Stewart v. University of North Carolina System
673 F. App'x 269
| 4th Cir. | 2016Background
- Fenyang Ajamu Stewart, pro se, sued two defendant groups: NIA and its HR director (NIA defendants), and the University of North Carolina System, NC A&T, and two university officials (North Carolina defendants).
- Stewart alleged race-based employment/academic discrimination, including § 1981 claims, a RICO claim, and related claims arising from conduct in 2012; complaint filed October 2015.
- The district court dismissed the entire complaint, concluding North Carolina defendants were immune under the Eleventh Amendment and that various claims against the NIA defendants were time-barred or governed by state law.
- Stewart moved for reconsideration; the district court denied those motions. He appealed the dismissals and the denials of reconsideration.
- The Fourth Circuit affirmed dismissal as to the North Carolina defendants (Eleventh Amendment) and affirmed dismissal of the RICO claim, but vacated dismissal of Counts 2–4 against the NIA defendants and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eleventh Amendment immunity for state university defendants | Stewart argued Eleventh Amendment should not bar his claims | North Carolina defendants argued sovereign immunity bars suit | Court: Affirmed dismissal; bound by Supreme Court precedent (Quern) |
| Statute of limitations for § 1981 claims (Counts 2–3) | Stewart: § 1981(b) post‑formation claims use federal 4‑year statute | District court applied Virginia 2‑year statute; NIA argued time-bar | Court: Vacated dismissal — claims are post‑formation § 1981(b) claims and 4‑year limit applies |
| Characterization of Count 4 (state law vs § 1981(b)) | Stewart: Count 4 alleges § 1981(b) race-based removal and stipend denial | District court treated Count 4 under Virginia law | Court: Vacated dismissal — Count 4 should be analyzed under § 1981, not Virginia law |
| RICO claim dismissal | Stewart argued predicate acts existed supporting RICO claim | District court found alleged racial discrimination not a RICO predicate | Court: Affirmed dismissal — discrimination allegations do not allege racketeering predicate acts |
Key Cases Cited
- Hutto v. S.C. Ret. Sys., 773 F.3d 536 (4th Cir.) (standard of review for Eleventh Amendment dismissal)
- Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332 (Supreme Court) (states are generally immune from suit under Eleventh Amendment)
- Stop Reckless Econ. Instability Caused by Democrats v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 814 F.3d 221 (4th Cir.) (circuit bound by Supreme Court precedent)
- Kensington Volunteer Fire Dep’t v. Montgomery Cty., 684 F.3d 462 (4th Cir.) (12(b)(6) standard and inferences for nonmoving party)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court) (plausibility standard for complaints)
- Waugh Chapel S., LLC v. United Food & Commercial Workers Union Local 27, 728 F.3d 354 (4th Cir.) (statute-of-limitations dismissal when facts appear on complaint face)
- James v. Circuit City Stores, Inc., 370 F.3d 417 (4th Cir.) (limitations rule for § 1981; § 1981(b) post‑formation rule)
- Buntin v. City of Boston, 813 F.3d 401 (1st Cir.) (applying 4‑year rule to § 1981 retaliation/post‑formation claims)
- White v. BFI Waste Servs., LLC, 375 F.3d 288 (4th Cir.) (hostile work environment claims subject to 4‑year limitations)
- US Airline Pilots Ass’n v. Awappa, LLC, 615 F.3d 312 (4th Cir.) (elements of civil RICO; racketeering predicate requirement)