Langley v. Jackson State University

• Decision Date: 28 February 1994
• Docket Number: No. 92-7461,92-7461
• Citation: 14 F.3d 1070
• Parties: 64 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 111, 63 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 42,863, 62 USLW 2460, 89 Ed. Law Rep. 50 Dr. Bettye R. LANGLEY, Plaintiff-Appellee Cross-Appellant, v. JACKSON STATE UNIVERSITY and Dr. Herman Smith, in his Official Capacity, Defendants-Appellants Cross-Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

Page 1070

14 F.3d 1070

64 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 111,

63 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 42,863, 62 USLW 2460,

89 Ed. Law Rep. 50

Dr. Bettye R. LANGLEY, Plaintiff-Appellee Cross-Appellant, v. JACKSON STATE UNIVERSITY and Dr. Herman Smith, in his

Official Capacity, Defendants-Appellants Cross-Appellees.

No. 92-7461.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Feb. 28, 1994.

Rehearing and Suggestion for

Rehearing En Banc Denied

March 30, 1994.

Maudine Eckford, Leonard McClellan, Sp. Asst. Attys. Gen., Mike Moore, Atty. Gen., Jackson, MS, for appellant.

Shirley Payne, Dennis L. Horn, Horn & Payne, Jackson, MS, for appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi.

Before DUHE and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges, and BLACK, ^* District Judge.

EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judge:

Jackson State University ("JSU") appeals the district court's factual finding that JSU breached the terms and conditions of an agreement which settled a prior racial discrimination suit brought by Dr. Bettye R. Langley. Langley cross-appeals, contending that the district court improperly allocated the burden of proof in finding that she failed to prove discrimination based upon her race or retaliation for bringing a prior discrimination suit. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm in part, and vacate and dismiss in part.

I

In 1977, Dr. Langley, a white female, began working at JSU, a predominately black institution in Jackson, Mississippi, as a professor of elementary and early childhood education in JSU's School of Education. In 1986, Dr. Langley filed a discrimination suit against JSU, pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e et seq., claiming, inter alia, that she was being denied the opportunity to conduct a child abuse workshop because of her race. A year later, Langley and JSU entered into a settlement agreement. The district court, noting that the parties had stipulated to dismiss the action, ordered that the action be dismissed with prejudice. The court, however, neither approved nor incorporated the settlement agreement into its order of dismissal. The court also did not indicate that it intended to retain jurisdiction over future actions brought to enforce the settlement agreement. ¹

In 1990, Dr. Langley filed another Title VII suit against JSU, claiming that JSU had discriminated against her because of her race and in retaliation for her prior Title VII suit. Dr. Langley claimed in particular that Dr. Johnnie Mills, a black female and academic dean of the School of Education, and Dr. Anita Hall, a black female and chairperson of Dr. Langley's academic department, constantly required her to teach an overload, refused to timely pay her, refused to approve her workshops in accordance with JSU policy, denied her merit pay increases, refused to provide her with office space, furniture and telephone service, assigned her to double registration duties, and denied her sabbatical leave and travel expenses, all on account of Dr. Langley's race. In a separate action, Dr. Langley further claimed that JSU was violating the terms and conditions of the settlement agreement regarding the prior Title VII suit. The two actions were consolidated before trial. ²

After a six-day bench trial, the district court issued a memorandum opinion and order, finding that Dr. Langley did not "sustain[ ] her burden of persuasion to demonstrate that any treatment she ... received [was] the result of retaliation and/or discrimination or that she has been subjected to a hostile racial environment such as would entitle her to relief." The district court further found, however, that Dr. Langley was "entitled to recover compensation for her work as continuing education coordinator from and after January 1990 inasmuch as the proof showed that [JSU] failed to grant her the twenty-five percent reduction set forth in her settlement agreement with [JSU] for those services." ³

JSU contends on appeal that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the action to enforce the settlement agreement, and that even if the court had jurisdiction, the court clearly erred in finding that JSU breached the terms and conditions of the agreement. In her cross-appeal, Dr. Langley contends that the district court erred in failing to apply a "motivating factor" proof methodology ⁴ to her claims of discrimination and retaliation.

