Frankie Carolyn Rodgers v. Magnet Cove Public Schools Benton Public Schools
34 F.3d 642
8th Cir.
1994
Check Treatment

*2 1990, ARNOLD, spring Rodgers In the S. Chief received Before RICHARD WELLFORD,* Judge, superintendent Magnet notice that the Judge, Senior Circuit WOLLMAN, Judge. Circuit Cove Public Schools would recommend to the

School Board that her contract not requested be renewed. She then a medical ARNOLD, Judge. Chief RICHARD S. year. leave of absence for the 1990-91 school Carolyn Rodgers appeals from a Frankie granted request, Rodgers The Board granting summary judg- court order district signed agreement. requisite never La- defendants, Magnet in favor of Cove ment ter, Rodgers signed a contract with the Ben- and Benton School District. Public Schools public ton schools to teach for the 1990-91 Rodgers argues that the District Court erred contract, however, year. school That when it dismissed her claim for discrimina- terminated failure to disclose the fact for tion under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation that Magnet she was on medical leave from pendent for Act and her state claim violation Subsequently, Cove. the Little Rock School Act, Handicapped of the Arkansas Persons Rodgers, District- hired but it has not re- 20-14-303, § for failure to Ark.Code Ann. newed its contract with her. action on that state a cause of the basis Rodgers, began receiving social- (the damages legal traditional relief security-disability payments. that sought) were not available. We hold Act, 504 of the Rehabilitation codified Section II. § provide does a cause of 29 U.S.C. Rodgers asserts that she can sue for dam- damages. action for We therefore re- ages under 504 of the Section Rehabilitation proceedings. verse and remand for further 794, or, § Act of 29 U.S.C. in the alternative, § under U.S.C. 1983 for viola- I. rights. tion of her Section 504 If hold we right damages that she has a of action for Carolyn Rodgers contracted Frankie under Section reversal will be warranted Magnet to teach Schools and we will not need to determine whether during year. During the 1989-90 school Rodgers § right has a to recover under 1983. year Rodgers hospitalized bipolar Therefore, Rodgers the issue is whether can manic illness which forced her to take 17 maintain suit violation of Section 504 days Rodgers’s off. doctor wrote consecutive only remedy money when the she seeks is stating symptoms Rodgers that the exhibited, moodiness, had “excessive extreme . loss, irritability, weight pro- impulsivity, excessive Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act1 talkativeness, hostility, aggressiveness, poor qualified person shall vides that an otherwise solely by judgment, easy distractibility, against, mo- not reason increased be discriminated behavior,” activity, by any program activity handicap, tor and reckless were a of a letter, physical financial result of her illness. That which receives federal assistance. (The assistance.) however, opined Rodgers, through defendants receive such To medication, discriminatory actions do had obtained substantial relief insure that such occur, incorporated symptoms, prognosis Congress from that her for a not the reme- good, procedures Title normal life was and that she would be dies and VI the Civil Therefore, job Rights we must perform able to duties. Act 1964.2 Wellford, Harry subjected any program *The Hon. W. Senior United to discrimination under Circuit, Judge sitting receiving for the Sixth activity States assis- Federal financial by designation. tance .... 794, pro- § codified at 29 U.S.C. Section 794a(a)(2), at 29 U.S.C. 2. Section codified part: vides in remedies, procedures, “[t]he qualified handicapped No otherwise individual Rights rights VI of Civil Act States, set forth in title in the United as defined in section seq.] title, shall, et be 706(8) [42 of 1964 2000d shall solely by of this disability, reason of her aggrieved by any any person act or partic- available to or his be excluded from the of, in, by any recipient ipation of Federal assis- denied the benefits or be failure to act right action. Ibid. In “full implied remedies are available under determine what decision,” Congress had an cognizance