Rodgers v. Magnet Cove Public Schools

• Decision Date: 01 September 1994
• Docket Number: No. 93-4066,93-4066
• Parties: 94 Ed. Law Rep. 74, 3 A.D. Cases 971, 6 A.D.D. 383, 5 NDLR P 253 Frankie Carolyn RODGERS, Appellant, v. MAGNET COVE PUBLIC SCHOOLS; Benton Public Schools, Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

Page 642

34 F.3d 642

94 Ed. Law Rep. 74, 3 A.D. Cases 971,

6 A.D.D. 383, 5 NDLR P 253

Frankie Carolyn RODGERS, Appellant, v. MAGNET COVE PUBLIC SCHOOLS; Benton Public Schools, Appellees.

No. 93-4066.

United States Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit.

Submitted June 13, 1994.

Decided Sept. 1, 1994.

John M. West, Washington, DC, argued (Larry Hartsfield, Little Rock, AR, on brief), for appellant.

George Hopkins, Malvern, AR, argued (Robert V. Light, Little Rock, AR, on brief), for appellee.

Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Chief Judge, WELLFORD, ^* Senior Circuit Judge, and WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge.

RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Chief Judge.

Frankie Carolyn Rodgers appeals from a district court order granting summary judgment in favor of defendants, Magnet Cove Public Schools and Benton School District. Rodgers argues that the District Court erred when it dismissed her claim for discrimination under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and her pendent state claim for violation of the Arkansas Handicapped Persons Act, Ark.Code Ann. Sec. 20-14-303, for failure to state a cause of action on the basis that traditional legal damages (the only relief sought) were not available. We hold that Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, codified at 29 U.S.C. Sec. 794, does provide a cause of action for legal damages. We therefore reverse and remand for further proceedings.

I.

Frankie Carolyn Rodgers contracted with the Magnet Cove Public Schools to teach during the 1989-90 school year. During that year Rodgers was hospitalized for bipolar manic illness which forced her to take 17 consecutive days off. Rodgers's doctor wrote a letter stating that the symptoms Rodgers had exhibited, "excessive moodiness, extreme irritability, weight loss, impulsivity, excessive talkativeness, hostility, aggressiveness, poor judgment, easy distractibility, increased motor activity, and reckless behavior," were a result of her physical illness. That letter, however, also opined that Rodgers, through medication, had obtained substantial relief from her symptoms, that her prognosis for a normal life was good, and that she would be able to perform her job duties.

In the spring of 1990, Rodgers received notice that the superintendent of the Magnet Cove Public Schools would recommend to the School Board that her teaching contract not be renewed. She then requested a medical leave of absence for the 1990-91 school year. The Board granted the request, but Rodgers never signed the requisite agreement. Later, Rodgers signed a contract with the Benton public schools to teach for the 1990-91 school year. That contract, however, was terminated for failure to disclose the fact that she was on medical leave from Magnet Cove. Subsequently, the Little Rock School District hired Rodgers, but it has not renewed its contract with her.

Rodgers, in 1991, began receiving social-security-disability payments.

II.

Rodgers asserts that she can sue for damages under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 794, or, in the alternative, under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 for violation of her Section 504 rights. If we hold that she has a right of action for damages under Section 504, reversal will be warranted and we will not need to determine whether Rodgers has a right to recover under Sec. 1983. Therefore, the issue is whether Rodgers can maintain her suit for violation of Section 504 when the only remedy she seeks is money damages.

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act ¹ provides that an otherwise qualified person shall not be discriminated against, solely by reason of a handicap, by any program or activity which receives federal financial assistance. (The defendants receive such assistance.) To insure that such discriminatory actions do not occur, Congress incorporated the remedies and procedures of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. ² Therefore, we must determine what remedies are available under Title VI to decide whether Rodgers is entitled to money damages for a violation of Section 504. We look first to the Supreme Court's recent decision in Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 1028, 117 L.Ed.2d 208 (1992), and then we turn to this Court's decision in Miener v. State of Missouri, 673 F.2d 969, 979 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 909, 103 S.Ct. 215, 74 L.Ed.2d 171 (1982).

In Franklin the Court had to decide whether a private right of action under Title IX includes all traditional legal and equitable remedies. The Court held that, once a right of action is created, "we presume availability of all appropriate remedies unless Congress has expressly indicated otherwise. This principle has deep roots in our jurisprudence." Franklin, --- U.S. at ---- - ----, 112 S.Ct. at 1032-33 (citations omitted) (emphasis added). The Court announced the general rule "that absent clear direction to the contrary by Congress, the federal courts have the power to award any appropriate relief in a cognizable cause of action brought pursuant to a federal statute." Id. --- U.S. at ----, 112 S.Ct. at 1035. See Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 684, 66 S.Ct. 773, 777, 90 L.Ed. 939 (1946).

