Smothers v. Benitez, Civ. No. 91-1256 (JAF).
| Citation | 806 F. Supp. 299 |
| Decision Date | 17 November 1992 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. 91-1256 (JAF). |
| Parties | Kathy SMOTHERS, Plaintiff, v. Celeste BENITEZ, the Secretary of Education; Dalia Landron de Perez; Jose Lema Moya, and the Department of Education of Puerto Rico, Defendants. |
| Court | United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. District of Puerto Rico |
Erick Morales, Bayamón, P.R., for plaintiff.
Guillermo Macari, Trial Atty., Federal Litigation Div., Dept. of Justice, Com. of P.R., San Juan, P.R., for defendants.
Plaintiff is a magna cum laude, 1989 Interamerican University graduate, with an Education major in the English Education Program. The program, approved by Puerto Rico's Council on Higher Education as offered by Interamerican, was at all times structured and taught in English. Plaintiff, an English-monolingual U.S. citizen, pursued her studies to work as a teacher in Puerto Rico. At the time of her May 1989 graduation, Puerto Rico was officially a bilingual jurisdiction, where Spanish and English were the two recognized languages. 1 L.P.R.A. § 51.1 Such bilingualism was logical, respecting for eighty-nine years the blend between the various characteristics that made Puerto Rico a Commonwealth of the United States through a voluntary accord between the federal government and Puerto Rico. The local government of Puerto Rico was free to manage its own affairs, while at the same time linked to the United States and, hence, a part of the federal political structure. See Historical Documents, Federal Relations and Constitution, Vol. I, Laws of Puerto Rico Annotated, Equity Publishing Company (1982 ed.).
Bilingualism, that is, indiscriminate use of Spanish and English, permeates the Puerto Rico Constitution, which conforms to the federal model, and which has been approved by the United States and by Puerto Rico. See Historical Documents, Establishment of the Commonwealth of Porto Rico and the Constitution, pp. 134-35, Vol. I, Laws of Puerto Rico Annotated, Equity Publishing Company (1982 ed.); 48 U.S.C. § 731b to 731e. The Puerto Rico Constitution, art. III § 5, indirectly ratifies bilingualism, stating that to be a member of the Legislative Assembly, one had to be able to read and write the Spanish or English language, 1 L.P.R.A. Const., art. III § 5.2
At the time of Kathy Smothers' graduation, the Puerto Rico Department of Education had decided to administer a centralized test for prospective teachers in both the public and private school system commencing with the 1989-1990 academic year. The test was designed to be offered only in Spanish, even for teachers of English or for teachers who would teach their courses in English within the private school system.3 Having graduated in May 1989, Kathy Smothers took the examination in March 1990.
Plaintiff Smothers' examination was not graded because she wrote the answers to the essay portion of the test in English. She asserts that during the examination she informed the proctors that she would attempt to answer the multiple-choice questions in Spanish, but must answer the essay questions in English. She felt that because she is basically monolingual and had completed a course of studies at Inter-american University in English, she should be able to take the certification examination in English. Although Kathy Smothers was informed by the proctors that the examination had to be answered in Spanish, she nevertheless answered in English. On May 15, 1990, she was informed by the College Entrance Examination Board, which administers the test on behalf of the Department of Education, that her examination had been invalidated because she had not answered the essay portion in Spanish. Upon learning of the decision regarding her test, plaintiff wrote to the Department of Education requesting that the examination be administered in English and received no response.
Since her examination was invalidated plaintiff has been working as an elementary school teacher in a private school. Her current employer, Wesleyan Academy, has certified Kathy Smothers for the benefits of a provisional license and the Department of Education has granted such provisional status. While she has acquired a provisional license without passing the certification examination, such a license can only be renewed for a total of five years.4
Not being satisfied with the examination scheme provided by the Department of Education, plaintiff filed this federal suit against the officers of the Department of Education responsible for the policy of administering the teachers' certification test. Her pleading is basically a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of plaintiff's rights under the fourteenth amendment to the United States Constitution.
The amended complaint of March 8, 1991 contains allegations against the Department of Education, the incumbent Secretary, a former Secretary, and the Department's Licensing Director, asserting that Kathy Smothers has been willfully discriminated against by the requirement that the teachers' certification examination be taken in Spanish only. Plaintiff claims a due process violation in that she has a liberty and property interest in her right to pursue her chosen career and, once in pursuit, has an expected property interest. Plaintiff also asserts a violation of the equal protection clause. She seeks compensatory and punitive damages, as well as injunctive relief.
Defendants have filed two dispositive motions. In the first, a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), defendants assert that the complaint against them in their official capacity and the claim against the Department of Education is barred by eleventh amendment considerations. As to the claim against defendants in their personal capacity, it is averred that the named defendants were not personally or directly involved in any conduct that resulted in violation of plaintiff's civil rights. Defendants also claim that plaintiff has failed to exhaust administrative and judicial remedies available to her under local law. Abstention principles under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971), are also invoked. Defendants have also filed a motion for summary judgment, incorporating the motion to dismiss and further claiming that defendants should be granted qualified immunity.
