Williams v. Red Bank Bd. of Ed., No. 81-1275

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
Writing for the CourtBefore SEITZ, Chief Judge, and ADAMS and GARTH; GARTH
Citation662 F.2d 1008
Parties1 Ed. Law Rep. 84 Portia WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. The RED BANK BOARD OF EDUCATION, Joan D. Abrams, Individually and as Superintendent of the Red Bank School District, Catherine Cadman, Individually and in her official capacity, Richard T. Doherty, Individually and in his official capacity, Michael S. Ellegood, Individually and in his official capacity, Frances H. Kinkle, Individually and in his official capacity, Ronald D. Sachs, Individually and in his official capacity, Marcelle Seruby, Individually and in her official capacity, Dorothy Setaro, Individually and in her official capacity, Stephen M. Popper, Individually and in his official capacity, and Fred G. Burke, Commissioner of Education of the State of New Jersey, in his official capacity, Appellees.
Docket NumberNo. 81-1275
Decision Date18 November 1981

Page 1008

662 F.2d 1008
1 Ed. Law Rep. 84
Portia WILLIAMS, Appellant,
v.
The RED BANK BOARD OF EDUCATION, Joan D. Abrams,
Individually and as Superintendent of the Red Bank School
District, Catherine Cadman, Individually and in her official
capacity, Richard T. Doherty, Individually and in his
official capacity, Michael S. Ellegood, Individually and in
his official capacity, Frances H. Kinkle, Individually and
in his official capacity, Ronald D. Sachs, Individually and
in his official capacity, Marcelle Seruby, Individually and
in her official capacity, Dorothy Setaro, Individually and
in her official capacity, Stephen M. Popper, Individually
and in his official capacity, and Fred G. Burke,
Commissioner of Education of the State of New Jersey, in his
official capacity, Appellees.
No. 81-1275.
United States Court of Appeals,
Third Circuit.
Argued Sept. 14, 1981.
Decided Oct. 26, 1981.
As Amended Nov. 18, 1981.

Page 1009

Arnold M. Mellk (argued), William A. Fead, Greenberg & Mellk, Trenton, N. J., for appellant.

Robert J. Kelly (argued), William B. McGuire, Lum, Biunno & Tompkins, Newark, N. J., for defendants-appellees, Red Bank Bd. of Ed., Joan D. Abrams, Catherine Cadman, Richard Doherty, Michael S. Ellegood, Frances H. Kinkle, Ronald D.

Page 1010

Sachs, Dorothy Setaro and Stephen M. Popper.

James R. Zazzali, Atty. Gen. of New Jersey, Erminie L. Conley, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jaynee LaVecchia, Deputy Atty. Gen. (argued), Trenton, N. J., for appellee, New Jersey State Commissioner of Ed.

Before SEITZ, Chief Judge, and ADAMS and GARTH, Circuit Judges.

OPINION OF THE COURT

GARTH, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from an order of the district court for the District of New Jersey dismissing a suit brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on the ground that Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971), and its progeny mandated abstention in favor of a state administrative tenure proceeding brought against a school teacher. We hold that while the district court was correct in abstaining, it nevertheless should have retained jurisdiction of the federal action pending the outcome of state proceedings. Accordingly, we will vacate the district court's order of dismissal and direct the district court on remand to stay all federal proceedings until state proceedings have been completed.

I.

Plaintiff Portia Williams is a tenured school teacher employed by the Red Bank Board of Education ("the Board") in New Jersey. On March 11, 1980, Williams, a black woman, attended a meeting of the Board and criticized its policies regarding the recruitment and hiring of minorities as inadequate.

On May 6, 1980, Joan D. Abrams, the Superintendent of the Red Bank Public Schools, and one of the defendants, filed a Statement of Charges and a Statement of Evidence with the Board pursuant to N.J.Stat.Ann. 18A:6-11. The Statement of Charges set forth three charges, for which Williams' dismissal from tenure was sought:

CHARGE NO. 1

Portia Williams, on several occasions, has struck pupils in her class with a ruler. This conduct is in direct violation of N.J.S. 18A:6-1, which specifically prohibits corporal punishment of pupils.

CHARGE NO. 2

Portia Williams, on several occasions, has publicly humiliated one of her pupils in front of the entire class, questioning his cleanliness and health habits. Questioning cleanliness and health habits may be appropriate in this particular situation, but the humiliating, public manner in which it was done was highly improper and unprofessional.