of that Rodgers is enti VI to decide whether Title to lim- opportunity with the two amendments money damages for a violation tled to available in a suit Supreme it the remedies look first to the Section 504. We *3 IX Franklin under Title or Section 504. in Franklin v. Gwin Court’s recent decision — at-, Schools, , Congress did 112 U.S. at 1036. U.S. County nett U.S . — (1992), 1028, and not do so. Ibid. the enactment 112 117 208 With S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 1987, Rights Act of Con- in Civil Restoration we turn to this Court’s decision then Missouri, 969, gress coverage the of the anti- 673 F.2d broadened v. State Miener (8th 909, any Cir.), provisions and did not cert. 459 U.S. 103 discrimination 979 (1982). way “existing rights of action and 215, 171 alter the 74 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d. corresponding permissible un- the remedies In Franklin the Court had to decide IX, VI, § [or] der Title Title 504....” Ibid. private right Title a of action under whether Franklin, therefore, IX legal equitable states that Title IX includes all traditional and that, spectrum full of remedies. Does right provides once a remedies. The Court held created, equitable presume availability that mean that all and reme of action is “we VI, and, Congress under Title there appropriate remedies unless dies are available of all fore, it also under Section 504? We believe expressly has indicated otherwise. This IX, analysis deep jurispru- does. In its of Title the Su principle has roots our — Franklin, at-, preme used some of its earlier deci dence.” U.S. Court omitted) (em- (citations sions to decide what remedies exist under 112 at 1032-33 S.Ct. — added). Franklin, at-, supra Title IX. U.S. phasis The Court announced the 1035, (citing v. general “that clear direction to 112 S.Ct. at Guardians Assn. rule absent City, 463 contrary by Congress, the federal courts Civil Service Comm’n New York the 582, 597, 3221, 3230, power any appropriate 103 77 have the to award U.S. S.Ct. (1983) (back pay allowed under cognizable relief in a cause of action L.Ed.2d 866 — VI); Corp. Title Rail v. Dar pursuant to 'a federal statute.” Id. U.S. Consolidated at-, Hood, rone, 624, 630-31, 1248, 112 at 1035. Bell v. 465 U.S. 104 S.Ct. S.Ct. See (back (1984) 678, 773, 777, 1252-53, 684, pay 66 90 L.Ed. 79 L.Ed.2d 568 327 U.S. S.Ct. (1946). 504 for acts of inten 939 allowed under Section discrimination)). The relied on tional Court Supreme The Court then examined Title decisions which concerned Title VI its earlier Congress IX to determine had indi- whether pat 504 Title IX was and Section express presumed cated an intent to limit the Congress terned after Title VI and intended availability appropriate legal of all remedies. comparable to create Title IX remedies determining IX After that Title does not Id. those available under Title VI. See limitation, any express include the Court ex- University Chicago, v. 441 Cannon U.S. amended, civil-rights amined acts that two 677, 703, 1946, 1956, 1961, 694, 99 60 S.Ct. among things, IX other both Title and Sec- (1979). The anti-discrimination amendments, tion 504. Those the Civil two provisions IX of Section 504 and of Title both Rights Equalization Remedies Amendment largely repeat language of Title VI. 1986, 2000d-7, § 42 and the Civil Therefore, we believe that the Court’s hold 1987, Rights Act Restoration Pub.L. 100- equally ing applies on Title IX Franklin 259, (1988), noted, 102 28 Stat. Court Title VI and Section 504 cases. were drafted after it had decided Cannon Franklin, University years 441 Chicago, U.S. 99 S.Ct. Ten before this Circuit (1979). Franklin, § “damages 60 L.Ed.2d 560 su- held that are available under 504 at-, pra necessary remedy 112 U.S. S.Ct. at 1036. as a discrimination applied against qualified handicapped Cannon the Court the common-law an otherwise tradition, Miener, regarded F.2d at the denial of a individual.” 673 979. We rule, remedy exception principle as an rather than based this conclusion on the through legal rights to hold that IX are invaded and a federal Title was enforceable “where provider 794 of this title.” tance or Federal of such assistance un- der section