II

A Breach of the Settlement Agreement

1. Subject Matter Jurisdiction

JSU first contends that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Dr. Langley's action to enforce the settlement agreement. ⁵ Citing Fairfax Countywide Citizens v. Fairfax County, 571 F.2d 1299 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1047, 99 S.Ct. 722, 58 L.Ed.2d 706 (1978), JSU argues that because the district court failed to approve or incorporate the settlement agreement into its order of dismissal, the court required some independent ground upon which to base federal jurisdiction. In Fairfax, the district court dismissed a racial discrimination suit brought under the Equal Protection Clause after the parties had entered into settlement agreements. See id., 571 F.2d at 1301. The district court neither approved nor incorporated the settlement agreements into its dismissal orders. See id. Three years later, plaintiffs moved the district court to vacate its dismissal orders so that the court could enforce the settlement agreements. See id. at 1302. The Fourth Circuit held that while "a district court has the authority under Rule 60(b)(6) to vacate its prior dismissal order and restore the case to its docket," a district court is not empowered to enforce a settlement agreement "unless the agreement had been approved and incorporated into an order of the court, or, at the time the court is requested to enforce the agreement, there exists some independent ground upon which to base federal jurisdiction." Id. at 1303; see also McCall-Bey v. Franzen, 777 F.2d 1178, 1186-87 (7th Cir.1985) (adopting Fairfax rule) (holding that "unless jurisdiction is retained [a] settlement agreement requires an independent basis of federal jurisdiction in order to be enforceable in federal rather than state court"). But see Aro Corp. v. Allied Witan Co., 531 F.2d 1368, 1371 (6th Cir.) (finding subject matter jurisdiction over a post-dismissal action to enforce a settlement agreement, by virtue of a district court's "inherent power to enforce settlement agreements entered into in settlement of litigation pending before [it]"), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 862, 97 S.Ct. 165, 50 L.Ed.2d 140 (1976).

A federal district court is a court of limited jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing jurisdiction is on the party claiming it. See McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 182-83, 56 S.Ct. 780, 781-82, 80 L.Ed. 1135 (1936). Dr. Langley argues that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over the action to enforce the settlement agreement on the following grounds: (a) her motion to enforce the settlement agreement is an action arising under Title VII; and (b) federal courts have the inherent power to enforce agreements settling litigation pending before them. Both grounds are insufficient to support subject matter jurisdiction.

Dr. Langley cites E.E.O.C. v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 714 F.2d 567 (5th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1204, 104 S.Ct. 2384, 81 L.Ed.2d 343 (1984), for the proposition that an action to enforce an agreement settling a Title VII suit is an action arising under federal law. In Safeway, we held that "federal courts have jurisdiction over suits to enforce Title VII conciliation agreements." Id. at 571-72 (emphasis added). We reasoned that "[a]lthough Title VII does not explicitly provide the EEOC with the authority to seek enforcement of conciliation agreements in federal court, it would be antithetical to Congress' strong commitment to the conciliatory process if there were no federal forum in the EEOC could enforce such agreements." Id. at 572. We further noted that Congress' commitment to the conciliatory process was evidenced by its creation of the EEOC and establishment of an "administrative structure whereby the agency 'would have an opportunity to settle disputes through conference, conciliation, and persuasion before the aggrieved party was permitted to file a lawsuit.' " Id. (emphasis added). In our case, Dr. Langley does not offer, and we cannot find, any indication that Congress has established an administrative structure evidencing its intent to provide a federal forum for private parties to enforce settlement agreements ending discrimination disputes after a lawsuit has been filed. Consequently, our decision in Safeway is not on point. Moreover, we have found no authority applying the holding in Safeway to non-administrative settlements of Title VII suits. We therefore reject Dr. Langley's first basis for showing subject matter jurisdiction.

Langley next argues that even if the action to enforce the settlement agreement was not an action arising under Title VII, subject matter jurisdiction nevertheless existed because federal district courts have "the inherent power ... to enforce an agreement settling litigation pending before the court." In re Corrugated Container Antitrust Litigation, 752 F.2d 137, 142 (5th Cir.) (citing Massachusetts Casualty Ins. Co. v. Forman, 469 F.2d 259 (5th Cir.1972); Cia Anon Venezolana de Navegacion v. Harris, 374 F.2d 33 (5th Cir.1967)), cert. denied, 473 U.S. 911, 105 S.Ct. 3536, 87 L.Ed.2d 660 (1985); see Aro Corp., 531 F.2d at 1371. In Corrugated, the plaintiffs sought to enforce an agreement which had settled litigation before the district court. The plaintiffs brought the action to enforce the settlement agreement after the prior suit had been dismissed. Because the district court had approved of and incorporated the terms of the settlement agreement in its consent decree, we had no cause to decide the issue...