CHARGE NO. 3

Portia Williams, at a Board of Education public meeting, held on March 11, 1980, at the Primary School in Red Bank, did make racist and anti-Semitic remarks. These remarks were directed at the Administration of the Red Bank Board of Education and constituted unbecoming conduct by an employee of the Red Bank Board of Education.

On June 3, 1980, the Board referred the charges to the New Jersey State Commissioner of Education ("the Commissioner") for a hearing pursuant to N.J.Stat.Ann. 18A:6-11, -16. The Board also suspended Williams with pay pending final determination of the charges. Ten days later, the Commissioner referred the charges to the New Jersey Office of Administrative Law, pursuant to N.J.Stat.Ann. 18A:6-10, and 52:14F, for a hearing and an initial decision.

The charges against Williams were thus awaiting administrative determination by the State of New Jersey when, on July 14, 1980, Williams brought this action in federal district court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Board, its members, and the Commissioner. The gravamen of Williams' Complaint was that:

11. (The first and second charges) ... levied by Abrams against plaintiff and

Page 1011

certified to the Commissioner of Education by the Board are pretext. The institution of tenure termination proceedings against plaintiff is a direct reaction to her exercise of her right of free speech and her right to petition the government for redress of grievances.

12. By prosecuting tenure charges against plaintiff, under the color of the laws of the State of New Jersey, the defendants Abrams, the Board and its individual members have arbitrarily and discriminatorily punished plaintiff for the exercise of her rights guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution and Article I, Paragraphs 6 and 18 of the New Jersey Constitution.

Complaint, PP 11, 12. Williams sought relief declaring that the filing of the administrative charges against her had violated her rights under the first and fourteenth amendments. She also sought an injunction against further prosecution of the charges in the state proceeding, as well as an order that the Board expunge all record of those charges from her personnel file. Finally, she sought damages, both compensatory and punitive, and attorney's fees as provided in 42 U.S.C. § 1988. Complaint, § VI.

The defendants 1 moved for a dismissal of the action on the ground that Younger v. Harris, supra, counselled abstention in favor of the pending state proceedings. The district court agreed and granted the motion to dismiss. Williams v. Red Bank Board of Education, 502 F.Supp. 1366 (D.N.J.1980).

In its opinion the district court first noted that Younger abstention had originally been found appropriate "when there is a pending criminal prosecution" in the state courts which poses no threat of great and immediate irreparable harm to the federal plaintiff. 502 F.Supp. at 1368-69 (emphasis in original). The court then noted that a number of Supreme Court cases since Younger had extended Younger abstention beyond the purely criminal context. Id. at 1369, citing Moore v. Sims, 442 U.S. 415, 99 S.Ct. 2371, 60 L.Ed.2d 994 (1979); Trainor v. Hernandez, 431 U.S. 434, 97 S.Ct. 1911, 52 L.Ed.2d 486 (1977); Juidice v. Vail, 430 U.S. 327, 97 S.Ct. 1211, 51 L.Ed.2d 376 (1977); Huffman v. Pursue, 420 U.S. 592, 95 S.Ct. 1200, 43 L.Ed.2d 482 (1975). As abstention was not barred simply on the ground that the pending state proceeding was civil rather than criminal, the district court concluded, the question of the applicability of Younger abstention to Williams' complaint must be squarely faced.

In deciding to grant the motion for dismissal, the district court found four considerations to be decisive. First, the state's interest in teacher disciplinary proceedings is a weighty one, and would be significantly hindered if the federal court was to grant an injunction. 2 Moreover, the fact that technically a local school board, rather than the state, was a party to the proceedings pending before the New Jersey Office of Administrative Law did not in any way diminish the importance of the state's interest. Id. at 1370. Similarly, the inability of the state to proceed with criminal charges as an alternative to the disciplinary proceedings

Page 1012

was "immaterial" to the question of the weight of the state's interest. Id.

Second, the fact that the state proceedings to which the court would defer were administrative rather than judicial did not render Younger inapplicable. Citing this court's decision in Gipson v. New Jersey Supreme Court, 558 F.2d 701 (3d Cir. 1977), the district court held that "the on-going proceedings need not be pending in a state court" provided that review of the administrative determination is available afterwards in the state court system. 502 F.Supp. at 1370. As Williams has a right to appeal to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey, the district court found it appropriate to abstain in deference to the administrative hearing on the disciplinary charges.