645 right statute to sue for such inva throughout remained employed the time she sion, may federal courts use available allegedly against.” discriminated There remedy good wrong.” make Id. at is, however, a claim damages which must Hood, 678, 684, citing Bell v. 66 be considered. The district court 773, 777, 90 L.Ed. 939 S.Ct. have been in foreclosing error a 42 U.S.C. Supreme holding Court’s in Franklin does § 1983 cause of action despite the fact not limit or overrule this Circuit’s earlier § 1983 claim parallel is somewhat Instead, prompts decision. it us to reaffirm analogous damages sought thereunder holding money our damages Miener: are may duplicate the asserted 504 claimed Waldrop available under 504. See v. damages. See Virginia Hospital Wilder v. Services, Inc., Southern 24 Co. F.3d Ass’n, U.S. *4 (11th Cir.1994) (Section 156-57 504 (1990); Golden State Transit spectrum remedies); for the full of Panda Corp. City Angeles, Los 493 U.S. Educ., Virginia zides v. Bd. 13 F.3d 110 (1989); 107 L.Ed.2d 420 (4th Cir.1994) (same). 829-32 Thiboutot, Maine v. 100 S.Ct. reasons, For grant these we reverse the of 2502, 65 L.Ed.2d summary judgment and remand for further Plaintiff in complaint, concedes her as she This proceedings. decision does address not in claiming must handicapped, to be that Rodgers prove whether will be able to that without medical treatment for a number of she is entitled to indeed relief. She months that her behavior as elementary “an disability, must that prove still she had a that counselor” displayed, “instructor” among qualified3 perform she was otherwise to other symptoms, irritability, “extreme hostili- job she was that the denial was be- ty, aggressiveness, poor judgment and reck- disability, actually cause of her and that she By mid-April less behavior.” to- compensable damages. incurred leave We wards the year, end the school physi- her those issues for the District Court. opined cian diagnosed that he had “bipolar It is so ordered. illness;” manic that she had “obtained sub- stantial symptoms;” relief from these WELLFORD, HARRY W. Senior future, treatment, that in the “she Judge, concurring. perform job should be to able her duties.”4 agree I thoughtful with the opinion of Plaintiff, furthermore, “during concedes that Chief Judge Arnold that we must reverse the period this report another teacher would var- decision of the district court as a matter of Carolyn Rodgers ious conduct of to the su- (29 794) law to that a hold perintendent” which she described “bi- as may cause of action include a claim for “crazy.” or zarre” believe, however, that This condition was in we should review described White v. (8th Holmes, al., plaintiffs Cir.1994), complaint further et 21 F.3d 277 to determine the as illness, to light depressive issues remanded in a “manic be of the record characterized in symptoms this The case. district court concluded swings that include mood and im plaintiff pay, pulsive made “no claim for back behavior.” Id. at n. 1. [among White, because plaintiff other plaintiff prisoner, injured reasons] the by a fe- 3. The Court’s order District states that it does not what relief" be "substantial relation plaintiff believe the could meet the “otherwise aggressive reckless and hostile conduct with an qualified” proof element of under Section 504. dealing group disorder with one who is with a or This determination is one for the District Court groups young elementary students. A reason- instance; however, Rodgers to make the first might able school board well be concerned about prove only qualified need that she was at the liability its own under these circumstances to an job, time she was denied the not she is parents abused or child mistreated or the qualified at this time. guardians Rodgers’ employment if continued it potential with these risks without some medical prognosis Rodgers 4. This assumed that would might suddenly assurance that the condition not regularly despite pro- continue her treatment her reoccur. clivity ''inappropriately.” to act We do not know Rodgers granted to were accommodations this disorder librarian with prison

