William Dionne v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore Joyce Jefferson-Daniels

WILLIAMS, and Before WIDENER Mayor’s in Services the Office Cable and PHILLIPS, Judges, (“MOCC”). and Senior Circuit Joyce Communications Jeffer- Judge. (“Daniels”) Circuit son-Daniels Di- became MOCC rector in 1990. super- Daniels was Dionne’s part, and remanded in affirmed in Vacated during all ap- visor events relevant to this part by published opinion. Judge (1) peal, being those events that Dionne was majority opinion in wrote the PHILLIPS fired on October and later reinstat- Judge joined. Judge which WILLIAMS 30,1991, May ed on and that as the result concurring part a in and WIDENER wrote budgetary process began of a in which Au- dissenting part opinion. job gust position by the held Dionne and to which was he reinstated abolished OPINION July as of these events Because claims,, form the of Dionne’s we de- basis PHILLIPS, Judge: Circuit them in some detail. scribe Dionne, a former Baltimore William 11,1990, City employee, appeals the district court’s On October Daniels sent Dionne a by summary judgment terminating employment his claims effective dismissal letter day allegedly violating alleged that same for Balti- under U.S.C. City City supervisor violat more Service Commission Rule 56.1 the and his immediate procedural process rights employee a civil ed his due two Dionne’s status as service first, protection by firing pre him without entitled him to the rules instances: second, regulations of hearing, and and the Baltimore Civil Ser- termination notice (the “Commission”). by reinstating position him that was He then to a vice Commission received, however, immediately by City. pre-termi- abolished Because none process specified by common nation the Commission’s we conclude under the federal specif- oral or written notice of the preclusion, law of claim an unreviewed state rules —no alleged, had found in ic violations nor a formal or informal administrative decision which affording pre-termination him an of Dionne on his substantive claim of conference favor respond charges. preclude opportunity to to Daniels’ illegal termination does not his sub request challenging the denial Dionne submitted a written sequent 1988 claim discharge process investigation days within five of his procedural of federal due termination, Disciplinary Hearing vacate that in accordance with the course of that we theft, fraud, perfor- misrepresentation City of work 1. The Baltimore Service is an Commission funds, body mance, misappropriation created the Baltimore unauthorized City Among things, Charter. other the Commis- funds, City property, obstruction of unau- use of employ- promulgates governing rules City properly, obstruction of an thorized use of termination, ment, discipline, lay-off of em- investigation or other act of dishones- official status, ployees with civil service and oversees City ty.” Civil Serv. Comm’n Rule Baltimore compliance with those rules. 56(2)(o). (2)(o) provides that an em- Rule section engaged ployee may discharged be if he "has be abolished— positions Af- her two the Commission. issued Regulations a vacant contractual hearings position which both days of Dionne’s ter several counsel, 17,1991, Department represented April position.4 On parties were City budget preliminary determined Hearing Officer submitted Finance procedural process Dionne’s on had violated of Estimates. Based Board Baltimore rules, by the Civil Service rights as detailed preliminary budget, prepared the Board alle- prove the substantive had failed to incorpo- budget which proposed ordinance Dionne. The Officer gations made recommendation eliminate rated Daniels’ be reinstated that Dionne recommended Board at the MOCC. The position Dionne’s pay full back and receive position his former budget approval its final issued benefits; adopted the Commission lost and 1991, 24, budget enacted and the June on as its final decision his recommendations 28, Mayor’s signing on June 1991. upon the regulations Commission April 1991. position. Dionne’s budget final abolished The thirty days appeal City had that the vided § Dionne filed this 1983 On June the decision. Mayor City of against the and Council action thirty-day period, Upon expiration of (collectively and “City”) Baltimore5 urging it to wrote the Commission Dionne Jefferson-Daniels, Joyce indi- her ruling. City complied its sure the with make alleging that the capacities, vidual and official action, however, and on City took no The 1991 1990 termination and June October complaint in the 24,1991, filed a May Dionne job procedural of his violated his abolishment City seeking a for Baltimore Circuit Court rights. further claimed process Dionne ordering City and of Mandamus Writ job was 1991 abolishment of his that the June rul- comply the Commission’s with Daniels asserting right to an for his retaliation ing. hearing also violated and so and the summons was served with Daniels Claiming that rights. his First Amendment 29,1991. May that same complaint on Later alleged constitutional violations the several notifying him day, Dionne a letter she sent