Phillip v. University of Rochester

• Decision Date: 21 January 2003
• Docket Number: Docket No. 01-7582.
• Citation: 316 F.3d 291
• Parties: Nigel S. PHILLIP, Bernard Schmidt, St. Patrick Reid, and Grant Gittens, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER, Raymond Pipitone, and James Clukey, Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

316 F.3d 291

Nigel S. PHILLIP, Bernard Schmidt, St. Patrick Reid, and Grant Gittens, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER, Raymond Pipitone, and James Clukey, Defendants-Appellees.

Docket No. 01-7582.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Argued: April 10, 2002.

Decided: January 21, 2003.

Jeffrey Wicks, Bansbach, Zoghlin, Wicks & Wahl, P.C., Rochester, NY, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Thomas E. Reidy, Ward Norris Heller & Reidy, LLP, Rochester, NY, for Defendant-Appellee University of Rochester.

Christopher A. DiPasquale, Harris Beach LLP, Pittsford, NY, for Defendants-Appellees Raymond Pipitone and James Clukey.

Before: McLAUGHLIN, POOLER, and B.D. PARKER, Jr., Circuit Judges.

POOLER, Circuit Judge.

We are asked to decide whether the equal benefit clause of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 requires a showing of state action. Based primarily on the clear language of the statute, we hold that plaintiffs may sustain a claim for breach of the equal benefit clause without making a traditional state action showing. We caution, however, that this same statutory language constrains the breadth of the equal benefit clause. That is, plaintiffs must demonstrate that defendants, motivated by racial animosity, deprived or attempted to deprive plaintiffs of "the full and equal benefit" of a law or proceeding "for the security of persons and property." 42 U.S.C. § 1981(a).

BACKGROUND

Nigel S. Phillip, Bernard Schmidt, St. Patrick Reid, and Grant Gittens are African-Americans and were, at the time of the pertinent events, students at the University of Rochester, a private university. In the early morning of April 30, 1999, the plaintiffs and other students, most of whom were minorities, gathered to socialize in the lobby of the university library.¹ Within minutes, James Clukey, a university security officer, came up to the students and told them to "break it up" and "take it outside." Although the students attempted to comply with Clukey's order, he demanded that Gittens show his university identification and asked the other individuals whether they were students at the university. One of the students, Elizabeth Pena, reached into Gittens' pocket, pulled out his university identification and said, "there, you see he's a student here. We are all students here." Clukey snatched Gittens' identification card and radioed the Rochester Police Department ("RPD") for assistance. The officer also followed the students outside. Soon afterwards Raymond Pipitone, a university security supervisor, came to the scene along with other security officers.

Phillip tried to end the confrontation by bringing Gittens to a friend's car. Just as the car was about to leave the parking lot, Clukey placed himself in front of the car, would not allow it to leave, and began to copy its license plate.

Several police units then arrived. Police officers arrested the four plaintiffs, apparently based on conduct that the officers had observed. The plaintiffs stayed in jail overnight but received adjournments in contemplation of dismissal the following morning. Charges against all plaintiffs have been dismissed.

On May 11, 1999, University of Rochester President Thomas H. Jackson sent a memorandum to the entire university community. In his letter, Jackson acknowledged that the plaintiffs believed they had been "dealt with in a racist manner." He also admitted that "the performance of two of the University's Security personnel varied somewhat from normal policies and procedures, and their judgment did not meet expectations in this case." Finally, Jackson promised to request that the charges against the plaintiffs be dismissed.

Plaintiffs sued the university, Pipitone, and Clukey, claiming false arrest and imprisonment, battery and excessive use of force, assault, malicious prosecution, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, and violation of the equal benefit clause of Section 1981. Defendants moved pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) to dismiss several of these claims including the Section 1981 claim. The district court dismissed plaintiffs' Section 1981 claim along with several of their other claims. With respect to the Section 1981 equal benefit clause claim, the court found plaintiffs could not prevail because they failed to allege state action. The parties subsequently stipulated to the dismissal of all remaining claims, and plaintiffs pursued this appeal, which is limited to the Section 1981 claim.

On appeal, plaintiffs contend that the district court's state action ruling was error. In addition to defending the district court's ruling, defendants contend that plaintiffs insufficiently pleaded racial motivation.

