Opinion ID: 23608
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Proper Defendants Under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. 1981

Text: 7 Oktibbeha County and Sheriff Bryan (Appellants) argue that the district court erred by denying their motion to dismiss the County and the Sheriff in his individual capacity. This Court recognizes that Title VII does not provide the exclusive remedy for discrimination by employers. See Hernandez v. Hill Country Tel. Coop., Inc., 849 F.2d 139, 142-43 (5th Cir. 1988). Courts may not, however, indiscriminately assess damage awards against persons and entities that are not responsible for an employer's unlawful discriminatory conduct. See Huckabay v. Moore, 142 F.3d 233, 241 (5th Cir. 1998) (holding that only employers are liable for unlawful conduct under Title VII). Because the remedies against the defendants under Title VII and 1981 were not separated, we must determine whether the district court erred by assessing compensatory and punitive damages against Oktibbeha County and the Sheriff in his official and individual capacities.
8 Plaintiffs may plead causes of action under both Title VII and 1981 against private employers to remedy discrimination in private employment contracts. See Runyon v. McCrary, 427 U.S. 160, 174 (1976); Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, Inc., 412 U.S. 454, 459 (1975). Plaintiffs may also pursue a 1983 cause of action against persons acting under color of state law in order to assert their substantive rights under 1981. We must determine whether Oden can assert an independent cause of action under 1981 against Oktibbeha County and the Sheriff in his official and individual capacities. 9
10 In 1989, the Supreme Court held in Jett v. Dallas Independent School District, 491 U.S. 701, 731 (1989), that 1981 did not provide a separate cause of action against local government entities. The Court concluded that plaintiffs must assert a cause of action against state actors under 1983 to remedy violations of civil rights under 1981. See id. Several courts have addressed the continuing significance of the Court's plurality decision after Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1991. The Act amended 1981 by adding subsection (c), which states that the rights protected by 1981 are protected against impairment by nongovernmental discrimination and impairment under color of state law. 42 U.S.C. 1981(c). 2 In order to determine whether Oden could pursue a separate cause of action under 1981 against Oktibbeha County and the Sheriff in his official capacity, we must address whether the 1991 amendment abrogated the Court's holding in Jett and created a separate cause of action against local government entities. 11 Subsection (c) does not expressly create a remedial cause of action against local government entities, and we are not persuaded that such a remedy should be implied. In Jett, the Court held that Congress intended 1983 to be the sole remedy for discrimination by persons acting under color of state law. See Jett, 491 U.S. at 731. The Court reasoned that 1981 implicitly created an independent cause of action against private actors because no other statute created such a remedy. See id. at 732. Because 1983 provided a remedy against persons acting under color of state law, the Court declined to imply a cause of action under 1981 independent of 1983. We are persuaded that the conclusion in Jett remains the same after Congress enacted the 1991 amendments. Subsection (c) addresses only substantive rights. Section 1983 remains the only provision to expressly create a remedy against persons acting under color of state law. The addition of subsection (c) creates no more of a need for the judiciary to imply a cause of action under 1981 against state actors than existed when the Supreme Court decided Jett. 12 The legislative history of the 1991 amendment is supportive of our conclusion. By enacting subsection (c), Congress stated that it intended to codify the Supreme Court's decision in Runyon v. McCrary. See Butts, 222 F.3d at 894 (citing H.R. Rep. No. 102-40(I), at 92 (1991), reprinted in 1991 U.S.C.C.A.N. 549, 630; H.R. Rep. No. 102-40(II), at 37 (1991), reprinted in 1991 U.S.C.C.A.N. 694, 731). See also Anderson v. Conboy, 156 F.3d 167, 179 (2d Cir. 1998). In Runyon, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that 1981 implies a right of action based on racial discrimination against private actors. See Runyon, 427 U.S. at 174-75. There is no congressional statement of intent to overrule Jett. By codifying Runyon, Congress confirmed that 1981 implies a cause of action against private actors. 