posi- directly employment loss of his caused May reinstated as of that he would be tion, pension wages, and loss of benefits pay and lost receive his back and would rights, damage mental dis- reputation, to his continued, “You are Daniels’ letter benefits.2 trauma, complaint his tress and emotional po- unfortunately your ... also advised sought damages pay for loss of back year for abolished fiscal sition has been benefits, benefits, earnings and addi- future your position funding for The 1991-1992. damages, punitive dam- compensatory tional Dionne asserts expires on June 1991.” (as costs, Daniels), ages to defendant heard that his first time he this was the § attorney’s pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988 fees day of His last position would be abolished. (complaint).6 17 J.A. 14, 1991.3 work was June court dismissed all the claims The district process leading to the abolishment The by summary judgment, finding that Dionne year actually began one about position his § right bring his had waived 1983 August di- response to an 1990 In earlier. 1990 under based on the October termination budgetary constraints in concerning rective remedies, year, Daniels the doctrine election upcoming 1991-1992 fiscal legislative immunity prevented a 1983 of Finance that to the Director recommended City being complaint Mayor Council in their voluntarily for 5. The sued dismissed 2. his Dionne actually capacities, June 1991. of Mandamus on the defendant Writ official Baker, n. 1. City 894 F.2d at 680 of Baltimore. day actually last work until the did not year of accrued of fiscal 1990-1991 because alleged pendent claims 6. Dionne also state-law days. for sick and leave credit discharge" "wrongful inflic- and "intentional Baltimore, with distress” in connection tion emotional Mayor City& Baker v. Council See denied, (4th Cir.), upon his claims two which incidents cert. F.2d 679 894 815, (1990), for a 112 L.Ed.2d were based. City’s budgetary process. description of the bane, Circuit, sitting re- The en ta. Ninth allegations of retaliation. claim based held, County, cently Haphey v. Linn so see on the § 1983 claim based his the extent To (en (9th Cir.1992) banc), a viola- 953 F.2d job abolishment asserted June analysis. agree that court’s rights, the and we process procedural due of his tion stated a is one of substance. The doctrine had not distinction that Dionne held “enjoyed no “refers to he of election of remedies situations claim because cognizable pursues existence remedies right in the continued where individual property Mayor City factually & Council inconsistent.” Alex- legally are or job.” Dionne (D.Md. Co., Baltimore, Jan. 91-1770 No. ander v. Gardner-Denver 1992).7 1011, 1020, 39 L.Ed.2d S.Ct. (1974); Wright, E. C. A. Miller & cf. appeal followed. This and Procedure Cooper, Practice Federal Dionne’s termi- in turn whether review We (1981) (“[T]he at 773 election label the abolishment 1990 and in October nation traditionally explain been used to deci- has are job in of 1991 actionable June today explained in seem better sions consider do not under 1983. We preclusion.”). Dionne’s claim terms of claim by the defendants of retaliation pre- involves no such inconsistencies. The First of Dionne’s Amendment in violation recovery, justifica- another vention of double Dionne counsel for conceded rights as doctrine, Alexander, 415 U.S. at tion for the this court.8 issue before 14, 14, not n. 94 at 1021 n. also does 51 S.Ct. support application. pay The back its II by the Civil lost benefits awarded Dionne any dam- would reduce Service Commission that because court concluded The district might ac- ages that recover this of his state prosecution earlier of Dionne’s tion. claims, City Daniels the consti- alleged for the not be held liable could dispositive the issue therefore address We § 1983. success- “In tutional violation the unre- preclusion: whether as one of claim post-termi- fully pursuing the Commission’s pre viewed state9 administrative remedies, ... Dionne nation administrative eon- subsequent 1983 claim which cludes a opportunity to seek effectively waived transaction or cededly out of the same arises damages from the Defendants.” additional Supreme the series of transactions. Neither City Balti- Mayor & Council Dionne v. previously ad nor this court has Court (D.Md. more, 91-1770, 1992 WL 373149 No. question. general The Eleventh dressed the 1992). Opin- In its Reconsideration Oct. so, recently holding done has Circuit ion, believed court revealed the lower law, an unreviewed common under federal required election of remedies the doctrine of claim not have agency decision should state this conclusion. “same transaction” preclusive a later effect Birming City Gjellum v. hold, 1983 suit. initially, that the issue We Cir.1987).10 (11th ham, 1056, 1070 829 F.2d as one of properly is not addressed presented deci- Circuit’s remedies, judica- agree the Eleventh We with but as one of res election of appeal, purposes it makes no differ- of this Though judgment all the 9. For in terms' dismissed 7. city agency that of a or ence whether state. claims, specific decision