The court has carefully analyzed the motions and plaintiff's opposition, and now grants partial relief to defendants. First of all, we find that eleventh-amendment considerations bar the action against the Department of Education as part of the Executive branch of the government of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and against the officers mentioned in their official capacity. Second, we find that the officers here sued are entitled to qualified immunity as it pertains to the allegations made against them in their personal capacity. Third, we find that plaintiff need not exhaust administrative or local remedies. Fourth, we find that the due process claim must fail. Lastly, we find that, in the posture we find this case, we are not prepared to dismiss the equal protection cause of action without discovery and trial.5
In the interest of protecting states from suits by their own citizens in federal court, the eleventh amendment bars suits for damages against state governments, although it does not prevent the court from giving prospective equitable relief. Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 99 S.Ct. 1139, 59 L.Ed.2d 358 (1979); Colón-Rivera v. Puerto Rico Dept. of Social Services, 736 F.2d 804 (1st Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1112, 105 S.Ct. 795, 83 L.Ed.2d 788 (1985). Therefore, plaintiff's claims for damages against the Department of Education and against the individual defendants in their official capacities are barred by the Eleventh Amendment. See Will v. Michigan Department of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 109 S.Ct. 2304, 105 L.Ed.2d 45 (1989). Plaintiff's claim for prospective equitable relief, however, is not barred. This claim would only be barred to the extent that it requires the federal court to instruct state officials to conform their conduct to state law. Pennhurst State School & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 106, 104 S.Ct. 900, 911, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984). Since the basis of relief requested by the plaintiff is the fourteenth amendment of the United States Constitution, Pennhurst does not apply and prospective equitable relief is available. Plaintiff's claims against each of the defendants personally survive the eleventh amendment defense, although they may be barred by the doctrine of qualified immunity.
Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 815, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2736, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), stands for the proposition that an official will only be considered personally liable for actions found to violate the Constitution if he "knew or reasonably should have known that the action he took within his sphere of official responsibility would violate the constitutional rights of the plaintiff." We find that, in the context of this case, plaintiff had no constitutional right which the officials involved "knew or reasonably should have known" about when they acted. The law concerning the equal protection standards for minority language groups is not well developed. There is no clear statutory or constitutional protection. Case law in this area is practically non-existent. The decisions involving minority language groups and equal protection on the basis of language are few and scattered throughout the circuits. These decisions do not establish a right that any official reasonably could have known existed. For that reason the defendants, in their personal capacities, are entitled to qualified immunity from plaintiff's action for damages.6
Defendants argue both that plaintiff has failed to exhaust administrative remedies and that she should have filed this action in local court. In a ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vicenty Martell v. Estado Libre Asoicado De P.R.
...P.R.Laws Ann., tit. 11, § 8(b) (1997). See, e.g., Agosto Serrano v. F.S.E., 132 D.P.R. 866, 875 (1993). 7. In Smothers v. Benitez, 806 F.Supp. 299, 302 (D.P.R.1992) it was established that the Department of Education and its Secretary are protected from a damages action under § 8. Because t......
-
Sandoval v. Hagan
..."Spanish speaking or Spanish-surnamed Americans as a minority for purposes of sections 1981, 1983 and 1985(3)"); Smothers v. Benitez, 806 F.Supp. 299 (D.P.R.1992) (discussing equal protection analysis of language based discrimination); Asian Am. Business Group v. City of Pomona, 716 F.Supp.......
-
Bradford v. State of Hawaii
...Engineers, et al., from including relevant Hawaiian terms on the Hawaiian Land Matters portion of the test. See Smothers v. Benitez, 806 F.Supp. 299 (D.Puerto Rico 1992) (the law regarding equal protection standards for minority groups is not well developed, and the right of a teacher to be......
-
Diffenderfer v. Gomez-Colon
...and a traditionally Spanish-speaking society, it is English-monolingual individuals who are in the minority. See Smothers v. Benitez, 806 F.Supp. 299, 304 (D.P.R.1992). The VRA does not by its terms contemplate such a situation. However, in another context, the Supreme Court has emphasized ......
-
Garcia v. Spun Steak Co. : the Ninth Circuit Requires That Title Vii Plaintiffs Prove the Adverse Effect of a Challenged English-only Workplace Rule
...Comment, "No Se Habla Espanol": English-Only Rules in the Workplace, 44 U. Miami L. Rev. 1209, 1225 (1990). 113. Smothers v. Benitez, 806 F. Supp. 299, 307 (D.P.R. 1992) (holding that a classification on the basis of language can be equivalent to a classification by national origin); Asian ......