male year by Magnet during the 1989-90 school a sudden illness, prison authorities sued became person this Cove. attack violent open a door. not she could

upset because Rodgers, complaint also avers view, subject to condition, if not my This 1990-91 school beginning of the prior matter future in the as continuing control with defendant into a contract year, entered certainty, east would medical of reasonable (“Benton”) perform District Benton School ability to as serve plaintiffs doubt services, began work and she is There elementary and counselor. teacher notifying Benton of without August of 1990 ac- ongoing question of reasonable Ben- informed handicap. she later When commodation. condition, she she would stated ton of complaint the re- attaches to Plaintiff There- accommodations.” of modest need (Mag- Public Schools sponse Magnet fail- after, by Benton for terminated she Cover) This April, 1990. at the end of net of her nature and extent ing to out the set C) (Plaintiffs not Exhibit sets out spe- need for and the handicapped condition by plaintiff as exhibited problems the serious contested this Rodgers cial accommodation. described, instructor above a counselor and court, appeal to state including an action *5 (1) coordinate student failure to but “plaintiffs condi- case dismissed her (2) “failure respects and in activities several November, by increased” so that tion has (6) required for hours” complete the six to to as a teacher.” was “unable work she year had to be which school the 1989-1990 however, assertion, was this In with conflict year.” by the start of 90-91 “corrected able to that “she was averment her next may or specified deficiencies These latter two Little employment from defendant obtain plaintiffs related to been not have com- [LRSD] District Rock School disability. claimed 1,1990.” plaintiff This time October menced event, a subse- plaintiff submitted handicap LRSD of her apparently notified Magnet to Cove 1990 letter quent June De- requested various accommodations. and ... of leave absence requesting a “medical disagreements about continuing spite accom- year,” and acknowl- school for the 1990-91 modations, Rodgers completed the 1990-91 “require a Magnet would edging that Cove salary high as or year apparently aat school to upon return [her] Mag- medical release would earned higher than she have by ended the She and other duties.” net or Benton. Cove great- has stating: consideration been “Your persuades record from the recitation This D. Exhibit Plaintiffs ly appreciated.” not in error court me the district May inability to work averred her Plaintiff through the 1990-91 concluding, at least responded Magnet Cove had of 1990 because no plaintiff suffered year, school abortive out. She conceded as above set prior actions apparent that It was concerning Magnet negotiations Cove with not, fact, had Cove Benton Magnet Magnet of absence because leave her medical ability adversely precluded or affected physician’s medical competent wanted year. Her school through the 1990-91 teach problems had been opinion that “medical any, if commence damages, should claims for unlikely to reoccur.” were alleviated and beginning of the 1991-92 school with G also indicated Plaintiffs Exhibit my view. year, in agreement an oral “there was May of 1990 district, seeking a that a school [Rodgers] a believe grant parties between elementary kindergarten teach- qualified in lieu of the recom- of absence medical leave er, require a candidate Therefore, may properly nonrenewal mended nonrenewal. a medical disease to bipolar manic submit not acted set aside and your contract al- (This disease is indicating that such evaluation [Magnet Cove] board.” upon and whether its under control leviated the contract nonrenewal was “in lieu of likely or the condi- conceded, are to reoccur symptoms ac- hearing.”) Plaintiff and/or ongoing school during the G, tion deteriorate that a number cording to Exhibit year. upon qualification This bears one’s young students.

teach/counsel majority decision,

I concur with the

would, indicated, plain- limit the basis as for the reasons

tiffs claims indicated this

record. Cromett, Paul, MN,

Michael F. argued, St. appellant. Philip LARSON, Appellant, Bruce Kempainen, Gen., Paul R. Atty. Asst. St. Paul, MN, argued (Gary Wollschlager, G. brief), appellee. NUTT, Sheriff, Martin Gerald County, Appellee. FAGG, ROSS, Judge, Before Circuit Judge, BEAM, Senior Circuit

No. 94-1052. Judge. Appeals,

United States Court

Eighth Circuit. PER CURIAM. charged State Minnesota Bruce June Submitted *6 Philip Larson with criminal sexual contact Sept. Decided three-year-old daughter. with his Larson’s

daughter was available at his trial and the child, five, trial age court found the then competent testify, but neither the State nor Larson called her aas witness. Overrul- ing hearsay Larson’s and Confrontation objections, Clause the trial court admitted evidence of the child’s out-of-court state- assistant, physician’s to a to a child ments protection specialist, therapist, to a and to a police jury officer and a social worker. A guilty found Larson and the Minnesota Su- preme Court affirmed his conviction. State Larson, (Minn.1991), 472 N.W.2d 120 cert. -, U.S. Larson filed a 28 U.S.C. petition, claiming his conviction was obtained in violation of his Sixth Amendment right. confrontation The district court de- petition. nied Larson’s appeals, contending Larson the Con frontation Clause does not allow admission daughter’s his out-of-court statements be testify. cause she was available but did not Larson, available, According nontestify ing witness’s out-of-court statements admitted when the out-of-court state-