made the court's pendent state law nor mention of the claims See Part for their dismissal. IV. basis (5th King, v. 873 F.2d 820 See also Frazier Frazier, Cir.), Davoli v. sub nom. cert. denied Though in collo- literal terms the concession 107 L.Ed.2d U.S. S.Ct. under either determined that only The Fifth quy to the claim Circuit the court ran prior preclusion, rules of claim federal or state running City, in context we construe it Service Louisiana Civil Commis decision against Dan- also to First Amendment sion, plaintiff-employee ordering reinstated concession, we need In view. of iels. plaintiff's preclude pay, did not with back § legislative immunity upon issue of address the The de in federal court. court 1983 claim its of this district court based dismissal which the clined, however, state to reach the issue whether claim, day. it for particular and reserve another preclusion controlled. or federal rules court, case, and, Congress repeal as did that hold that intended to or restrict in that ” preclusion common-law preclusion.’ that under federal the traditional doctrines of Id. state administra- principles, Allen, the unreviewed (quoting 106 S.Ct. at 3225 at issue here does not 417). tive decision Nor, according U.S. at 101 S.Ct. at subsequent effect in a preclusive have Elliott, is there indication Con- though the later suit arises suit even gress did not intend for these traditional transaction or series out of the same principles devélop- to be extended to later transactions. agencies. ments such as administrative Id.11 also Astoria Fed. Loan See Sav. & Ass’n Statute, Full Faith and Credit The Solimino, 104, 107, 501 U.S. 111 S.Ct. 1738, obligates federal courts to 28 U.S.C. (1991) (“We long 115 L.Ed.2d 96 have preclusion rules to determine apply state application of favored the common-law doc- judgment prior has whether a (as issues) estoppel trines of collateral preclusive in a issue or claim effect either (as claims) judicata res to those determi- McCurry, 1983 action. Allen v. U.S. nations of administrative bodies that have L.Ed.2d 308 101 S.Ct. (issue Migra City finality.”). attained preclusion); v. Warren Court then held that Educ., 75, 85, principles Bd. 104 the traditional Sch. Dist. of issue (1984) (claim 892, 898, required 79 L.Ed.2d 56 give S.Ct. federal courts to a state admin- 1738, however, preclusion). Section covers agency’s factfinding istrative the same issue courts; only prior judgments of state it does preclusive effect it would receive prior state administrative deci apply Elliott, own state’s courts. 478 U.S. at judicially sions that have not been reviewed question at 3226. S.Ct. This raises the University Tenn. v. El state courts. preclusion principles whether traditional re- liott, 3223- quire preclusion. a similar rule for claim (1986). 24, Instead, 92 L.Ed.2d 635 principal Elliott a identified as con what, any, if claim common law determines (or preclusion estop cern of issue collateral preclusive effect is to be accorded unre pel) enforcing repose, that of which includes state administrative decisions in sub viewed “avoiding both the idea of the cost and vexa 794, 106 sequent § 1983 actions. Id. at S.Ct. repetitive litigation” tion “conserving of and 3223-24; Davenport at see also v. North judicial resources,” 89, and concluded that a rule Dep’t Transp., 3 F.3d 93 n. 4 Carolina of (4th Cir.1993). preclusion policies. of issue furthered both 798-99, Id. at 106 at S.Ct. 3226-27. The Elliott, University v. 478 Tennessee of principles Court then observed that the em 635, 92 U.S. 106 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d by bodied the Full Faith and Credit Clause— question a addressed related —whether serving “act[ing] of value federalism and agency’s factfindings are unreviewed state nationally unifying by preventing as a force” preclusive entitled to effect in a issue subse conflicting supported a federal rule decision, quent § 1983 suit. In that results — requiring apply federal courts to state issue although § Court noted that 1738 was not preclusion preclusive to law determine the controlling, § “because 1738 antedates the effect of an unreviewed Id. decision. development agencies it of administrative (quoting Washington Light Thomas v. Gas clearly represent congressional does not Co., 2647, 2665, 448 U.S. 100 S.Ct. determination that the decisions of state ad (1980) (White, J., concurring 65 L.Ed.2d 757 agencies given ministrative should be Court, judgment)). As did preclusive at the Elliott we effect.” Id. at “ ‘Moreover, inquire legislative history of therefore whether a rule of claim any way § suggest preclusion 1983 does not in clear would be consistent with the tradi- (Second) Judgments' posi- subject judicata, 11. Restatement rules of res to the tion is consistent with Elliott: If the administra- tive exceptions qualifications, judg- same as a adjudication has the essential elements anof ment of a court. adjudication, preclusion is consistent with (Second) 83(1) Judgments § Restatement remedies, the scheme of then adjudicative a valid and an administrative tribunal has the same effects determination final

