Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-05164/USCOURTS-ca10-89-05164-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

Uoited ·~ :o L ij 1) 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

.;,rare, Co~,c of .t\ppeaJs Tenrh C1rcuir 

~Ii B 1990 

MONS! H. L'GGRKE, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

HAROLD CRAUN; HUGH DOHERTY; SANDI 

SULLIVAN, a/k/a Sandi Barnes, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 89-5164 

(D.C. No. 88-C-1560B) 

(N.D. Oklahoma) 

Before TACHA, BALDOCK and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

SUBMITTED ON THE BRIEFS: 

After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this 

three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argument 

would not be of material assistance in the determination of this 

appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.l.8(c) and 

27.1.2. The cause is, therefore, ordered submitted without oral 

argument. 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 89-5164 Document: 01019962997 Date Filed: 02/08/1990 Page: 1 
Mr. L'ggrke appeals pro se an order of the district court 

dismissing his complaint for failure to state a claim. The 

sufficiency of a complaint is a question of law that we review de 

novo. Dunn v. White, 880 F.2d 1188, 1190 (10th Cir.), cert. 

denied, U.S.L.W. (U.S. Jan. 22, 1990) (No. 89-5609). 

Mr. L'ggrke filed a prose complaint charging the defendants 

with violation of "42 u.s.c.s. $$2000d et ~ to Plaintiff's 

detriment" wherein he alleged that the defendants, who were 

employees of the city of Tulsa "and at all times herein mentioned 

they acted outside the scope of that employment" "acting in 

concert, devised and furthered their racially motivated scheme to 

terminate Plaintiff's training to become a stock broker by 

knowingly permitting him to enroll in an eight (8) day review/ 

training course to prepare him for the Series Seven (7) Testing 

which they knew, or should have known that Plaintiff would fail 

because he had no prior academic or on the job training." Mr. 

L'ggrke continued to allege that he did fail the test and was 

terminated from the "JTPA Program" and he specifically alleged 

that said wrongful acts amounted to "a breach of the Defendants' 

legal duty or obligations under TITLE VI to this Plaintiff, a 

tort, which entitles Plaintiff to an award of both compensatory 

and punitive damages." He concluded his complaint with a prayer 

requesting $1,250,000 for actual and punitive damages, together 

with costs and interest. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-5164 Document: 01019962997 Date Filed: 02/08/1990 Page: 2 
The district court concluded that damages are not available 

by private action under Title VI, 42 U.S.C. § 2000(d), unless 

intentional discriminatory conduct can be proved. The court 

further concluded that appellant failed to establish an 

intentional violation of the nondiscrimination sections of 42 

u.s.c. 2000(d), even viewing the facts and allegations in a light 

most favorable to appellant. 

We are in agreement with the decision of the district court 

and we therefore AFFIRM the decision of the district court for 

substantially the same reasons set forth in its Order dated August 

21, 1989, a copy thereof being attached hereto. 

Entered for the Court: 

WADE BRORBY 

United States Circuit Judge 

-3-

Appellate Case: 89-5164 Document: 01019962997 Date Filed: 02/08/1990 Page: 3 
) 

" pl-CED 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AUG 21 i~~9 ~ FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA b 

MONSI LGGRKE, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

HAROLD CRAUN, HUGH DOHERTY, 

and SANDI (aka Barnes) SULLIVAN, 

Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

0 R D E R 

- ,. Jc:k C. Silver, '-1er1:_ 

U.S. Ol5TRlCT COURI 

No. 88-C-1560-v 

This matter comes on for consideration upon the Motion of 

Defendants Harold Craun, Hugh Doherty and Sandi ( aka Barnes) 

Sullivan to Dismiss and Alternative Motion for Summary Judgment. 

Plaintiff sues for actual damages ( $1000·. 00) , mental and 

physical stress ($1,000,000.00), and punitive damages ($250,000.00) 

based on his allegations that Defendants discriminated against him, 

in violation of 42 U.S.C. §2000(d) etseq.,because he is black. 

THE UNDISPUTED FACTS 

1. The Defendants were and are employees of the City of 

Tulsa, having responsibility to administer1 federal funding 

originating from the United States Department of Labor pursuant to 

the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) •

2 

1

Through Private Industry Training Council (PITC). 

2

P • L. 9 7 - 3 O O • 

I 

Appellate Case: 89-5164 Document: 01019962997 Date Filed: 02/08/1990 Page: 4 
-\ 

2. Plaintiff sought funds from Defendants to attend a 

training program3 designed to prepare trainees to take and pass a 

Series 7 securities licensing test required before employment 

consideration by brokerage houses such as Stuart-James Company, 

Inc. , Denver, Colorado, a National Association of Securities 

Dealers, Inc. (NASO) member.• Plaintiff had no training or 

employment position with Stuart-James. 

3. Defendants furnished JTPA funds in the amount of $557.25 

for the training session, including materials, which Plaintiff 

attended in September 1988, in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Plaintiff then 

received further JTPA funds of $180.005 to travel to Dallas, Texas 

in order to take the Series 7 test. 