Third, the district court held, the "bad faith" exception to Younger -which precludes a federal court from abstaining when the pending state proceedings have been brought in bad faith or to harass the federal plaintiff-was inapplicable here because Williams did not allege bad faith. The charge that the disciplinary proceedings were instituted in "direct reaction to her exercise of her right of free speech and her right to petition" was held by the district court to be insufficient to constitute an allegation of bad faith: "(n)o mention of an impermissible motive (was) ... made." Id. at 1370.

Finally, the court held that the state proceeding is adequate to vindicate Williams' federal claims. The district court did note that the administrative forum was not perfectly suited to deal with first amendment issues, and could not grant all the relief sought. But Williams, the court reasoned, had an appeal of right to the New Jersey courts, which were competent to deal with first amendment issues. Further, though the state proceeding was unable to provide the constitutional damages and the attorney's fees plaintiff sought, "she may seek that relief (in federal court) upon completion of the state proceedings." This postponement of a complete remedy, the court concluded, did not give rise to the "great and immediate" irreparable harm which...

To continue reading

Request your trial
73 practice notes
  • O'Neill v. City of Philadelphia, No. 93-1378
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • August 5, 1994
    ...need not belabor the question of whether a BAA proceeding is "judicial in nature." Clearly, it is. See Williams v. Red Bank Bd. of Ed., 662 F.2d 1008, 1020-21 (3d Cir.1981). 12 The more compelling issue is whether, in the present case, there is a "pending" state proceeding inasmuch as O'Nei......
  • Winston by Winston v. Children and Youth Services of Delaware County, No. 90-1788
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • December 3, 1991
    ...to that court that it dismiss the Winston case without prejudice on the basis of abstention. See Williams v. Red Bank Board of Ed., 662 F.2d 1008, 1022 (3d For the reasons that I have stated above in Part I, I believe that the Winstons' action is clearly moot. Thus, I would dismiss their ap......
  • Hi Tech Trans, LLC v. New Jersey, No. 03-2773.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • September 2, 2004
    ...administrative proceeding cannot give the plaintiff all of the requested relief but federal law can. See Williams v. Red Bank Bd. of Ed., 662 F.2d 1008 (3d Cir.1981), overruled on other grounds as recognized in Schall v. Joyce, 885 F.2d 101 (3d Cir.1989). However, in Quackenbush v. Allstate......
  • Kessler Inst. for Rehab. v. Essex Fells Mayor, Civ. A. No. 94-2361(WGB).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. District of New Jersey
    • January 31, 1995
    ...U.S. 851, 109 S.Ct. 135, 102 L.Ed.2d 107 (1988); Crane v. Fauver, 762 F.2d 325, 328 (3d Cir.1985); Williams v. Red Bank Board of Educ., 662 F.2d 1008, 1023-24 (3d Cir. 1981). Although New Jersey law permits Kessler to deny the Borough's authority to condemn as a defense in the condemnation ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
73 cases
  • O'Neill v. City of Philadelphia, No. 93-1378
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • August 5, 1994
    ...need not belabor the question of whether a BAA proceeding is "judicial in nature." Clearly, it is. See Williams v. Red Bank Bd. of Ed., 662 F.2d 1008, 1020-21 (3d Cir.1981). 12 The more compelling issue is whether, in the present case, there is a "pending" state proceeding inasmuch as O'Nei......
  • Winston by Winston v. Children and Youth Services of Delaware County, No. 90-1788
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • December 3, 1991
    ...to that court that it dismiss the Winston case without prejudice on the basis of abstention. See Williams v. Red Bank Board of Ed., 662 F.2d 1008, 1022 (3d For the reasons that I have stated above in Part I, I believe that the Winstons' action is clearly moot. Thus, I would dismiss their ap......
  • Hi Tech Trans, LLC v. New Jersey, No. 03-2773.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • September 2, 2004
    ...administrative proceeding cannot give the plaintiff all of the requested relief but federal law can. See Williams v. Red Bank Bd. of Ed., 662 F.2d 1008 (3d Cir.1981), overruled on other grounds as recognized in Schall v. Joyce, 885 F.2d 101 (3d Cir.1989). However, in Quackenbush v. Allstate......
  • Kessler Inst. for Rehab. v. Essex Fells Mayor, Civ. A. No. 94-2361(WGB).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. District of New Jersey
    • January 31, 1995
    ...U.S. 851, 109 S.Ct. 135, 102 L.Ed.2d 107 (1988); Crane v. Fauver, 762 F.2d 325, 328 (3d Cir.1985); Williams v. Red Bank Board of Educ., 662 F.2d 1008, 1023-24 (3d Cir. 1981). Although New Jersey law permits Kessler to deny the Borough's authority to condemn as a defense in the condemnation ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT