Legal Document

454 U.S. 6 102 Supreme Court Reporter 28 70 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 Carlos CHARDON, Individually, et al.v.Rafael Rivera FERNANDEZ al.* Number 81-249. Nov. 2, 1981. Rehearing Denied Jan. 11, 1982. See 1166, 1042. PER CURIAM. 1 Respondents were nontenured administrators in the Puerto Rico Department of Education during 1976-1977 school year.1 On dates prior to June 18, 1977, each respondent was notified by letter that his appointment would terminate at a specified date between 30 and August 8, 1977. 19, 1978, Rafael Fernandez filed complaint alleging terminations violated 42 Code KF62 § 1983. The District dismissed suit, holding action had accrued on employees received letters claims therefore barred applicable 1-year statute limitations, P.R. Laws Ann., Tit. 31, 5298(2) (1968). Appeals for First Circuit reversed ground limitations period did not begin running until respondents' appointments ended. 648 Federal Reporter, 2nd 765 (1981). 2 decision below is contrary recent this Court: Delaware State College versus Ricks, 449 250, 101 498, 66 431 (1980). In case, Ricks suit denial tenure state college deprived him rights under Title VII Civil Rights Act 1964, 2000e seq., And we held periods began run when denied tenure, rather than employment terminated. His was, therefore, time-barred. 3 distinguished alleged "unlawful practice," whereas here respondents allege termination their as practice." We think indistinguishable. When he given "terminal" contract. Thus, operative made—and notice given—in advance designated which terminated.2 4 proper focus time discriminatory act, point consequences act become painful. U.S., 258, S.Ct., 504. fact itself an illegal act. racial discrimination decision. Id., 259, Here, made solely political reasons, violative Amendment rights. There no other allegations, either or these cases, acts subsequent decisions made. As noted "[m]ere continuity employment, without more, insufficient prolong life cause discrimination." 257, cases bar, notified, they letters, final been appointments. afforded reasonable cannot extend within must be filed. grant certiorari. judgments entered May 1981, are reversed, remanded further proceedings consistent with 5 Reversed remanded. Justice BRENNAN, whom MARSHALL joins, dissenting. While & N Dec. Immigration Nationality Decisions agree analysis Judge Campbell Appeals, join dissenting opinion STEVENS, believe per curiam disposition particularly ill-conceived. 7 It one thing hold, (1980), purpose computing period, benefit such consequent damage, accrues plaintiff learns has benefit; it quite another does here, damages resulting from unconstitutional will To my knowledge, rule analogue customary principles law. Atlantic Corbin, Contracts 989 (1951) ("The should penalized leaving defendant opportunity retract wrongful repudiation; so if statutory limitation against immediately"). 8 thrust Court's require potential civil measure filing claim moment some form injunctive relief first becomes available. effect ruling increase number unripe anticipatory lawsuits federal courts concrete harm suffered, parties, forces time, have maximum resolve controversy. 9 Because case plainly distinguishable potentially far-reaching its impact, issue decided only upon plenary review. summary reversal inappropriate, respectfully dissent. 10 BRENNAN join, 11 After noting most judges who confronted reached conclusion odds today, Campbell, writing cogently explained why 431, dispositive followed case: 12 "The depends, believe, unlawful occurred. necessary, identify Where, prohibited reason, could argued making decision, implementation it. But refined depart too sharply understanding ordinary people. plaintiffs complaining demoted discharged, merely particular occasion, then given, take them. Had but yet implemented, equitable might sought forestall irreparable harm, unlikely unless threatened consummated. revocable, incomplete and, practical purposes, non-existent actual demotion discharge. 13 "Moreover, important policies judicial administration favor based implementation. present easily established, surely arise resolution question lengthy proceedings. Notice oral, ambiguously phrased, transmitted whose authority subject question. see value requiring parties devote resources litigating adequacy notice, determined. saying aware declined reach out identified bears genuine relationship complains. Compare [449 431] (1980) (date sufficiently connected challenged tenure), discussed infra. where, closely related plaintiffs' also identified, concern adoption best promotes certainty eliminates litigation over technical niceties well warranted. 14 "After district court's supra. Defendants contend compels affirmance here. disagree. black Liberian instructor, informed 1974 faculty voted deny tenure. accordance school's usual practice, thereafter granted one-year terminal contract, after basis national origin, contended left university 1975. rejected argument concluded Ricks' 1974, barred. focussed allegations complaint, found charge discharge any action. 'unlawful practice' meaning VII, beginning period. Three justices, dissent, accepted majority's (i. e., discharge, practice) placed later because internal grievance board. Stevens, alone among took view analogous Based analogy, control. 15 "Refusal majority adopt Stevens' analogy seem us way repudiate precedents draw analogy. academic setting fundamentally different discharge; distinct separate action, all aspects employee's status. often always, dependent being effective immediately; followed, soon complain discharges demotions, event occurred earlier date. notifying them planned actions nothing more; themselves comparable 16 "To sure, said, can argue notices mirror allegedly motives defendants. One lie receipt (or, indeed, even before) harm. Still quarrel demotions discharges—not themselves. No done Until then, central remains incomplete. Such situation where completed challenged. 17 "We conclude, inapplicable court erred dismissing complaints." 765, 768-770 (CA1 1981) (footnotes omitted). 18 For reasons stated * Together Chardon, Secretary Public Rico, al. Rodriguez; Santiago de Orta; Angiuta Rios; Sanchez; Santana; Perez-Ramirez; Roman Molina; Collazo; Garcia; Lopez Ferra; Beltran; Cacho Freytes; Navarro, petition certiorari same (see Rule 19.4). Petitioners request writ review total 36 respondents. published text, represents judgment brought 23 respondents; issued Identical individual App. Pet. Certiorari 11a (unpublished orders). policy giving contract teachers Only expired, "employment en[d]." 253, 501. Apparently, practice similar principle. Following terminate, ending deferred Advance affords employee find job.

Classification Label: 1