United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit

148 F.
3d 1228
77 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 794,

73 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 45,428,
11 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 1688
Herbert JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE, a Florida municipal
corporation, et
al., Defendants-Appellants.
No. 96-4052.
United States Court of Appeals,

Eleventh Circuit.
Aug. 3, 1998.
Scott W. Rothstein, Michael A. Pancier, Kusnich & Rothstein, Fort

Lauderdale, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Gordon D. Rogers, Kelly Cheary, Muller, Mintz, Kornreich, Caldwell,
Casey, Crosland & Bramnick, Miami, FL, for Defendants-Appellants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida.
Before COX and BARKETT, Circuit Judges, and SMITH * , Senior Circuit
Judge.
OPINION ON REHEARING
COX, Circuit Judge:
The panel sua sponte grants rehearing and substitutes the following opinion for
the opinion previously published at 114 F.3d 1089 (11th Cir.1997). The
petition for panel rehearing is otherwise denied.
Herbert Johnson is a black male and former employee of the City of Fort
Lauderdale Fire Department. In 1994, he filed a complaint against the City, a

former Fire Chief, and four supervisors (in their individual capacities). Count
One asserts a 42 U.S.C. 1981 claim against the defendants for alleged racial
harassment, discrimination, and retaliation. Counts Two, Three, Four, and Five
assert 42 U.S.C. 1983 claims against the defendants for alleged racial
harassment, discrimination, and retaliation, in violation of Johnson's Fourteenth
Amendment equal protection rights and First Amendment free speech rights.
Counts Six and Seven assert 42 U.S.C. 2000e (Title VII) claims against the
City for alleged racial harassment, discrimination, and retaliation.1 Identical
facts underlie the 1981, 1983, and Title VII claims.
3
The defendants moved to dismiss the 1983 claims, arguing that the Civil
Rights Act of 1991 made Title VII the exclusive remedy for workplace
discrimination, harassment, and retaliation by a municipality and its
employees.2 The district court denied the motion, but granted the parties the
right to immediately appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1292(b), recognizing that
its order "involve[d] controlling questions of law as to which there are
substantial grounds for differences of opinion." Johnson v. City of Fort
Lauderdale, 903 F.Supp. 1520, 1529 (S.D.Fla.1995). We granted the
defendants' subsequent petition for interlocutory review.3
We note at the outset that the viability of Johnson's Title VII claims is not at
issue on appeal. The sole issue before this court concerns the viability of
Johnson's 1983 claims, specifically whether the Civil Rights Act of 1991
renders Title VII and 1981 the exclusive remedies for public sector
employment discrimination, thereby preempting parallel constitutional claims
under 1983. Because the district court properly concluded that the Act did not
effect such a change, we affirm.
In the wake of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, several courts have faced the same
issue involved in this appeal. The Fourth Circuit and a number of district courts
have rejected the argument that the Act implicitly rendered Title VII and
1981 the exclusive remedies for public sector employment discrimination. See,
e.g. Beardsley v. Webb, 30 F.3d 524, 527 (4th Cir.1994); Stoner v. Department
of Agric., 846 F.Supp. 738, 740-41 (W.D.Wis.1994). The District of Puerto
Rico accepted the argument. See Marrero-Rivera v. Dept. of Justice of the
Com. of Puerto Rico, 800 F.Supp. 1024, 1032 (D.P.R.1992).
Like the defendants in those cases, the defendants here do not argue that the
Civil Rights Act of 1991 explicitly rendered Title VII and 1981 the exclusive
remedies for public sector employment discrimination. Instead, they argue that
such exclusivity is implied from (1) the Act's inclusion of a savings clause
related to 1981 and deliberate exclusion of a similar savings clause related to

