Sparks v. Griffin, 71-2747.
| Decision Date | 19 June 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 71-2747.,71-2747. |
| Citation | 460 F.2d 433 |
| Parties | Ira Mae SPARKS et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Merritt GRIFFIN, Individually, et al., Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
John G. Abbott, Larry Watts, Houston, Tex., for plaintiffs-appellants.
Welby K. Parish, Wayne V. R. Smith, Gilmer, Tex., for defendants-appellees.
Before GEWIN, AINSWORTH and SIMPSON, Circuit Judges.
Prior to 1965, the Union Hill Independent School District, located in Upshur County, Texas, operated a fully segregated public school system consisting of two campuses: the all-white Union Hill campus and the all-black Bethlehem campus. After the introduction of a freedom-of-choice desegregation plan in the 1965-1966 academic year, the district's schools were converted into a unitary pupil assignment system at the beginning of the 1968-1969 academic year with the abandonment of the Bethlehem campus and the assignment of all students, black and white, to the Union Hill campus.
On March 25, 1968, the district's board met for the purpose of renewing teacher contracts for the following school year. At that meeting the board voted not to renew the contracts of the plaintiffs-appellants in this case, Ira Mae Sparks and Tommy Bozeman, who are black, while voting to renew the contracts of all the other teachers in the system. Mrs. Sparks and Mr. Bozeman brought suit in the district court challenging the board's failure to renew their teaching contracts for the 1968-1969 school year. Both plaintiffs asked the court to order their reinstatement and Mr. Bozeman requested an award of back pay from the end of the 1967-1968 school year to the date of the offer of a new contract. After a non-jury trial, the district court denied all relief to both plaintiffs and they have appealed. We reverse and remand for entry of judgment in favor of each plaintiff.
The Union Hill Independent School District is a small, rural system consisting of approximately 250 students, 15 teachers, a Superintendent, his secretary, and a maintenance man. From 1965 to 1969, the number of black faculty members declined from seven to three, while the total number of teachers remained constant.
With the anticipated closing of the Bethlehem campus for the 1968-1969 school year, it was expected that the district could lose one teaching position as a result of a decline in the average daily attendance (ADA). In addition, there was a possibility that federal funds for a remedial reading program would not be available for the 1968-1969 school year.
Mr. Bozeman began teaching at the Bethlehem campus in the 1957-1958 school year and continued to teach there until the end of the 1967-1968 year. Mrs. Sparks began teaching at the Bethlehem campus in the 1962-1963 academic year and was transferred to the Union Hill campus for the 1966-1967 year for the purpose of participating in a federally funded remedial reading program. She taught at the Union Hill campus two school years, or until the end of the 1967-1968 school year.
At the board meeting of March 25, 1968, Superintendent Merritt Griffin advised the board that the expected reduction in the ADA for the district necessitated the non-renewal of one teacher's contract. He recommended that Mr. Bozeman not be rehired, citing several alleged deficiencies in Mr. Bozeman's performance while employed by the district. Mr. Griffin also briefed the members of the board about certain alleged shortcomings in Mrs. Sparks' teaching performance but made no suggestions as to the renewal of her contract. As noted supra, however, her contract was not renewed. In the margin, we have reproduced letters dispatched by Mr. Griffin to an official of the United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare explaining the reasons for the board's decisions not to renew the contracts of the two plaintiffs in this case.1
On the morning of March 26, 1968, Mr. Griffin went to the Bethlehem campus where he informed Mr. Bozeman, outside his classroom, that his contract had not been renewed for the 1968-1969 school year because of a reduction in the ADA and for other reasons. Mr. Bozeman was advised that if he wanted to discuss the other reasons, or if he wanted a board hearing, he was to report to Mr. Griffin's office. That same morning Mr. Griffin went to Mrs. Sparks' classroom at the Union Hill campus, called her outside, and informed her that her contract had not been renewed for the 1968-1969 school year. She was told that if she wanted a hearing before the board or desired to discuss the reasons for the board's action, she was to report to the Superintendent's office.
Neither plaintiff requested a hearing before the board and neither plaintiff attempted to discuss the non-renewal of his or her contract with Mr. Griffin. Both plaintiffs continued to teach in the Union Hill Independent School District until the end of the 1967-1968 school year and both plaintiffs continued to draw salaries from the district until August 31, 1968.
