Court Opinion

ID: 9459635
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 21:26:58.603151+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:36:15.389385
License: Public Domain

THORNBERRY, Circuit Judge
(coneurring in part and dissenting in part):
The majority has discussed two time periods for which the plaintiff sought relief below, the 1970-71 nine-month academic term and the 1971-72 term. There is an additional third period in this case, however, which the majority does not discuss separately — the summer 1971 term. This summer session, as well as each of the two long terms, was covered by the complaint and was the subject of a separate interrogatory to the jury. The College contracted with teachers (or refused to do so) for each of the three periods separately. For these reasons and others which will appear below, I think the College’s refusal to hire Dr. Rainey for the 1971 summer term should receive separate consideration on this appeal.
1970-71 term. I agree with the conclusion reached in part I of the majority opinion; the record shows conclusively that the defendants acted for constitutionally impermissible reasons in attempting to cancel, or deny the existence of Dr. Rainey’s 1970-71 contract. One item of evidence bearing on the Board’s 1970-71 decision was a transcript of a hearing accorded Dr. Rainey on January 8, 1972 in compliance with an order of the district court. At the hearing Dr. W. O. Stone, President of the Board, explained why the Board, acting on the recommendation of its Special Education Committee had decided on August 19 and 20, 1970 that the College should not employ Dr. Rainey in 1970-71. He stated:
Now, there were several reasons why the Board members questioned your [Dr. Rainey’s] appointment. They are as follows: (1) There was much publicity about your statements concerning the motion picture entitled, “The Fox”. The Board members expressed grave concern that the publicity centered around your testimony dealing with the motion picture, “The Fox”, would be detrimental to your effectiveness as a professor at Jackson *356State College. It was pointed out by Board members that you were quoted as saying that this motion picture was not immoral and was one of the most beautifully done films that you had seen.
* * * * * -x-
The second major concern of the Board members was the fact that your field of expertise is basically in religious philosophy and your appointment was recommended as an Assistant Professor in the field of English. It is somewhat unusual for an ordained minister to seek employment at a public institution of higher learning to teach English.
Dr. M. M. Roberts, who had been a member of the Special Education Committee, explained the basis of the Committee’s decision in somewhat greater detail:
There were a good many reasons for what we thought. At that time there was no criticism of the right of Dr. Rainey to do what he had done in testifying about this moving picture entitled “The Fox”. But, wide publicity had been given to this and so much so that the administrative head and the administrators of Mississippi College concluded that Dr. Rainey should not be given tenure at that institution because he, Dr. Rainey, had gotten this bad publicity. This publicity that showed him out like a sore thumb, I’d say. This individual who had publicity where the public mind was advised and he thus had been watered down or rather his publicity received had made it improper in the view of what the Board itself considered to be in the best interests of Jackson State College that he be employed as a faculty member at Jackson State College for the year 1970-71, for that academic year.
•X- -X- * -x- * -X-
Another area which was discussed and considered on August 19th and/or August 20, 1970, by the Committee and Board aforesaid, was the fact that Dr. Rainey was an ordained minister of the gospel and that in all probability he could and would not devote his full undivided time and attention to his duties as a professor at Jackson State College. And, further, that his field of training and experience and conduct and what he had done with his life was basically in the field of religious philosophy and he was seeking employment in the field of English as Assistant Professor of English at Jackson State College for the academic year of 1970-71.
Thus, the hearing transcript reflects a total of three grounds for the Board’s decision: (1) Dr. Rainey’s testimony for the defense at an obscenity trial and the resultant publicity, (2) concern that, since his academic credentials did not include a doctorate in English, he might not be qualified to teach English, and (3) concern that his activities as a minister might interfere with his activities as a teacher. Dr. Roberts and Mr. Hederman, another member of the Board of Trustees testified at trial that the first of these reasons was the “basic” one. Mr. Hederman stated:
The basic reason [for the Board’s action] that was brought out at the time . was because of the publicity involved in The Fox trial, the thought was brought out that Dr. Rainey had testified in the Court hearing the film was viewed by him, according to the newspaper publicity, and the inference was that he could see nothing wrong with the film, and it was the general feeling of the members of that committee that day was, that we perhaps be served [sic] by not giving Dr. Rainey a contract, because of the publicity and because of his standards if he expressed this feeling at the Court trial.
Together, the transcript of the hearing and the testimony at trial make clear, as defendants admit in their brief on this appeal, that the plaintiff’s testimony at the obscenity trial and that “the notoriety which he had obtained from his testi*357mony” constituted the paramount basis” 1 for the Board’s action.2 I fully agree with the majority that the testimony and the resultant publicity were impermissible reasons under Perry v. Sindermann, 1972, 408 U.S. 593, 92 S.Ct. 2694, 33 L.Ed.2d 570, for the Board’s attempt to terminate Dr. Rainey’s employment in 1970-71 and that the district court should have granted judgment n. O. v. for the plaintiff for this period. Cf. Bazaar v. Fortune, 5th Cir. 1973, 476 F.2d 570, 579 n. 17 and accompanying text, rehearing en banc granted May 9, 1973.
