Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-96-07120/USCOURTS-caDC-96-07120-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John Doe
Appellee
Moraima Donahue
Appellee
Mary A. Harris
Appellant
Howard University
Appellee
Franklyn G. Jenifer
Appellee
Joyce A. Ladner
Appellee

Document Text:

<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued September 9, 1997 Decided October 31, 1997

No. 96-7120

MARY A. HARRIS,

APPELLANT

v.

JOYCE A. LADNER, ET AL.,

APPELLEES

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the District of Columbia 

(No. 95cv01111)

Clifford A. Brooks argued the cause for the appellant.

David G. Leitch argued the cause for the appellees. Janet 

Pitterle Holt was on brief.

Before: EDWARDS, Chief Judge, HENDERSON and GARLAND, 

Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge HENDERSON.

USCA Case #96-7120 Document #306353 Filed: 10/31/1997 Page 1 of 10
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

KAREN LECRAFT HENDERSON, Circuit Judge: The appellant, 

Mary A. Harris, appeals the district court's dismissal of her 

complaint alleging that Howard University (University) and 

various University officials engaged in unlawful acts in denying her tenure and promotion to the rank of associate professor of Spanish at the University. The district court dismissed 

her action, concluding that the applicable statute of limitations barred the bulk of her claims. The court determined 

the statute of limitations commenced on October 31, 1991, the 

date the University first informed her by letter that tenure 

and promotion had not been approved. Harris argues, inter 

alia, that the letter does not constitute a final "tenure decision" under Delaware State College v. Ricks, 449 U.S. 250, 

258 (1980) (statute of limitations commences "at the time the 

tenure decision was made and communicated to" candidate), 

because, according to University regulations, she was entitled 

toand ultimately receivedreconsideration of the tenure 

committee's negative recommendation before receiving a final

letter of denial from the University. We reverse the district 

court's dismissal based on the statute of limitations. The 

appellant does not contest, however, and we therefore affirm, 

the dismissal of her constitutional claims.

I.

Mary Harris is a black female of Guyanese descent. In 

August 1985 the University hired her as an assistant professor of Spanish on a probationary appointment.1

In October 

1989 Harris applied for tenure and promotion to associate 

professor.2 The Appointments, Promotions, and Tenure 

__________

1 Harris's probationary status meant that tenure was not guaranteed. The Howard University Faculty Handbook (Handbook) 

explains that "[t]enure shall not be granted by default, through the 

mere serving of the full limit of time (seven years) by a faculty 

member under probationary appointment." Joint Appendix (JA) 

130.

2 The Handbook includes a section entitled, "Precise Policies And 

Procedure Of The Tenure Process," which details the following 

levels of review for a tenure application: the departmental AppointUSCA Case #96-7120 Document #306353 Filed: 10/31/1997 Page 2 of 10
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Committee of the Department of Romance Languages (Department APT Committee) denied Harris's application. She 

alleges that she was informed that she should publish additional material (either five articles or one book) and reapply 

in one year.

After completing a book on poetry which was accepted for 

publication, Harris reapplied for tenure and promotion in 

October 1990. This time the Department APT Committee 

and the department chairman recommended Harris for promotion and tenure. Her application was then forwarded to 

the APT Committee of the College of Arts and Sciences 

(College APT Committee) which recommended against promotion and tenure. Her application was next reviewed by 

the Acting Dean of the College, Clarence Lee, who "endorse[d] her promotion with tenure ... but with great reservation." Joint Appendix (JA) 234. Joyce A. Ladner, the 

University's Vice President of Academic Affairs, recommended against promotion and tenure. By letter dated October 31, 1991 Harris was informed by Dean Lee that:

[T]he President of the University, Dr. Franklyn G. Jenifer, has not approved the recommendation that you be 

promoted to the rank of Associate Professor with tenure.

On behalf of the College of Arts and Sciences, I wish to 

thank you for your service and wish you well in your 

future endeavors.

JA 151.