On or about June 1, 1968, Mr. Bozeman reported to Mr. Griffin's office to make application for the withdrawal of his accumulated teacher retirement funds. Mr. Griffin advised him not to make the withdrawal. Mr. Bozeman responded by stating that he planned to retire permanently from the teaching profession. Mr. Griffin's secretary, Mrs. Ruth Wallace, then assisted Mr. Bozeman in completing the application for the withdrawal.
In August, 1968, one of the district's teachers, Mrs. Bugg, resigned from the faculty, thereby creating one opening for a teacher in the district. A white teacher was hired to fill that vacancy. That same month, August 1968, the federal government approved additional Title I funds for the district's remedial reading program. A white teacher was hired to conduct that program, a function previously performed by Mrs. Sparks.
Mrs. Sparks did not secure other employment for the 1968-1969 school year, but managed to obtain other employment for the 1969-1970 year. It appears that Mr. Bozeman was not successful in obtaining alternative teaching employment following the board's failure to renew his contract for the 1968-1969 academic year.
It is undisputed that prior to March 25, 1968, the district had not promulgated non-racial, objective criteria for the selection of teachers to be dismissed or demoted in connection with the desegregation of its schools.
The two teachers brought suit against Mr. Griffin and the Trustees of the Independent School District, individually and officially under Title 28, U.S.C., Section 1343 and Title 42, U.S.C., Section 1981, et seq., for vindication of their rights to continued employment. In that court the plaintiffs complained that the school district and its officials:
The defendants responded by asserting that Mr. Bozeman and Mrs. Sparks had been released for valid, non-racial reasons based upon their performances as faculty members in the employ of the district. In addition, the district took the position that neither plaintiff had ever had any legitimate expectation of continued employment because the district had always operated on a year-to-year contract renewal basis. Finally, the district claimed that Mr. Bozeman had failed to make a diligent effort to obtain other employment as a teacher.
After the complaint was filed discovery proceedings commenced. The defendants propounded written interrogatories to the plaintiffs, among which were the three following:
Following trial, the district court adopted verbatim in toto the proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law tendered by counsel for the defendants-appellees. The district court found, inter alia:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
EEO COM'N v. Kallir, Philips, Ross, Inc.
...of 1975, and so defendant has not shown that any jobs were available for plaintiff at any time during the year. 17 See Sparks v. Griffin, 460 F.2d 433, 443 (5th Cir. 1972); Hegler v. Board of Educ., 447 F.2d 1078, 1081 (8th Cir. 1971); cf. Inda v. United Air Lines, Inc., 405 F.Supp. 426, 43......
-
Harkless v. SWEENY IND. SCH. DIST. OF SWEENY, TEXAS
...State Bank, 1940, 308 U.S. 371, 374, 60 S.Ct. 317, 84 L.Ed. 329 . . .. 453 F.2d at 1113 (emphasis added). But see: Sparks v. Griffin, 460 F.2d 433, 441 (5th Cir. 1972). Since the employment decisions of which plaintiffs complain were made almost four years prior to Singleton, and prior even......
-
Harless v. First Nat. Bank in Fairmont
...City Demonstration Agency, 588 F.2d 692 (9th Cir. 1978); Sprogis v. United Airlines, Inc., 517 F.2d 387 (7th Cir. 1975); Sparks v. Griffin, 460 F.2d 433 (5th Cir. 1972); Hegler v. Board of Education, 447 F.2d 1078 (8th Cir. 1971).14 This component is also referred to as pain and suffering. ......
-
Koenning v. Suehs
...remedies.” Id. at 781 (citing Gibson v. Berryhill, 411 U.S. 564, 574, 93 S.Ct. 1689, 36 L.Ed.2d 488 (1973); Sparks v. Griffin, 460 F.2d 433, 442 (5th Cir.1972); Wells Fargo Armored Serv. Corp. v. Ga. Pub. Serv. Comm., 547 F.2d 938 (5th Cir.1977)). The court further recognized that: Plaintif......
-
Texas Commission on Human Rights Act: Procedures and Remedies
...there were jobs available which plaintiff could have discovered and for which she was qualified.” Id. at *13 (citing Sparks v. Griffin, 460 F.2d 433, 443 (5th Cir. 1972). The Huffman court noted that one appellate panel cannot overrule a decision of a prior panel without either en banc reco......
-
Texas commission on human rights act: procedures and remedies
...out in Huffman v. City of Conroe, Tex. , No. H-07-1964, 2009 WL 361413, at *13 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 11, 2009) (citing Sparks v. Griffin , 460 F.2d 433, 443 (5th Cir. 1972), the Fifth Circuit had previously ruled that “[t] he employer must show not only that the plaintiff failed to exercise reaso......