13 The question follows then why, if Congress only intended to codify Runyon, does subsection (c) include language referring to persons acting under color of state law? The Ninth Circuit reasoned that this allusion to persons acting under color of state law implies Congressional intent to create a remedy in addition to 1983. See Oakland, 96 F.3d at 1213. We disagree. [T]he judicial power to imply or create remedies . . . should not be exercised in the face of an express decision by Congress concerning the scope of remedies available under a particular statute. Jett, 491 U.S. at 732 (citing National R.R. Passenger Corp. v. National Assn. of R.R. Passengers, 414 U.S. 453, 458 (1974). Because Congress neither expressed its intent to overrule Jett, nor explicitly created a remedy against state actors in addition to 1983, we are not willing to deviate from the Supreme Court's analysis of 1981 in Jett. Accordingly, Deputy Oden could not maintain an independent cause of action under 1981 against Oktibbeha County and Sheriff Dolph Bryan in his official capacity. 3
14 Sheriff Dolph Bryan claims that the district court erred by failing to dismiss Oden's claims against him in his individual capacity. The Sheriff does not dispute that 1981 provides an implicit cause of action against private actors in private employment discrimination cases. See Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, Inc., 412 U.S. 454, 459 (1975); Adams v. McDougal, 695 F.2d 104, 108 (5th Cir. 1983). Rather, he argues that he is not a proper party in this suit because he was acting in his official capacity. 4 15 While the Supreme Court has extended 1981 liability to cases involving private employment contracts, it has not imposed personal liability on elected officials for discrimination in the terms and conditions of local government employment contracts. Cf. Brown v. General Servs. Admin., 425 U.S. 820, 835 (1976) (holding that Title VII is the exclusive remedy for seeking money damages against the federal government). In Huckabay v. Moore, this Court concluded that an individual was not an employer for purposes of Title VII when acting in his official capacity. See 142 F.3d at 241. Only officials should be responsible for discriminatory decisions concerning government employment contracts. See id. See also Grant v. Lone Star Co., 21 F.3d 649, 652 (5th Cir. 1994) (Only 'employers,' not individuals acting in their individual capacity who do not otherwise meet the definition of 'employers,' can be liable under Title VII.); Harvey v. Blake, 913 F.2d 226, 227 (5th Cir. 1990) (concluding that an elected official should not be liable for official acts). Likewise, when a plaintiff asserts a cause of action under 1981 for discrimination in the terms and conditions of a municipal employment contract, the proper defendant is the government employer in his official capacity. Because Sheriff Bryan's choice to promote Deputy Carrithers to chief deputy was an official decision, he is not personally liable under 1981. 5 We therefore dismiss the district court's judgment against Sheriff Bryan in his individual capacity.
16 Title VII allows employees to sue their employers for discriminatory employment decisions. See 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(a), 2000e-5. An employer under Title VII is a person in an industry affecting commerce who has fifteen or more employees . . .. 42 U.S.C. 2000e(b). A person includes one or more individuals, governments, governmental agencies, [or] political subdivisions . . .. 42 U.S.C. 2000e(a). The trial court failed to designate which of the three defendants was Deputy Oden's employer. 6 17 Federal law controls whether a person is an employer under Title VII, but courts can look to state law to understand the nature of the employment relationship. See, e.g., Calderon v. Martin County, 639 F.2d 271, 273 (5th Cir. Unit B 1981) (determining whether plaintiff constituted an employee under Title VII). Mississippi law allows a sheriff to appoint, remove, and fix the compensation of his deputies, subject to the county board of supervisor's approval of the sheriff's budget. See Miss. Code Ann. 19-25-19. Sheriff Bryan was solely responsible for hiring, promoting, and establishing the deputies' wages. The County's only responsibility was to approve the Sheriff's budget and allocate the necessary funds. Because Sheriff Bryan was the elected official who made all decisions concerning promotions within the Sheriff's Department, he was Deputy Oden's employer for purposes of Title VII. 7 We therefore reverse the district court's judgment against Oktibbeha County and Sheriff Dolph Bryan individually under Title VII.