683 violation, punitive as well as dam- stitutional judicata and with res principles of tional attorney pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ages and fees Credit underlying the Full Faith and policies Carey Piphus, § v. 435 U.S. 1988. See Clause. 11, 263-64, 98 1049 n. 257 n. S.Ct. claim principles of Many the traditional (such 1052-53, dam- 252 L.Ed.2d those of issue the same as are preclusion § appropriate 1983 case ages recoverable parties “relieve Both doctrines preclusion. procedural process); due claiming violation lawsuits, multiple vexation of cost and of the Cir.1978) (4th Abel, F.2d Burt v. resources, and, by prevent- judicial conserve recoverable (damages for emotional distress decisions, encourage reliance ing inconsistent claiming procedural § 1983 case Allen, adjudication.” at violation.) proceed- The administrative cess (citing Montana United at S.Ct. determining whether ing was limited there 147, 153-54, States, S.Ct. cause,” public “just as asserted (1979)). 973-74, claim But 59 L.Ed.2d discharge, employer, for the J.A. 183-186 doctrine, drastic the much more preclusion is (Baltimore City Civil Serv. Comm’n Person- plain- goals forcing these for achieves Manual), only award of rein- nel recovery possible all theories to raise tiff (same). pay. Id. at 188 statement and back in one all desired remedies demand circumstances, ordinary claim Under these losing not raised peril principles prevent preclusion supra, Cooper, & Wright, Miller it. of a transaction later assertion same (or competence beyond at 65. other agency) folio-wing of the administrative con Precisely of this drastic because agency determination. See Restatement applying predicate for sequence, a critical 26(l)(c) (claim (Second) pre- Judgments, shall is that the claimant plaintiff inapplicable where “unable clusion all its opportunity to advance have had a fair rely theory of the case or to seek on a certain unitary single in a claims “same transaction” remedy or form of relief the first a certain (Second) Judg proceeding. Restatement sub- of the limitations on the action because c; Wright, Miller see also 18 ments 26 cmt. jurisdiction ject [administrative matter (“It supra, at 93-94 Cooper, & tribunal]”). litigant not be enough that a should clear system have the state court Nor would disposi failing to seek unified penalized forum in which provided an alternative not have been that could tion of matters sought in two remedies the the theories and proceeding_”). single combined in a fairly could have been successive actions a provide as wide a can of course state While regular civil action. Several prosecuted in a can be for matters scope as it desires that adjudication in unitary such barriers to their particular in administrative determined § 1983 would have existed. a forum corresponding thereby insuring a ceedings, course, in claim, brought a could have been of adjudications, scope for its preclusion claim court, any ex administrative free state (Second) Judgments Restatement see Casey, v. requirement, see Felder haustion 83(1); Loan Fed. Sav. & § also Astoria see 131, 108 2302, 101 123 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 487 U.S. 106-08, Ass’n, at 111 U.S. at S.Ct. 501 join (1988), attempt made had an been but here proceeding at issue the administrative discharge in violation it a claim of re- quite limited substantive was one of (the subject of the administrative law state way that scope. There was medial presumably proceeding) it would grievance (or claim- any comparably situated failure to exhaust dismissed for have been ant) in the admin- have advanced could remedy provided exclusive the administrative specific constitution- istrative Maryland Comm’n by the state. See sought and the remedies al theories asserted Elec. v. Baltimore Gas & Human Relations (1983). § remedies 1983 action. These And Co., in his later 205 459 A.2d 296 Md. indicated, only (which included, not back could conceiv § as earlier claim had the damages necessarily, provided all compensatory have ably, pay and but but benefits state’s administra and for available earnings and the relief lost benefits future failed, practically it is then proceeding) by alleged con- tive distress caused emotional judicated ... fail ‘[W]e the state administrative to understand how that then certain justify adoption have been barred interests of a proceeding would such short, five-day, period limitation for its very bar the assertion of constitu- rule 200, 201. Baltimore litigat- J.A. commencement. tional claims which have never been ”) Prosise, City