studying the pleadings contained in plaintiff's complaint, the Court concludes that plaintiff's claims are timely. Defendants attempt to dismiss the April 7, 1981, letter as "simply a consequence of the alleged violation of plaintiff's rights which occurred in 1979." Defendants' Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss at p. 5. Although it is true that plaintiff's contingent tenure award was made in June of 1979, plaintiff was not notified until April 7, 1981, that she was required to earn her terminal degree within a specific time frame. Plaintiff alleges not only that some male faculty members are granted tenure without similar degrees, she also complains that male faculty members who do work towards terminal degrees are not placed under similar deadlines. Thus, the information contained in the April 7 letter represents a separate act by defendants and cannot be regarded as just a consequence of decisions made in 1979.

The Supreme Court has made it clear that the limitations period commences at the time of the alleged violation, not the time at which the consequences of the acts become most painful. Delaware State College v. Ricks, 449 U.S. 250, 258, 101 S.Ct. 498, 504, 66 L.Ed.2d 431, 440 (1980). Furthermore, mere continuity of employment, without more, is insufficient to prolong the life of a cause of action. United Air Lines, Inc. v. Evans, 431 U.S. 553, 558, 97 S.Ct. 1885, 1889, 52 L.Ed.2d 571 (1977). This ruling is not inconsistent with these guidelines because here there is a specific act by defendant which arose within the statutory period. Thus, plaintiff's action is not barred by the statute of limitations.

Eleventh Amendment and Section 1983 Issues

The parties have addressed the eleventh amendment and the scope of a "person" under section 1983 as separate grounds. However, at least in terms of the defendants named herein, the two questions are so closely interrelated that they must be confronted simultaneously.

The eleventh amendment in its literal terms provides that one of the United States may not be sued in federal court by a citizen of a different state. The Supreme Court subsequently decided that the amendment also barred federal suits against a state by its own citizens, Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1, 10 S.Ct. 504, 33 L.Ed. 842 (1890). However, under the legal fiction created in the landmark decision of Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 28 S.Ct. 441, 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908), a federal court, consistent with the eleventh amendment, may enjoin state officials to conform their future conduct to the requirements of federal law, even though such an injunction may have an ancillary effect on the state treasury.

Apart from the legal fiction of Ex Parte Young, two other inroads upon eleventh amendment immunity have evolved from the cases. First, a state may waive its immunity. See Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781, 98 S.Ct. 3057, 57 L.Ed.2d 1114 (1978). Second, pursuant to the fifth section of the fourteenth amendment, Congress can pass laws to enforce the substantive provisions of the fourteenth amendment and authorize federal suits against states. See Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445, 96 S.Ct. 2666, 49 L.Ed.2d 614 (1976) (Title VII action not barred by eleventh amendment). This second limit on state immunity brings us to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, because Congress had the power to include states as "persons" for purposes of section 1983, if it so desired.

The definition of "person" has not been entirely static, a factor which has led in part to this dispute. In 1978, the Supreme Court overruled long-standing precedent that cities and municipal corporations were not "persons" under the statute. Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978). One of the questions to be decided herein is whether, after Monell, state-supported universities are "persons" for purposes of section 1983. Before turning to the specific argument of the parties, one further development in this area of the law is worth noting. In Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 94 S.Ct. 1347, 39 L.Ed.2d 662 (1974), the Supreme Court held that a suit in federal court by private parties seeking to impose a liability which must be paid from public funds in the state treasury is barred by the eleventh amendment. Thus, Edelman limits the remedies in an action brought in a Ex Parte Young type case.

Plaintiff argues that the Monell rationale also applies to the defendants herein, relying heavily on Gay Student Services v. Texas A & M University, 612 F.2d 160 (5th Cir. 1980) and Harris v. Arizona Board of Regents, 528 F.Supp. 987 (D.Ariz.1981). Plaintiff urges this Court to adopt the reasoning used in Harris, where the District Court for the District of Arizona considered whether the Arizona Board of Regents and Arizona State University were "persons" for section 1983 purposes. The court in Harris used the following analysis:

The language of § 1983 is broad and sweeping. Owen v.

...