4. Plaintiff failed the test, scoring 44% on the examination 

which required a minimum 70% passing grade. Plaintiff took the 

examination on two more occasions8, October 15, 1988 and November 

19, 1988, obtaining failing scores of 44% and 46%, respectively. 

5. As a result of the examination failures, Stuart-James 

terminated on November 25, 1988, its sponsorship of Plaintiff's 

,·, -

3

0ffered by Clark Peterson ·securities of Scottsdale, Az. 

t!""' ·. 

4

Plaintiff's sponsor. NASO testing is open only to 

individuals sponsored by a member NASO brokerage company. 

5

An expenditure Defendants had not anticipated. 

8

Presumably at his own expense in that Defendants had declined 

to expend any more money on Plaintiff's behalf after the initial 

failure. 

2 

Appellate Case: 89-5164 Document: 01019962997 Date Filed: 02/08/1990 Page: 5 
NASD testing. 

Plaintiff's primary complaint is that Defendants, whom 

Plaintiff alleges acted outside the scope of their respective 

employment, knowingly permitted him to enroll in an 8 day review 

training course preparatory to a Series 7 stockbroker's test which 

they knew, .or should have known, Plaintiff would fail. 

The :. threshold question . to be resolved is: Are damages 

available by a private action under Title VI, 42 U.S.C. §2000(d)? 

The Court concludes they are not. 

Without question, Plaintiff seeks only damages in this action. 

There is no prayer for injunctive or declaratory relief. As pled, 

this Court cannot grant the relief requested by Plaintiff and the 

action, therefore, fails, Rule 12 (b) (6) ·, Fed.R.Civ.P., and should 

be dismissed. See, Davis v. Spanish Coalition For Job, Inc., 676 

F.Supp. 171 (N.D.Ill. 1988). -

The Court is not unmindful of Guardian Association v. Civil 

Service Commission of the City of New York, 463 UrSr 582, -103 S.Ct. 

3221, · -77 L.Ed. 2d 866 (1983), _; where a· ·divided court rendered 

multip!~- ~P~~~on:".. ~uggesting that Title VI claimants are probably 

only entitled to damages for· intentional violations ·of the 

nondiscrimination sections therein. Also, see Organ. of Minority -- I c· - • . 

Vendors v. Ill. Cent. Gulf R.R., 579 F.Supp. 574 (N.D.Ill.E.D. 

1983) (footnote 10 at 594). Part_~cul_~_rly _ _noteworthy is the 

following from that footnote concerning the Guardian decision: 

"Six members of the Court -addressed directly 

the issue of the scope of remedies under Title 

VI. Justice White, joined by Justice 

3 

Appellate Case: 89-5164 Document: 01019962997 Date Filed: 02/08/1990 Page: 6 
) 

Rehnquist, noted that under Bell v. Hood, 327 

U.S. 678, 66 s.ct. 773, 90 L.Ed. 939 (1946) 

'[t]he usual rule is that where legal rights 

have been invaded and a cause of action is 

available, a federal court may use any 

available remedy to afford full relief.' 1-3 

s.ct. at 3228. He concluded, however, that in 

most cases 'declaratory and limited injunctive 

relief should be the only available private 

remedies for Title VI violations.' •.. " 

The Court is unaware of any expression by the Tenth Circuit 

involving the 1983 Guardian decision. 

The Court concludes Plaintiff fails to establish an 

intentional violation of the nondiscrimination sections of 42 

u.s.c. 2000(d), even viewing the facts and allegations most 

favorably for the Plaintiff. The most Plaintiff can muster under 

the facts and allegations is that these Defendants allowed 

Plaintiff, at his insistence, to embark upon a pilot effort7 to 

train for and take a Series 7 stockbroker's test which he failed 

three times. 

Additionally, but unnecessary to dispose of this matter, are 

two issues, · each potentially preclusive of Plaintiff's cause, which 

are: 

( 1) Whether Plaintiff's failure to exhaust the grievance 

procedure, required by JTPA regulations, prevents - ~; .. 

·- ·- . . - -· - -- - - ·---

7

The type of training undertaken by Plaintiff was not the usual 

type of approved PITC training. PITC authorized training involving 

JTPA funds is not normally oriented to commission only occupations. 

Plaintiff was, in fact, at first refused this privilege for .this 

reason. Only Plaintiff's persistence caused the job training 

administrator to change his mind~ ( See Affidavit of Defendant 

Harold R. Craun, Job Training Administrator - Exhibit ·1.) 

4 

Appellate Case: 89-5164 Document: 01019962997 Date Filed: 02/08/1990 Page: 7 
.. I .. • 

Plaintiff from pursuing the present action; 

(2) Whether Plaintiff's action against these Defendants, 

individually, fails because the cause of action, if any 

existed, should properly be against Defendants' employer. 

Viewing the facts most favorably to Plaintiff, the acts 

complained of totally occurred within the scope of 

Defendants' employment. 

The Court concludes this action should be and the same is 

hereby DISMISSED. ---- IT IS SO ORDERED this 

71 ,:2-/ ::-- day of ~ugust, 1989. 

dL_~e?/4( THOMAS R. BRETT - V 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

5 

Appellate Case: 89-5164 Document: 01019962997 Date Filed: 02/08/1990 Page: 8