18 Appellants argue that the Civil Rights Act of 1991 limits Sheriff Bryan's liability in his official capacity to compensatory damages. The Act allows plaintiffs asserting a Title VII claim to recover compensatory and punitive damages, provided that recovery is unavailable under 1981. See 42 U.S.C. 1981a(1). 8 The Act precludes plaintiffs from recovering punitive damages against governments, government agencies, and political subdivisions. See 42 U.S.C. 1981a(b); Baker v. Runyon, 114 F.3d 668, 669 (7th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 119 S.Ct. 335 (1998). 19 Oden does not dispute the applicability of 1981a to the Sheriff in his official capacity. Oden contends that the appellants forfeited their argument on appeal because the objections to the district court's jury instructions were not specific. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 51. We agree that the appellants failed to properly preserve their objection. 20 If a litigant forfeits a point of error on appeal, we review the district court's decision under the plain error standard. See Douglass v. United Serv. Auto. Ass'n,79 F.3d 1415, 1427 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc). For this Court to correct an error not raised at trial, there must be (1) 'error,' (2) that is 'plain,' and (3) that 'affect[s] substantial rights.' Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 467 (1997) (quoting United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732 (1993)). If plain error exists, this Court should not exercise its discretion to correct the error unless the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Id. 21 The district court committed plain error by assessing punitive damages against the Sheriff. Section 1981a prohibits punitive damage awards against governments and political subdivisions. Subjecting the Sheriff to an $80,000 punitive damage award is inapposite to Congress's intent to preclude local government entities from paying such judgments. We find it appropriate even under a plain error standard to correct judgments that are contrary to the express limits federal law imposes on judicial authority, and therefore reverse the punitive damage award against Sheriff Bryan in his official capacity.
22 Title VII relieves employers from liability for decisions affecting members of a personal staff. See 42 U.S.C. 2000e(f). 9 The exception includes appointments to a staff position. See Teneyuca v. Bexar County, 767 F.2d 148, 150-53 (5th Cir. 1985). Appellants maintain that the district court erred in denying their motion for judgment as a matter of law because the chief deputy position is part of Sheriff Bryan's personal staff. Oden claims that the Appellants waived the personal staff exception by asserting it for the first time in their motion for post-trial relief. 23 Rule 8(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure lists nineteen affirmative defenses that must be set forth in a responsive pleading. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(c). In addition to these nineteen defenses, Rule 8(c) includes any other matter constituting an avoidance or an affirmative defense. Id. To qualify as a defense under Rule 8(c)'s residuary clause, we look to the logical relationship between the defense and the cause of action and assess whether failure to timely plead the defense will result in unfair surprise. See Ingraham v. United States, 808 F.2d 1075, 1079 (5th Cir. 1987). A defendant should not be permitted to 'lie behind a log' and ambush a plaintiff with an unexpected defense. See id. at 1079. The personal staff exception allows the defendant to avoid liability even if the plaintiff meets his burden of proof under Title VII. See id. The defendant bears the initial burden of demonstrating that the personal staff exception applies. See Nichols v. Hurley, 921 F.2d 1101, 1111 (10th Cir. 1990); Teneyuca v. Bexar County, 767 F.2d 148, 152 (5th Cir. 1985). 24 The Appellants raised the personal staff exception for the first time in their motion for judgment as a matter of law, which was filed after the jury returned its verdict and the district court entered its judgment. Oden was denied the opportunity to present evidence at trial concerning the applicability of the personal staff exception. 'Affirmative defenses . . . will defeat an otherwise legitimate claim for relief [and] must be set forth to avoid surprise and give the opposing party an opportunity to respond.' 2 James W. Moore et al, Moore's Federal Practice 8.07[1], at 8-35 (3d ed. 2000) (citing Blonder-Tongue Labs., Inc. v. Univ. of Ill. Found., 402 U.S. 313, 350 (1971)). Allowing the Appellants to wait until after the jury verdict to assert the personal staff exception was an unfair surprise to Oden. The personal staff exception is an affirmative defense that must be pleaded under Rule 8(c). 10 Appellants waived the personal staff exception by failing to raise it in a responsive pleading.