After receiving the letter, Harris sought the assistance of 

James Davis, Acting Chairman of the Department of Ro-

__________

ments, Promotions, and Tenure (APT) Committee, the department 

chairman, the College of Arts and Sciences APT Committee, the 

Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, the Vice-President for 

Academic Affairs, the President and the Board of Trustees. JA 

130-32. See also Howard University's Guidelines for Appointments, Promotions, and Tenure Committee (Guidelines), JA 133-38 

(The Handbook and the Guidelines are separate publications. The 

former was adopted by the Board of Trustees in June 1980, while 

the latter was published by the Office of the Vice President for 

Academic Affairs in 1986.). According to the Handbook, "[t]he 

decision of the Board shall be final." JA at 132.

mance Languages. According to Harris's amended complaint, Davis informed her that she had "the right to reconsideration." JA 26. Davis instructed her to write a letter to 

Dean Lee and include two letters of recommendation from 

outside the University to commence the reconsideration process. Harris then consulted with Dean Lee. According to 

Harris, "[b]oth Dr. Davis and Dr. Lee affirmatively advised 

[her] that said reconsideration was the next step in the tenure 

application process." Id. In addition, by letter dated JanuUSCA Case #96-7120 Document #306353 Filed: 10/31/1997 Page 3 of 10
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

ary 9, 1992 Ladner "confirmed that plaintiff's application for 

tenure would be 're-evaluate[d]' pursuant to 'the guidelines 

established for petitions of reconsideration,' and that [Ladner] 

would inform Dr. Lee, of President Jenifer's 'decision' " once 

Harris initiated the reconsideration process. Id.

Harris subsequently resubmitted her application with two 

letters of recommendation and a copy of her book on poetry, 

which had by then been published. By letter dated March 25, 

1992 she was notified by Dean Lee that:

[Y]our petition to have your application for promotion 

and tenure reconsidered has been reviewed thoroughly 

by the College and the Central Administration. All 

pertinent supporting documents and relevant factors in 

your case were carefully evaluated. It is however, my 

unpleasant task to inform you that no basis was found 

upon which to change the original recommendation, 

namely that promotion and tenure be denied to you.

JA 159.

On March 24, 1995 Harris filed a complaint against the 

University and various University officials.3 Her complaint, 

alleging that she was wrongfully denied tenure and promotion, pressed five claims: (1) race discrimination in viola-

__________

3 The officials include Joyce A. Ladner, Interim President, Franklyn G. Jenifer, Past President, Moraima Donahue, a member of the 

"Tenure Committees" and "John Doe (unknown person[s]), individually and as officials, employees, agents, assistants and/or persons 

acting in concert or cooperation with the other named defendant[s] 

or under their supervision." JA 1.

USCA Case #96-7120 Document #306353 Filed: 10/31/1997 Page 4 of 10
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

tion of 42 U.S.C. § 1981; (2) equal protection and due process 

violations under the fifth and the fourteenth amendments; (3) 

breach of contract; (4) tortious violation of a common law 

right of "fair procedure"; and (5) tortious interference with 

contract. Relying on Delaware State College v. Ricks, 449 

U.S. 250, 258, 261 (1980) (statute of limitations commences "at 

the time the tenure decision was made and communicated to" 

candidate and "pendency of a grievance, or some other method of collateral review of an employment decision, does not 

toll the running of the limitations periods"), the district court 

concluded that the October 31, 1991 letter to Harris "was 

final and unequivocal" and therefore triggered the three-year 

statute of limitations applicable to Harris's claims. Harris v. 

Ladner, No. 95-1111, mem. op. at 5 (D.D.C. Oct. 3, 1995). 

The district court considered Harris's "resubmission of her 

application" after October 31, 1991 as "a form of collateral 

review of the initial decision" which did "not in any way alter 

the finality of the first decision." Id. Because her complaint 

was filed after October 31, 1994, the district court found her 

claims time-barred. In addition, the district court found 

Harris's constitutional claims deficient because she failed to 

allege sufficient governmental involvement in the tenure process to invoke the protections of the fifth and the fourteenth 

amendments. Consequently, the district court granted the 

University's motion to dismiss.4

II.

Our review of the district court's grant of a motion to 

dismiss is de novo. See Wilson v. Peña, 79 F.3d 154, 160 n.1 

__________

4 On October 30, 1995 Harris filed a "Motion for Reconsideration, 

to Set Aside Order of Dismissal, and for Leave to Amend Complaint" alleging that she had discovered new facts supporting an 

amended complaint. The district court eventually denied her motion because, inter alia, the new evidence on which her motion 

relied was available to her "at least two months prior to the 

judgment." Harris v. Ladner, No. 95-1111, at 6 (D.D.C. May 23, 

1996) (order denying plaintiff's motion for reconsideration). The 

Court also held that her new claims, like her original ones, were 

time-barred. Id.