Comm’n Rules (quoting Haring Civil Serv. ed.’ 462 U.S. 322 n. 2377 n. S.Ct. circumstances, pred a critical Under these (1983)). L.Ed.2d 595 general preclusion under claim icate for claim jurisdiction principles preclusion —that Finally, nothing legislative history in the adjudication pre- prior asserted whose suggests § state administrative provided at least one forum clusive shall have proceedings should these be circumstances unitary adjudication of all the theo for the preclusive Although, afforded claim effect. recovery at issue —is ries of and remedies observed, as the Elliott court the enactment present. Davenport v. North Car Cf. rights predates of the civil statutes the devel- (4th Dep’t Transp., 3 F.3d 89 Cir. olina opment agencies, of administrative the court 1993) analysis (comparable preclu of claim suppose also found “no reason to that Con- principles’ application to successive ad gress ... adaptation wished to foreclose the § proceeding and 1983 action ministrative principles preclusion of traditional to ... law, under North Carolina where administra adjudication[s].” U.S. reviewed). judicially proceeding had been tive Further, by enacting 106 S.Ct. at 3225. This, therefore, argues directly against also 1983, Congress jur- expand intended to applying claim here as a matter of courts, isdiction of the federal not subtract common law. Allen, from that of the states. 449 U.S. at Next, party private neither costs nor the 417; Pape, 101 S.Ct. at Monroe v. of the federal courts would be eased burden 167, 183, 473, 481, 81 S.Ct. 5 L.Ed.2d preclusion. plain- Because rule of (1961). Finally, kept it must be mind might bypass choose to tiffs well adminis- provide 1983 was enacted to individu- directly go trative federal or protec- als access to a federal forum for the state court with a 1983 claim rather than rights. tion of their federal Id. at claim, right pursue forfeit the cost 480; Foster, S.Ct. at Mitchum v. litigation and the burden on the federal 2151, 2162, 32 L.Ed.2d 705 rise, fall, system could well instead of if support legis- There is no 1983’s applied.- claim preclusion Plaintiffs would be history contrary lative for a conclusion discouraged pursuing generally from preclusion principles, traditional cheaper seeking and more efficient route of adjudication in a state administrative tribunal remedy in pre- an administrative order to jurisdiction preclude limited should later rights. serve their federal See Frazier v. 1983 action federal court. (5th Cir.1989) (a King, 873 F.2d rule justification There no is also for a rule encourage preclusion plain- of claim “would requiring apply federal courts to state claim proceedings bypass tiffs to in preclusion preclusive law to determine the preserve order their claims under 1983”); agency § effect of the Wright, unreviewed decision. see also 18 Miller & Coo- odds, per, supra, policies underlying § The Full at 93. The there- Faith and fore, Clause, Elliott, private are either a reduction Credit identified in not party judi- by costs or a of federal be served such a conservation rule.12 We discern no by applying preclusion. cial claim appreciable resources risk of inconsistent if decisions (“[Jjudicial Gjellum, F.2d at preclusive See decisions do not have claim economy Elliott, general by pre- § in is not furthered in effect 1983 actions. Under state cluding litigation previously preclusion may prevent of issues not ad- issue rules the relit- (internal principles encompassed by 12. The the Full Faith 106 S.Ct. at 3226 omitted). preclusion quotations prevention Clause and Credit those claim The of inconsis- overlap great recognized to a extent. purpose Elliott tent results often is cited as one claim major purpose preclusion. Wright, Cooper, "the of the Full Faith and Credit See 18 Miller & nationally unifying supra, § Clause ... to act as a force.” enjoyed property right in the con already Dionne determined issues igation of factual job consequently of his thus fore- tinued existence agency, and by the administrative by legisla position his could be abolished inconsistent results. possibility of close (“declining hearing. notice and a See Gold at 1069 ture without Gjellum, 829 F.2d See Baltimore, Mayor City preclusion rules to unre- smith v. & Council claim apply state (4th Cir.1988).1 would create little 845 F.2d agency decisions viewed adjudi- federal inconsistent state and risk of Elliott”). holding in We given the cations IV preclusion of claim that the absence note also by district dismissal We vacate the court’s Any dam- permit double recoveries.