1983; and (2) the Act's comprehensive remedial scheme.
7
In support of their first argument, the defendants point out that the Act includes
a savings clause concerning the continuing viability of 1981, yet omits such
language related to 1983. See 42 U.S.C. 1981a(b)(4) ("Nothing ... shall be
construed to limit the scope of, or the relief available under, [ ] 1981....").
According to the defendants, such omission evinces congressional intent to
preempt 1983.
As the Fourth Circuit concluded in Beardsley, legislative history does not

support this position. A House Committee Report indicates that the new
provision containing the savings clause was intended to counteract the effects
of Patterson v. McLean Credit Union, 491 U.S. 164, 109 S.Ct. 2363, 105
L.Ed.2d 132 (1989), a decision which narrowly interpreted 1981's scope. See
H.R.REP. NO. 102-40(I), at 89-93 (1991), reprinted in 1991 U.S.C.C.A.N. 549,
627-31. Such concern with 1981's scope does not establish that Congress
intended to limit 1983's scope. Beardsley, 30 F.3d at 527; see also Stoner, 846
F.Supp. at 740-41 ("Given the very narrow purpose underlying the adoption of
the 1981 savings clause, it is not possible to draw any clear inference from
that clause about Congress's intent for 1983 causes of action.").
The defendants also point out that a provision which would have specified both
broad construction of civil rights laws and preservation of other civil rights
statutes--including 1983--was proposed and adopted by the House in a former
version of the Act, but was not included in the Act that eventually became law.
See 137 CONG. REC. H3924 (daily ed. June 5, 1991). According to the
defendants, this omission most logically implies that "the political forces at
work sacrificed duplicative constitutional claims under 1983 in order to keep
intact 1981."
10
We decline to infer such a political give and take. The legislative history
concerning the omission of the provision from the Act that eventually became
law is ambiguous at best. Perhaps the drafters were influenced by the minority
view expressed in a House Report that the provision would amend all federal
civil rights laws, repeal long-standing canons of statutory interpretation, "open
the gates" to a flood of litigation, and invite "uncontrolled judicial
interpretations ranging far beyond the words of the statute." See H.R. REP. NO.
102-40(I), at 158, reprinted in 1991 U.S.C.C.A.N. 687. Perhaps the drafters
thought that the provision was unnecessary. See Stoner, 846 F.Supp. at 741. In
any event, the omission "sheds little light" on Congress's intent to preserve or
preempt 1983 remedies for municipal employees. Id.
11
The defendants rely on Middlesex County Sewerage Auth. v. National Sea

Clammers Ass'n, 453 U.S. 1, 101 S.Ct. 2615, 69 L.Ed.2d 435 (1981), to support
their argument that the comprehensive remedial scheme for Title VII contained
in the Civil Rights Act of 1991 implies 1983 preemption. In National Sea
Clammers, the Supreme Court concluded that the elaborate remedial provisions
of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act and the Marine Protection,
Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 indicated congressional intent to
foreclose reliance on 1983 remedies for violations of the Acts. The Court
reached a similar conclusion in Smith v. Robinson, 468 U.S. 992, 1012, 104
S.Ct. 3457, 3468, 82 L.Ed.2d 746 (1984). There, the Court concluded that the
comprehensive remedial structure and the legislative history of the Education
of the Handicapped Act evinced congressional intent that the Act be the
exclusive avenue through which a plaintiff could assert an equal protection
claim related to publicly financed education; thereby preempting such an equal
protection claim based on 1983. A contrary conclusion, according to the
Court, would render superfluous the Act's detailed procedural protections. Id. at
1011, 104 S.Ct. at 3468. The Court noted, however, that it did not "lightly
conclude that Congress intended to preclude reliance on 1983 as a remedy for
a substantial equal protection claim. Since 1871, ... 1983 has stood as an
independent safeguard against deprivations of federal constitutional ... rights....
The crucial consideration is what Congress intended." Id. at 1012, 104 S.Ct. at
3468 (citations omitted).
12
The legislative history accompanying Title VII reflects congressional intent to