The Supreme Court then examined Title IX to determine whether Congress had indicated an express intent to limit the presumed availability of all appropriate legal remedies. After determining that Title IX does not include any express limitation, the Court examined two civil-rights acts that amended, among other things, both Title IX and Section 504. Those two amendments, the Civil Rights Remedies Equalization Amendment of 1986, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000d-7, and the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987, Pub.L. 100-259, 102 Stat. 28 (1988), the Court noted, were drafted after it had decided Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677, 99 S.Ct. 1946, 60 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). Franklin, supra --- U.S. at ----, 112 S.Ct. at 1036. In Cannon the Court applied the common-law tradition, which regarded the denial of a remedy as an exception rather than the rule, to hold that Title IX was enforceable through an implied right of action. Ibid. In "full cognizance of that decision," Congress had an opportunity with the two amendments to limit the remedies available in a suit brought under Title IX or Section 504. Franklin --- U.S. at ----, 112 U.S. at 1036. Congress did not do so. Ibid. With the enactment of the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987, Congress broadened the coverage of the anti-discrimination provisions and did not in any way alter the "existing rights of action and the corresponding remedies permissible under Title IX, Title VI, [or] Sec. 504...." Ibid.

Franklin, therefore, states that Title IX provides a full spectrum of remedies. Does that mean that all legal and equitable remedies are available under Title VI, and, therefore, also under Section 504? We believe it does. In its analysis of Title IX, the Supreme Court used some of its earlier decisions to decide what remedies exist under Title IX. Franklin, supra --- U.S. at ----, 112 S.Ct. at 1035, (citing Guardians Assn. v. Civil Service Comm'n of New York City, 463 U.S. 582, 597, 103 S.Ct. 3221, 3230, 77 L.Ed.2d 866 (1983) (back pay allowed under Title VI); Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Darrone, 465 U.S. 624, 630-31, 104 S.Ct. 1248, 1252-53, 79 L.Ed.2d 568 (1984) (back pay allowed under Section 504 for acts of intentional discrimination)). The Court relied on its earlier decisions which concerned Title VI and Section 504 because Title IX was patterned after Title VI and Congress intended to create Title IX remedies comparable to those available under Title VI. Id. See Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677, 694, 703, 99 S.Ct. 1946, 1956, 1961, 60 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). The anti-discrimination provisions of Section 504 and of Title IX both largely repeat the language of Title VI. Therefore, we believe that the Court's holding on Title IX in Franklin applies equally to Title VI and Section 504 cases.

Ten years before Franklin, this Circuit held that "damages are available under Sec. 504 as a necessary remedy for discrimination against an otherwise qualified handicapped individual." Miener, 673 F.2d at 979. We based this conclusion on the principle that "where legal rights are invaded and a federal statute provides a right to sue for such invasion, federal courts may use any available remedy to make good the wrong." Id. at 977, citing Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 684, 66 S.Ct. 773, 777, 90 L.Ed. 939 (1946). The Supreme Court's holding in Franklin does not limit or overrule this Circuit's earlier decision. Instead, it prompts us to reaffirm our holding in Miener: money damages are available under Sec. 504. See Waldrop v. Southern Co. Services, Inc., 24 F.3d 152, 156-57 (11th Cir.1994) (Section 504 provides for the full spectrum of remedies); Pandazides v. Virginia Bd. of Educ., 13 F.3d 823, 829-32 (4th Cir.1994) (same).

For these reasons, we reverse the grant of summary judgment and remand for further proceedings. This decision does not address whether Rodgers will be able to prove that she is indeed entitled to any relief. She must still prove that she had a disability, that she was otherwise qualified ³ to perform the job she was denied, that the denial was because of her disability, and that she actually incurred compensable damages. We leave those issues for the District Court.

It is so ordered.

HARRY W. WELLFORD, Senior Circuit Judge, concurring.

I agree with the thoughtful opinion of Chief Judge Arnold that we must reverse the decision of the district court as a matter of law to hold that a Sec. 504 (29 U.S.C. Sec. 794) cause of action may include a claim for legal damages.

I believe, however, that we should review further plaintiff's complaint to determine the issues to be remanded in light of the record in this case. The district court concluded that plaintiff made "no claim for back pay, because [among other reasons] the plaintiff remained employed throughout the time she was allegedly discriminated...