will not § summary judgment of claim Dionne’s § under 1983 will be reduced ages awarded procedural process in of a denial of due monetary duplicative the amount connection with his termination in October in an earlier administrative relief recovered 1990 and remand that claim for further proceeding.13 ceedings. affirm the district court’s dis- We hold, applying federal com- therefore We summary judgment missal of Dionne’s principles, that the unre- preclusion mon law procedural process § 1983 claims of due decision at issue state administrative viewed First Amendment violations in connection in preclusive effect has no claim here job with the June 1991 abolishment. We action, arising out despite subsequent portion vacate that of the district court’s transac- or series of of the same transaction pendent judgment which dismissed the preclu- applying A rule claim tions. claims, supra, law see note 7 and remand consistent with traditional would not be light opin- those for reconsideration this principles. Nor would preclusion ion. underlying the Full Faith and Credit values SO ORDERED. requiring by a federal rule Clause be served law.14 application of state WIDENER, Judge, concurring in Circuit Thus, finding that court erred in the district dissenting part: part and pursue his 1983 cause Dionne could termi- on the October 1990 action based body of Part III of the I concur nation. majority opinion, which holds that the dis- of Dionne’s second sec- trict court’s dismissal Ill proper because he did tion 1983 claim was property interest the continued of a not have challenge to the dismissal Dionne’s job. Having I said existence of 1983 based on June second claim agree with and emphasize that do job without merit. 1991 abolishment of his 15 to Part III of the job dissent from footnote by reinstating him to a argues that He footnote, non-existent, purely dic- majority opinion. That essentially already that was ta, district court an avenue suggests to the rights The dis- process were violated. cause damages for violation of a for it to find properly this claim. trict court dismissed resorting to a 1983 claim before reinstated review Civil Service Commission 13. would have benefit pay federal court. He and lost benefits. and awarded back action, no-claim-preclusion whether state or rule entitled same the defendants are In the applied preclusion law was duplication federal claim protection against of these awards. depending upon whether 1983 court federal judi- or was not decision was Though is the administrative the state rule of claim cially holding reviewed. directly material in view of our supply the rule for common law should federal course, prevail case, his were to on Maryland apparently 15.Of if Dionne this we observe that procedural due pre a denial of general remanded claim of apply rule of claim the same with his October 1990 Esslinger process in connection comparable situations. See clusion in termination, any 607, proof attempt free to Md.App. he is City, Maryland, 95 v. Baltimore denied, 479, job damages abolishment he suffered from 628 A.2d 331 Md. A.2d cert. so, causally violation of to the earlier being were linked could be no That there opinion express on the rights. We merits an unsuccessful claimant in disincentive for attempt judicial such made. proceedings to seek state administrative fees, has, Clause, majority Equal attorneys’ Protection that same Part of action the III, I to be non-existent. doubt that remanding grounds); Shapiro found on other justify go so far to decision should Md.App. Chapman, 520 A.2d damages which are its raison additional (1987) (finding that “the elements of d’etre. damages in- an recoverable action under unprovoked an are iden- [for assault] moreover, agree, I that Dionne do not tical to those recoverable in a common law seeking from additional not be barred should attorneys’ exception action” with the of the court ini- remedies in federal district for his prevailing parties fees available to respectfully I dis- tial termination. therefore 1988). It this basis believe majority opinion Part II of the sent from remedies, and, well, significant part from a that Dionne elected his and thus result. recovery in that he should be denied further court. federal majority a states that state-court sec- conceivably, tion 1988 claim “could but not I believe that the doctrine of election of necessarily, provided all have the relief avail- just remedies should be invoked to -avoid proceed- in the state’s administrative able present litigation pres- such as the scenarios' ing.” Maj. op. at 683. I differ this with Dionne, upon being ents.1 Mr. terminated only in that I believe Dionne could statement employ, immediately from his faced with certainly pro- have received the remedies (1) brought three choices: he could have proceeding, vided at the administrative rein- grievance days within five backpay, statement and in a state-court sec- (2) regain job wages; and collect lost he See, e.g., Maryland tion 1983 action. Na- could have sued in state court under section Capital Planning tional Park & Comm’n v. job, regained gotten additional Crawford, 307 Md. 511 A.2d 1079 relief, spective injunctive and recovered lost (state affirming section 1983 action an award wages, compensatory punitive damages, compensatory damages, mandatory a in- fees; (3) attorneys’ junction he could have sued plaintiff posi- to transfer to the tion which she was denied in violation of the under section 1983 and recov- alleged 1. The several variations on the doctrine of elec- breach of the clause of nondiscrimination collective-bargaining agreement. analyzed by tion of remedies were the Ninth Circuit in Oubichon v. North American Rockwell In the context aof section 1983 action follow- (9th Cir.1973) (cited Corp., 482 F.2d 572-74 ing decision, wrongful-termination a state administrative approval in Alexander v. Gardner-Denver these modem election-of-remedies con- Co., 11, 51, disregarded. Although 49 n. cerns cannot be the ma- jority (1974)), opinion circumscribes its to ensure 1020 n. 39 L.Ed.2d 147 in the case, recovery maj. op. a double in this see following context VII of Title claims arbitration piece- 684—85 & n. it does not address the based on nondiscrimination clauses in collective- litigation meal nature of the defendants, or the unfairness to bargaining agreements. That court described " Moreover, are which undeniable. applying ‘only the traditional doctrine as where Congress -is not relevant in this case whether conflicting sought and inconsistent remedies are part, enacted section 1983 “at least in because conflicting on the basis and inconsistent " judicial [state administrative and had remedies] Oubichon, rights.' (quoting 482 F.2d at 572 proved inadequate protect employees from Corp., Newman v. Avco F.2d 746 n. 1 termination],” [wrongful 482 F.2d at as the (6th Cir.1971)). identify The court went on to respect Oubichon court found with to arbitration additional concerns identified modem courts finding, in the VII context. It Tifie was this doctrine, including possibility under the Congress believed nondiscrimination-clause arbi- recovery, allowing double the unfairness of inherently inadequate protect tration to be claimant-employees augment to overturn or employees' right against discrimination in the prior proceedings disposition but not defen- workplace, that made the unfairness to defen- dant-companies, requiring and the unfairness of judicial dants and the additional burdens on the system defendant-company to defend itself in two fora. only appropriate but calculated in case, VII, governed by In the context of that Title Oubichon, that context. See Here, 482 F.2d at 573-74. dispose the Ninth Circuit was able to of all of contrast, Maryland provides the State of reject these concerns and thus to the election-of- gives a forum which full measure of relief supplemental cotut, remedies defense to a claim for available to Dionne in federal and he sim- following ply advantage Tifie VII remedies arbitration of an chose not to take of it. majority apparently significant it The finds have recovered he could what precisely ered could not have recovered on that Dionne court.2 in state process theories of both federal and true that the section Although it is wrongful state termination the state-court ad- in the state considered cannot be proceeding, because the state court would the limit- because of proceeding ministrative claim for to have dismissed the latter failure Service Commis- jurisdiction of the Civil ed maj. administrative remedies. See exhaust sion, of limitations statute and that all op. at 683. note that it is clear short, very is all such actions vided for Maryland required be to that a would forcing ag- might have the effect which exhaust, to dismiss such claims for failure bypass administra- employees to grieved clearly now established that a “[i]t since recovery in favor of full proceeding in tive ... plaintiff suing under U.S.C. court, of no this should be or state federal need not exhaust his administrative remedies fact, presents Essling consequence.3 action,” In bringing prior to his er, the Commission’s reason to find is no evidence more 622 A.2d at and there precludes a federal section that the determination the record Civil Service Commis action, event, provide this would procedures any because are exclusive. In to create limited quite incentive not I find this irrelevant since Dionne is States theory result he proceedings doubtless indifferent as to what administrative unnecessary on, adjudication long as as he recovers all that he recovers multiple Shapiro, Md.App. Balti- is owed. See such as the harassment of defendants supra note 3. (stating appel- in this case. See A.2d more officials states, notes, op. majority "a can of course maj. & 3. As the state majority see at 684-85 2. As scope provide for matters necessarily as wide a as it desires probably but not n. particular that can be determined in administra- bring additional remedies permitted suit for be to Maj. op. proceedings." at 683. Whether the tive following the Maryland after state courts in the repel done so in a manner that would State has Esslinger procedure. See v. Balti administrative potential tion, within that State’s discre- claimants is (Md.Ct.App.), City, 782-83 622 A.2d more the federal courts should not be com- but denied, 331 Md. 628 A.2d cert. by any shortcoming pelled of state administrative inability to Esslinger the claimant's dealt with procedures piecemeal that could to hear cases all, Zoning any damages at in either a recover efficiently more and cohesive- have been decided permission hearing application on his for Board ly proceeding plaintiff chosen to in one had the appeal Mary to a a satellite dish or to build apparent in the case do so. This is all the more hearing, for viola Court from that land Circuit here, where, provided as the State has an alter- statutory of his federal constitutional tions forum, courts, recovering all nate the state Dionne, Obviously, Esslinger rights. had unlike was owed. that Dionne by ap but to commence his claim no choice Board, Zoning Zoning proach because the expresses preclud- to the majority concern deny authority grant litigation following to or ing Board had exclusive state admin- section 1983 Moreover, might application. under the adminis addition- determinations result in istrative courts, adjudicating procedures zon burdens on the federal be- involved al costs and trative might any litigants be to avoid the applications, Esslinger mone cause motivated ing was denied proceeding or in fávor of state rights, administrative tary recovery unlike for violations maj. op. I note that it court. See at 684. substantially federal he was what Dionne who recovered owed, courts, reinstatement, which will have the same effect on appeal backpay in his expand the cause States to rethink and should the Civil Service Commission. to agencies jurisdiction of their administrative Thus, Maryland certain that I am not problems. Regardless of the order to avoid these analogous situation courts would find Dionne’s them, give effect the federal courts choose deny preclusive Esslinger’s ef- and therefore invariably will decisions limited administrative award. In to Dionne's administrative burdens, fect unnecessary on liti- whether result in event, Maryland would not even if the State of multiple adjudications gants in the form of aug- preclude to state court to Dionne’s resort litigation piecemeal or on the state and recovery, Maryland ment his the administrative courts because jurisdiction light in the federal unhelpful. courts cannot create bypassed In the be will Thus, this, provide where it not otherwise exist. incentive courts does reason not to I see no might Maryland permit their administrative the fact that the State for the States to structure piecemeal efficiently, than to condone inefficiency proceedings of such rather and burden by allowing proceedings any inefficiency litigation of such cannot our decision whether control augment them. courts to be used to the federal do the same. not have been able harassment of defendants that will result in that case “would lants merely multiple proceedings the same tort from are more than suf- twice for to recover gave deny recovery to in wrong rise to alternative ficient basis additional because recovery recovery,” prior if a had the federal courts in such cases. theories remedy that a latter recov- awarded all the agree panel the Ninth in Circuit ery provided). have The state court County Haphey v. Linn that Dionne “chose undoubtedly have 1983 claim would section remedy through pursue the administra just him to do whether allowed process when ... could [he] tive have theory joined wrongful-termination could be brought directly an in action federal court or not. (9th 1983,” 1512, 1519 under section 924 F.2d Cir.1991), Effectively, part in en what Dionne has done here vacated remanded (9th among options, point by from banc on this 953 F.2d 549 to choose several Cir.1992), thus, satisfactorily provid- especially would have since he also one of which (al- injury complete remedy in him "with restitution for his had a under section 1983 ed court, others), though admittedly remedy than that he some better elected from might quickly inexpen- among that which most inconsistent available remedies and sively accordingly. him amount of recom- afford some his relief should be limited grievance If pense. his administrative judgment I would therefore affirm the unsuccessful, nothing, he would lose for he granting summary judg- the district court bring simply could a claim state or federal appellees. ment to court; majority argues, as the the Commis- apparently sion’s determination would not be claim-preclusive