1971 summer term. Further, I agree with the majority that “[t]he taint of the 1970-71 activity of defendants carried forward to 1971-72 by inference and was, without more, sufficient to make out a prima facie case.” The triers of fact could not reasonably ignore such recent history, so clearly painted, of adverse Board action toward Dr. Rainey based on constitutionally impermissible grounds. Necessarily, the inference applied also to the decision regarding employment for the 1971 summer term, and on the facts of this case the inference was of such strength that it would require a directed verdict or a judgment n. o. v. for plaintiff.
Rather than rebutting plaintiff’s case below by attempting to show it had acted for permissible reasons, the Board attempted to sidestep it by demonstrating that the Board normally does not, and did not in this case, actually make the hiring decision for the summer term, but delegated this responsibility to the President of the College, Dr. Peoples. It is clear from the record, however, that the Board did in fact play a decisive role in making the summer 1971 decision. Normally, the hiring decisions for the summer term were not made until May, so that the College could hire according to the number of students who enrolled. Deviating from this usual timing, Dr. Peoples wrote Dr. Rainey over two months before May, on February 24, 1971, that he would not be employed by the College for the summer 1971 term or for the 1971-72 long term. This letter was written shortly after Dr. Rainey had requested a position for the summer and after Dr. Peoples had conferred with a Board member concerning the appropriate response. The strong influence of the Board on the contents of the letter is seen clearly in the fact that the 1971-72 hiring decision, which only the Board could make was announced in the same letter with the 1971 summer session decision. The Board effectively made the 1971 summer term decision despite its formal delegation of hiring authority to Dr. Peoples. The evidence contains no hint that its reasons were different from the impermissible ones which underlay the 1970-71 decision.
Even if Dr. Peoples’ reasons are considered distinct from those of the Board, the result is the same. Dr. Peoples at all times admitted Dr. Rainey’s classroom competency and did not purport to *358rely on insufficient demand as a reason not to hire him for the 1971 summer session. Rather he referred to plaintiff’s opposition to the College administration in the context of his court battle over the 1970-71 term and the adverse effect which the sympathy and support of some teachers for Dr. Rainey’s position had on smooth administration. These difficulties had caused no disruption, but had taken the form of discussion. Cf. Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District, 1969, 393 U.S. 503, 89 S.Ct. 733, 21 L.Ed.2d 731. Such disagreements between teachers and the school administration regarding the Board’s reaction to Dr. Rainey’s exercise of his First Amendment rights surely can furnish no independent basis for justifying a refusal to hire. The defendants should not be allowed to rely on the existence of a problem which they themselves have created by clearly improper actions. On the record, I would hold that the district court should have granted judgment n. o. v. for the plaintiff with regard to the 1971 summer term, as well as the 1970-71 long term.
1971-72 term. I agree that the jury verdict for defendants regarding the third period is supported by the evidence, but I rely on different evidence than the majority. Unlike the majority, I can discover no evidence in the record which would indicate that the Board relied on reasons for the 1971-72 decision which differed from those for the 1970-71 decision.
Trial testimony did tend to indicate, however, that plaintiff never applied for a teaching position at Jackson State for the 1971-72 term and, in fact, would not have accepted one if offered. Plaintiff received a letter in February 1971 notifying him that the College would not offer him a contract for 1971-72. In December 1970, two months before the letter arrived, plaintiff had applied for admission to Ohio State University for graduate studies. In fact, he did attend Ohio State University in 1971-72 and received a fellowship for that purpose. No evidence in the record shows that plaintiff applied to Jackson State for a position in 1971-72 or expressed a desire for one. If the plaintiff, as the jury could reasonably find, was unwilling to accept a position at Jackson State in 1971-72, he was properly denied judgment for that period. Unless he took the necessary steps to apply for the job and was prepared to accept it, he suffered no wrong when the College failed to give it to him and is entitled to no remedy under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983.
Attorney’s fees. On the attorney’s fees issue, I agree with the majority that this court’s rejection of Dr. Rainey’s attorney’s fees claim on the original appeal, which concerned jurisdiction, does not bar an attorney’s fees award. I would remand for a determination by the district court in the first instance of the question whether defendants have been “unreasonable and obdurately obstinate,” Jinks v. Mays, 5th Cir. 1972, 464 F.2d 1223, 1228, and if so, when the obstinancy abated, if it did abate. This was the procedure followed in Jinks v. Mays and in Horton v. Lawrence County Board of Education, 5th Cir. 1971, 449 F.2d 793.

. The quoted language is from appellee’s Brief at 13.

. The majority opinion treats the 1970-71 decision as resting exclusively on constitutionally impermissible grounds and the 1971-72 decision as resting exclusively on permissible grounds. Likewise, the district court, in propounding interrogatories to the jury, asked whether the Board’s decision was based “solely” on impermissible grounds or on no impermissible grounds. This sole-reason approach is unrealistic. Human conduct and decisions most frequently rest on multiple grounds, as the disputed Board action apparently did in this case. We should inquire not whether the ground for the Board’s action was a proper or an improper one, but whether an improper ground was “even partially” a cause of the action taken. See Fluker v. Alabama State Board of Education, 5th Cir. 1971, 441 F.2d 201. Even if permissible reasons played a part in causing a certain action, if the action would not have been taken but for reliance on an additional impermissible ground, it should be held to be sufficiently based on a reason “upon which the government may not rely,” Perry v. Sindermann, 1972, 408 U.S. 593, 597, 92 S.Ct. 2694, 2697, 33 L.Ed.2d 570, to support a § 1983 action.