Regina McCormick v. Miami University
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 18950
| 6th Cir. | 2012Background
- McCormick, a Miami University psychology graduate student, sued for race and disability discrimination after being denied promotion to doctoral status; she alleges disability slowed progress and requests accommodations.
- Faculty letters in 2003 warned of limited promotion prospects and set task deadlines; McCormick underwent wrist surgery and requested extra time.
- May 2010: McCormick filed federal suit asserting ADA, Rehabilitation Act, §1981 race discrimination, retaliation, contract, and public policy claims against Miami University and three faculty in their official and individual capacities.
- District court dismissed all claims, holding §1983 exclusive remedy for §1981 against state actors and time-barred Rehabilitation Act and ADA claims; McCormick appeals.
- This Sixth Circuit affirms, holding §1983 exclusivity extends to individual state actors for §1981 claims, Miami University enjoys Eleventh Amendment immunity, and Rehabilitation Act and ADA claims are time-barred under Ohio law.
- State-law claims against officials in their official capacity barred by Eleventh Amendment; claims against officials in their individual capacity barred unless immunity is waived or claims properly brought in Court of Claims; overall dismissal affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is §1983 the exclusive remedy for §1981 claims against state actors in individual capacity? | McCormick relies on §1981 to sue state actors in their individual capacity. | Jett and related doctrine show §1983 exclusivity for state actors in either capacity. | Yes; §1983 is exclusive for individual-capacity §1981 claims. |
| Are McCormick's §1981 claims barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity against Miami University and officials? | Claims against university and officials in official capacity should proceed. | Eleventh Amendment immunizes state and its arms from such suits. | Yes; claims against Miami University and officials in official capacity barred; injunctive relief against officials may proceed, but monetary relief barred. |
| Are Rehabilitation Act §504 and ADA Title II claims timely? | Claims timely under post-1990 amendments and borrowing rules. | Claims untimely under Ohio two-year (§2305.10) period for §504 and Title II analogs. | Affirmed; §504 claim time-barred under Ohio two-year limit; ADA Title II claim also time-barred using Ohio personal injury limitations. |
| Are state-law claims proper against the defendants? | State-law claims should proceed in federal court. | Eleventh Amendment bars pendent state claims against officials in official capacity; state claims against officials in their individual capacity require Court of Claims first. | Affirmed; official-capacity claims barred; individual-capacity state-law claims dismissed without independent jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jett v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist., 491 U.S. 701 (1989) (§1983 exclusive remedy for state actors’ §1981 rights; legislative history analyzed in Jett)
- Arendale v. City of Memphis, 519 F.3d 587 (6th Cir. 2008) (§1983 exclusive remedy for violations by state actors; §1981 against state actors barred)
- West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (1988) (state-actor liability under §1983 when acting under color of state law)
- Southerland v. Hardaway Mgmt. Co., 41 F.3d 250 (6th Cir. 1994) (rehabilitation-like claims linked to personal injury limitations; borrowing state limits)
- Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261 (1985) (statute-of-limitations borrowing under federal civil rights acts)
- Haynes v. Marshall, 887 F.2d 700 (6th Cir. 1989) (preconditions for asserting claims against state employees in Ohio Court of Claims; immunity prerequisites)