DISCUSSION

I. Standard of review

We review de novo the district court's Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of plaintiffs' complaint. Vital v. Interfaith Med. Ctr., 168 F.3d 615, 619 (2d Cir.1999). We will affirm a dismissal on the face of the complaint only if "it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957). A complaint need only "give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." Id. at 47, 78 S.Ct. 99 (quoted in Swierkiewicz v. Sorema, N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 512, 122 S.Ct. 992, 152 L.Ed.2d 1 (2002)). The federal rules allow simple pleadings and "rel[y] on liberal discovery rules and summary judgment motions to define disputed facts and issues and to dispose of unmeritorious claims." Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S. at 512, 122 S.Ct. 992. These liberal pleading rules apply with particular stringency to complaints of civil rights violations. Vital, 168 F.3d at 619.

II. Section 1981 and state action

To assess the need for state action in a Section 1981 equal benefit claim, we begin with the language of the statute both in its original form and as amended in 1991.

Before November 1991, Section 1981 provided only that

All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.

42 U.S.C. § 1981.

In 1991, Congress enacted amendments to Section 1981. The text just quoted now is denominated as subsection (a). A new subsection (b) repudiates Patterson v. McLean Credit Union, 491 U.S. 164, 109 S.Ct. 2363, 105 L.Ed.2d 132 (1989), in which the Supreme Court held that breaches of contract are outside the scope of the "make and enforce contracts" clause of Section 1981. And, pertinent to this appeal, a new subsection (c) provides: "The rights protected by this section are protected against impairment by nongovernmental discrimination and impairment under color of State law." 42 U.S.C. § 1981(c).

On the face of the amended statute, it would seem that the answer to the question this appeal presents is clear: No state action is required for a Section 1981 claim.

Despite the apparent clarity of the statutory language, the courts of appeals to have considered whether the amended statute requires state action for an equal benefit clause claim have answered yes. Youngblood v. Hy-Vee Food Stores, Inc., 266 F.3d 851, 855 (8th Cir.2001), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1017, 122 S.Ct. 1606, 152 L.Ed.2d 621 (2002); Brown v. Philip Morris Inc., 250 F.3d 789, 799 (3d Cir.2001).² The Youngblood holding rests on Chapman v. Higbee Co., 256 F.3d 416 (6th Cir.2001), an opinion that since has been vacated and scheduled for rehearing en banc, 270 F.3d 297 (6th Cir.2001), and on dicta in Mahone v. Waddle, 564 F.2d 1018, 1029 (3d Cir.1977), a pre-amendment case. Brown relies on Mahone and various district court cases. As we explain, we do not find Youngblood, Brown, or their sources sufficiently persuasive to displace the clear words of the statute.

Mahone, the primary and largely unexamined source for the holdings in Youngblood and Brown, merits close examination. In Mahone, the Third Circuit held that police officers who physically and verbally abused African-Americans, falsely arrested them, and gave false testimony against them could be sued under Section 1981's equal benefit clause. Mahone, 564 F.2d at 1028-29. In response to defendants' argument that construing Section 1981 to encompass their actions would federalize tort law, the court said in dicta that there was no such danger because the equal benefit clause requires state action. Id. at 1029. Although the court acknowledged that the "make and enforce contracts" clause of Section 1981 does not require state action, id. at 1029 (citing Johnson v. Ry. Express Agency, 421 U.S. 454, 95 S.Ct. 1716, 44 L.Ed.2d 295 (1975), and Runyon v. McCrary, 427 U.S. 160, 96 S.Ct. 2586, 49 L.Ed.2d 415 (1976)), it said that the rights to "make and enforce contracts" and to enjoy the "full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens" were so different that the Johnson and Runyon holdings have no application to an equal benefit clause claim. Id. Because it is individuals who ordinarily make contracts, the court reasoned that individuals should be held liable for the racially motivated infringement of the contracts they make. Id. In contrast, the court said that the equal benefit clause "suggest[s] a concern with relations between the individual and the state, not between two individuals" because states, not individuals, make laws and only the state can take away the protection of the laws it created. Id.

Because we do not agree with the premise of Mahone, we do not find its logic persuasive. Although the phrasing of the equal benefit clause does suggest that there must be some...