USCA Case #96-7120 Document #306353 Filed: 10/31/1997 Page 5 of 10
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

(D.C. Cir. 1996). To determine whether the district court 

appropriately dismissed Harris's action for failure to state a 

claim under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, we must accept her factual allegations as true, see 

Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 268 (1994), and draw all 

inferences in her favor. See Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 

236 (1974). To prevail on a motion to dismiss for failure to 

state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), the defendants must show 

"beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in 

support of [her] claim which would entitle [her] to relief." 

Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957).

The appellees argue that this appeal can be resolved 

through a routine application of the Supreme Court's holding 

in Ricks. Plaintiff Ricks joined the education department 

faculty at Delaware State College in 1970. In February 1973 

the appropriate faculty committee recommended against tenure but agreed to reconsider its decision the following year. 

In February 1974, on reconsideration, the committee "adhered to its earlier recommendation." 449 U.S. at 252. The 

following month the faculty senate voted to support the 

tenure committee's recommendation and on March 13, 1974 

the board of trustees (Board) formally voted to deny Ricks 

tenure. Ricks subsequently filed a grievance. During the 

pendency of the grievance, the Board formally notified Ricks, 

by letter dated June 26, 1974, that it "officially endorsed" the 

recommendation of the faculty senate not to grant him tenure 

and offered him a one-year "terminal" contract expiring on 

June 30, 1975. Id. at 253 n.2. Ricks signed the contract on 

September 4, 1974. On September 12, 1974 the Board notified Ricks that it had denied his grievance.

Ricks filed suit on September 9, 1977, alleging that Delaware State College unlawfully denied him tenure based on his 

national origin (Liberian) in violation of Title VII of the Civil 

Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Id. at 254. The 

district court determined that his claims accrued on June 26, 

1974, the date he was notified by the Board that tenure had 

been denied, and therefore his claims were untimely filed. 

The Third Circuit reversed, holding that the applicable threeyear statute of limitations began on the date Ricks's terminal 

USCA Case #96-7120 Document #306353 Filed: 10/31/1997 Page 6 of 10
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

contract expired. The Supreme Court reversed the Third 

Circuit, concluding that the statute of limitations commenced 

"at the time the tenure decision was made and communicated 

to" Ricks. Id. at 258. The district court was justified, the 

Supreme Court said, in concluding that the decision was 

communicated "no later than" the date of the June 26, 1974 

letter, notwithstanding Ricks's grievance remained pending 

until September. Id. at 262. Relying on its earlier decision 

in Electrical Workers v. Robbins & Myers, Inc., 429 U.S. 229 

(1976), the Court noted "we already have held that the 

pendency of a grievance, or some other method of collateral 

review of an employment decision, does not toll the running of 

the limitations periods" and that the "existence of careful 

procedures to assure fairness in the tenure decision should 

not obscure the principle that limitations periods normally 

commence when the employer's decision is made." Id. at 261.

We believe Harris's case is distinguishable from Ricks.

Harris maintains that originally she was not apprised of her 

right to reconsideration under Section E of the University's 

Guidelines for Appointments, Promotions, and Tenure Committees (Guidelines).5 Consequently, Harris claims that she 

was not given a meaningful opportunity to seek reconsideration from the College ATP Committee, as was her "right" 

__________

5 Section E reads:

E. Faculty's Right to Petition for Reconsideration

When a decision not to recommend promotion or tenure for a 

faculty member is rendered by the departmental or school- or 

college-wide APT Committee, the faculty member has the right 

to petition the APT Committee for reconsideration of its 

decision if he or she can provide materials that were not 

available during the initial review. The APT Committee has 

the obligation to determine whether the new materials warrant 

reconsideration of its decision. The faculty member should be 

notified promptly of this decision. Petitions should be submitted through department chairmen for departmental Committees and through the deans for school- or college-wide Committees.

JA 137-38 (emphases added).

