Opinion ID: 1736323
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: sovereign immunity and sufficiency of the evidence

Text: As previously stated, upon the prior appeal the appellate court determined there was a jury question as to whether Dr. Hayse was denied promotion because of the internal dispute [that] was raging between the dean of the college and the head of his department, and thus penalized because of his exercise of [his constitutional right to] freedom of association. The law of this case upon retrial was: According to the rationale of Mount Healthy City Board of Education, supra , appellant is entitled to relief if he can show that constitutionally protected conduct (i.e., `exercise of his freedom of association') was a substantial or motivating factor in the rejection of his promotion unless the University can then convince the trier of fact that appellant's promotion would have been denied anyway even if there had been no consideration of impermissible factors. This remand with no discussion of the sovereign immunity defense, which had been raised and, which, if appropriate, would call for dismissal, forecloses further litigation of these questions as a matter of law. See Nashville, C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Banks, 168 Ky. 579, 182 S.W. 660 (1916) and Eagle Fluorspar Co. v. Larue, 237 Ky. 263, 35 S.W.2d 303 (1931), recently cited with approval in Com. Transp. Co. v. Taub, Ky., 766 S.W.2d 49, 52 (1988). Our rule is that issues which, if sustained, call for dismissal, are taken as decided and rejected when the case has been reversed and remanded on the first appeal. The question of federal civil rights violations was put in issue by Dr. Hayse's Amended Complaint filed May 18, 1981, alleging that he was denied due process in violation of Amendments 5 and 14, that Defendant Stephenson's refusal to follow established procedure because of Plaintiff's association with Dr. Evans violated Plaintiff's First Amendment rights, and that plaintiff was denied the equal protection to which all other faculty members seeking tenure and promotion are entitled. None of these charges were substantively enlarged when the Second Amended Complaint filed after the appeal specifically referred to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The defense of sovereign immunity was raised initially, before the first appeal, and the effect of its rejection by reason of the decision of the first appeal was not lost when the same claim was reasserted in a second amended complaint specifically referring to § 1983. Upon remand the case was properly submitted to a jury against both the Board of Trustees and Dean Stephenson under instructions stating the law of the case as decided by the Court of Appeals. The jury then answered Interrogatories based on these instructions to the effect: (1) Dean Stephenson considered constitutionally impermissible factors . . . in rejecting Dr. Hayse's application(s) for promotion, and (2) the University would not have disapproved Dr. Hayse's application(s) for promotion to the rank of Associate Professor, with tenure, but for consideration of these constitutionally impermissible factors. The Court of Appeals, in reversing the Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict, stated that Dr. Hayse's evidence proving that constitutionally impermissible factors were considered in denying his promotion, albeit circumstantial, was sufficient to raise a jury question. The evidence was no different from what was represented to the Court of Appeals on the first appeal when it reversed the Summary Judgment and established the law of the case. The question whether these facts represent a violation of Dr. Hayse's constitutionally protected right to freedom of association, while it might otherwise be the subject for legal dispute as an original proposition, has already been decided on the first appeal. It will not now be revisited. Further, the trial court's Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict cannot be sustained upon the theory that Dr. Hayse's promotion would have been denied anyway even if there had been no consideration of impermissible factors. Under Mt. Healthy City Board of Ed., quoted supra, the Board of Trustees and Dean Stephenson, not Dr. Hayse, were the parties who had the burden of persuading the jury on this point, and they failed to do so. We cannot properly direct a verdict on the statements of interested parties regarding their version of the facts, even if uncontradicted. This defense was submitted to the jury under instructions which have not been appealed and by specific interrogatory, and the jury rejected this defense. The jury's verdict should be sustained. The doctrine of sovereign immunity has been misapplied as a shield to Dean Stephenson. In the first place, as previously discussed, sovereign immunity as a defense was foreclosed by the first appeal. In the second place, the doctrine of sovereign immunity does not apply to Dean Stephenson under the circumstances in this case in any event. Dean Stephenson was sued for his personal wrongdoing, direct responsibility for violating Hayse's constitutionally protected rights. The fact that this wrongdoing occurred while serving in his official capacity does not entitle him to the defense of sovereign immunity. Our recent decision in Gould v. O'Bannon, Ky., 770 S.W.2d 220 (1989), finality June 8, 1989, and our decision of long-standing in Happy v. Erwin, Ky., 330 S.W.2d 412 (1959), lay this matter to rest. The argument to the contrary reflects a glaring misunderstanding of the difference between liability of a state official for personal wrongdoing and nonliability where the claim is premised solely on his representative status, or official capacity. Officials have no vicarious liability for acts of subordinates in which they are not directly involved, i.e., bear no personal responsibility. This has no bearing on liability for one's own personal misconduct in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983, Notes 1246-49, and Supplement, are replete with cases illustrating this point. Whereas the official capacity of individual members of the U.K. Board of Trustees does not subject them to liability because they bear no direct complicity in this sad affair, Dean Stephenson's status as a public official provides no protection for the misconduct which the jury has directly attributed to Dean Stephenson. Nor does the official immunity doctrine, which protects a government official in making decisions involving the exercise of discretion ( See Black's Law Dictionary, 5th ed. 1979, p. 978), apply to this case. It protects decision making by a public official only if his acts are not otherwise wrongful. But official immunity is no defense in present circumstances to claims grounded in constitutionally impermissible misconduct. On the contrary, such misconduct is the gravamen of a civil rights claim: Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State . . . subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution . . . shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. There has never been any doubt in this case until now that Dean Stephenson was sued individually, that there were two defendants, Dean Stephenson and the Board of Trustees. The Complaint sought recovery against him individually, as well as seeking recovery against the Board of Trustees. The jury instructions, without objection, identified Stephenson as a separate defendant subject to an award of damages against him, personally. He did not enjoy sovereign immunity on grounds that his alleged wrongdoing was performed while serving in his official capacity, nor does the wrongdoing with which he is charged qualify as discretionary acts covered by the official immunity doctrine. Since this case was taken under submission, the United States Supreme Court's decision in Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, ___ U.S. ___, 109 S.Ct. 2304, 105 L.Ed.2d 45 (1989) has resolved an ongoing controversy as to whether a state or state agency enjoying sovereign immunity under state law can be held liable in a state court action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the constitutionally impermissible acts of a subordinate. The Will case resolves this conflict, holding that neither a state nor state officials, where the claim is not a suit against the official but rather is a suit against the official's office (109 S.Ct. at 2311), are persons within the meaning of § 1983, and therefore this civil rights statute does not override the state sovereign immunity of such state agencies and officials, where there is immunity under state law. This decision would apply to the respondeat superior liability Board of Trustees if its potential liability had not already been laid to rest by the finality of the decision on prior appeal. It has no application to individual acts of wrongdoing of state officials as the persons identified as liable under § 1983. There is no valid legal reason why the award of damages at the trial of this case should not be affirmed. The trial was conducted in conformity with the law as stated on the first appeal, and the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict.