Court Opinion

ID: 9461651
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 22:20:31.524467+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:37:11.358101
License: Public Domain

RIVES, Circuit Judge
(dissenting):
I agree with the district court’s findings and conclusions, as stated in its judgment, that Mrs. Vick “was improperly denied prenatal benefits for an excessive period prior to the birth of her child” (emphasis added) and that she “did not in fact or timely comply with the valid requirements of specific proof of postnatal eligibility” (emphasis added).
However, I think that the district court erred in awarding Mrs. Vick for prenatal benefits only $272.25 plus interest. It seems clearly established that Mrs. Vick was able to continue work as a mathematical analyst up to a very short time before the birth of her child.
In my opinion, the district court also erred in awarding only $300.00 as fees for Mrs. Vick’s attorneys. Considering the public purpose served by the statutory provision for attorney’s fees, the good faith of the attorneys, the reasonableness of claiming and litigating the right to recover very substantial sums for prenatal and postnatal benefits, the time and skill expended by the attorneys, and especially the importance of the principle of law successfully established and implemented, I think that a much larger amount should have been allowed as fees for Mrs. Vick’s attorneys.
Mrs. Vick’s complaint was filed in 1970, long before the decision of City of Kenosha v. Bruno, 412 U.S. 507, 93 S.Ct. 2222/37 L.Ed.2d 109 (1973). Assuming that the majority is correct in holding that TEC is not a “person” under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and that therefore the district court was without jurisdiction of a substantial part of Mrs. Vick’s complaint, I think that, to be “just under the circumstances,” 28 U.S.C. § 2106, we should by remand afford Mrs. Vick an opportunity to amend by adding “persons” as parties defendant.
In my opinion, however, jurisdiction did not depend solely on 28 U.S.C. § 1983. Mrs. Vick’s complaint alleged unlawful employment practices under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. and a violation of her fourteenth amendment rights. Those averments furnish a basis of federal jurisdiction independent of section 1983.
Further, it seems to me that the majority opinion denies any real meaning to the words in 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(b) “or otherwise to discriminate.” I think the statute does reach discrimination against Mrs. Vick in the denial of unemployment benefits for an' excessive period prior to the birth of her child.
Upon each of the stated grounds, I respectfully dissent.