USCA Case #96-7120 Document #306353 Filed: 10/31/1997 Page 7 of 10
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

pursuant to the Guidelines, before the negative recommendation was forwarded directly to University officials for further 

action. Moreover, Harris might reasonably have believed 

that the reconsideration her application ultimately received 

was given in accordance with the Guidelines. She alleged 

that both the department chairman and the College Dean 

"affirmatively advised [her] that said reconsideration was the 

next step in the tenure application process." JA 26. Indeed, 

defendant Ladner, the University Vice President, revealed in 

a January 9, 1992 letter to Ian Isidore Smart, a University 

faculty member who strongly supported Harris's tenure application, that Harris planned to file a "petition for reconsideration" and had been "encouraged ... to follow the guidelines established for petitions of reconsideration." JA 158. 

As the appellees conceded during oral argument, however, 

those procedures provide for reconsideration before the final 

decision. As a result, it may have been reasonable for Harris 

to believe that the University was reconsidering her application pursuant to the Guidelines and that the tenure decision 

thus was not yet final. Her belief could have been bolstered 

by the fact that the University has a specific "grievance" 

procedure, wholly distinct from the reconsideration process, 

which is available to an unsuccessful candidate only after the 

University's final adverse action. Howard University Manual: Faculty Handbook Section, JA 116-17. The reconsideration Harris received was, according to the University's own 

process, not part of its grievance procedure. As a result, the 

reconsideration might well not have been "a grievance, or 

some other method of collateral review of an employment 

decision" that "does not toll the running of the limitations 

periods" Ricks, 449 U.S. at 261. Rather, the reconsideration 

may have been a continuation of the original application 

process.

We note that our holding is not intended to allow a plaintiff 

to avoid the holding in Ricks simply by labeling the final 

decision "preliminary" and procedures to review that decision 

an "integral part" of the decision process rather than collateral review of the final decision. Our disposition of this case 

does not disturb or undercut the holding in Ricks that the 

USCA Case #96-7120 Document #306353 Filed: 10/31/1997 Page 8 of 10
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

"existence of careful procedures to assure fairness in the 

tenure decision should not obscure the principle that limitations periods normally commence when the employer's decision is made." Id. Rather, our holding is restricted to 

Harris's allegations regarding the reconsideration process 

afforded her, which process, although termed "reconsideration," does not appear to be like the collateral review procedure at issue in Ricks. Rather, under the University's procedures as set forth in its Guidelines and conceded at oral 

argument, the reconsideration provided Harris appears to 

occur only prior to the final tenure decision.

Because the defendants did not show below "beyond doubt 

that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of [her] 

claim which would entitle [her] to relief," Conley, 355 U.S. at 

45-46, we conclude that Harris sufficiently set forth a claim 

upon which relief could be granted and dismissal under Rule 

12(b)(6) was therefore improper. We leave open to the 

district court the possibility of disposing of this case as a 

matter of law after discovery. We simply hold that the 

district court erred in dismissing Harris's amended complaint 

on the statute of limitations ground at this stage of the 

litigation.

III.

As Harris does not appear to contest the dismissal of her 

fifth and fourteenth amendment claims, we need not tarry 

over them.6 While "[t]here is no doubt that Howard [University]'s action has serious consequences for appellant ... it is 

not subject to all the constraints put on governmental action 

by the due process clause." Williams v. Howard Univ., 528 

F.2d 658, 660 (D.C. Cir. 1976). Indeed, because Howard 

University is a private institution, the plaintiff must show 

more than "general governmental involvement" in the University's affairs before constitutional protections are implicated. 

See, e.g., Sanford v. Howard Univ., 415 F. Supp. 23, 29 

(D.D.C. 1976) ("A showing of general involvement in a private 

educational institution is not enough to convert essentially 

__________

6

See Appellee's Br. at 7 n.2; Appellant's Br. at 1-3.

USCA Case #96-7120 Document #306353 Filed: 10/31/1997 Page 9 of 10
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

private activity into governmental activity for purposes of a 

due process claim, and Howard [University]'s essentially private status must be recognized."), aff'd, 549 F.2d 830 (D.C. 

Cir. 1977). The district court correctly dismissed the constitutional claims on the ground that Harris "failed to show the 

necessary level of governmental involvement in the tenure 

decision-making process to allow the court to find that Howard University, a private institution, should be held to the 

constraints of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments." Harris, No. 95-1111, at 8 (internal footnote omitted).

* * *

For the foregoing reasons we reverse the district court's 

dismissal of Harris's non-constitutional claims, affirm its dismissal of her constitutional claims and remand for further 

proceedings consistent with this opinion.

So ordered.

USCA Case #96-7120 Document #306353 Filed: 10/31/1997 Page 10 of 10