given effect in either forum. supra If

But see note 2. he was successful however, proceeding, here,

was the case he could then come into wielding the sword of issue defendants, preclusion against the see Hall v. America, UNITED STATES of Marion Sch. Dist. No. 31 F.3d Plaintiff-Appellee, (4th Cir.1994), summarily recover damages additional available the federal forum. MOBLEY, Defendant-Appellant. Delbert Quite simply, I do believe this is No. 93-5091. purpose the sort of for which the federal not, judiciary should be used. It is and could Appeals, United States Court of be, Maryland claimed that the State of Fourth Circuit. provides inadequate remedy forum or Argued April Dionne, injury suffered as was the case in the Title VII cases relied Decided Nov. Supreme Court Alexander v. Gardner- Denver, at 49 & n. 94 S.Ct. at (finding

1020 & n. 11 neither of a

federal Title claim nor VII election of reme-

dies on the basis of an arbitration

to enforce the nondiscrimination clause in a Thus,

collective-bargaining agreement). it is necessary helpful

neither nor liti- allow

gants pursue the course followed supra

Dionne in this case. See note 3. More-

over, piecemeal litigation, nature of such unnecessary delay reaching adju- final theories,

dication of all claims and and the

Case Details

Case Name: William Dionne v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore Joyce Jefferson-Daniels

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Date Published: Nov 22, 1994

Citation: 40 F.3d 677

Docket Number: 93-1042

Court Abbreviation: 4th Cir.