retain, rather than preempt, 1983 as a parallel remedy for unconstitutional
public sector employment discrimination. This conclusion was reached by a
number of circuits prior to the Civil Rights Act of 1991, see, e.g., Keller v.
Prince George's County, 827 F.2d 952, 958 (4th Cir.1987)(concluding that the
legislative history behind Title VII as originally amended by the Equal
Employment Opportunity Act of 1972 "clearly indicates" that the Act was not
intended to "preempt the preexisting remedy under 1983 for violations of the
fourteenth amendment by state employers"); Beardsley, 30 F.3d at 527 ("This
and other circuits have long recognized that prior to 1991 Congress did not
intend Title VII to be the sole remedy for a public employee's claim of
employment discrimination."),4 and nothing in the Civil Rights Act of 1991
indicates congressional intent to overrule this appellate case law. Id. It is "more
reasonable to presume that Congress intended both avenues of relief to remain
open." Id. (citing Lorillard v. Pons, 434 U.S. 575, 580, 98 S.Ct. 866, 55
L.Ed.2d 40 (1978)); see also Stoner, 846 F.Supp. at 741 (questioning how a
"mere change in the remedial scheme of Title VII" could change earlier case
law holding that the comprehensiveness of the remedial scheme of Title VII
was insufficient to bar the use of 1983 in public sector employment
discrimination cases); Annis v. County of Westchester, N.Y., 36 F.3d 251, 254

(2d Cir.1994) ("[I]t is clear that Congress did not intend to make Title VII the
exclusive remedy for employment discrimination claims, at least not those
claims cognizable under the Constitution.").
13
This presumption is supported by the congressional finding accompanying the

Civil Rights Act of 1991 that "additional" and "adequate" remedies were
needed to deter workplace harassment and discrimination. See 42 U.S.C.
1981, note (1994). As the Fourth Circuit pointed out, "[i]t would be perverse to
conclude that the Congress that provided additional remedies simultaneously
intended silently to extinguish the remedy that 1983 has provided for many
years." Beardsley, 30 F.3d at 527.
14
The defendants assert that if we do not infer congressional intent to preempt

1983, public employees will be able to undermine Title VII's procedural
safeguards by suing directly under 1983 for unconstitutional employment
discrimination. While this may be true, such a result is merely "a byproduct" of
Congress's choice to make multiple remedies available. See Keller, 827 F.2d at
958; see also Ratliff v. City of Milwaukee, 795 F.2d 612, 623-24 (7th Cir.1986)
(concluding that a plaintiff may use 1983 to escape the comprehensive
scheme of Title VII even if the same facts suggest a violation of Title VII);
Trigg v. Fort Wayne Community Schools, 766 F.2d 299, 302 (7th Cir.1985)
(same); Annis, 36 F.3d at 254 (reversing district court's determination that
plaintiff alleging employment discrimination may not bring an action solely
under 1983, but had to also plead a violation to Title VII and follow those
procedures).
15
For these reasons, we conclude that the Civil Rights Act of 1991 did not render
Title VII and 1981 the exclusive remedies for public sector employment
discrimination, thereby preempting a constitutional cause of action under
1983. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order denying the defendants'
motion to dismiss Johnson's 1983 claims.
16
AFFIRMED.
Honorable Edward S. Smith, Senior U.S. Circuit Judge for the Federal Circuit,
sitting by designation
Count Eight asserts a 42 U.S.C. 1985 claim against the individual defendants
for alleged conspiracy to violate Johnson's 1981 and Thirteenth Amendment
rights. This count is not at issue on this appeal

2
The defendants also moved to dismiss the 1981 claim. The district court
granted dismissal against the City only, citing Jett v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist.,
491 U.S. 701, 733, 109 S.Ct. 2702, 2722, 105 L.Ed.2d 598 (1989)(holding that
1983 is the exclusive federal remedy for violation of the rights guaranteed in
1981 by state governmental units)
We review de novo a question of law certified by the district court pursuant to

1292(b). See Jackson v. Chater, 99 F.3d 1086, 1092 (11th Cir.1996) (reviewing
de novo a question of law); Simon v. G.D. Searle & Co., 816 F.2d 397, 400
(8th Cir.1987) (reviewing de novo a question of law certified pursuant to
1292)
This circuit has allowed parallel claims under both Title VII and 1983 in
public sector employment discrimination cases without specifically addressing
the issue of whether Congress, before the Civil Rights Act of 1991, intended
1983 preemption. See, e.g., Cross v. State of Ala., 49 F.3d 1490, 1507 (11th
Cir.1995). In those cases, we held that the elements for both the Title VII and
1983 claims were the same. See id

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

148 F.

77 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 794,

United States Court of Appeals,

Scott W. Rothstein, Michael A. Pancier, Kusnich & Rothstein, Fort

Lauderdale Fire Department. In 1994, he filed a complaint against the City, a

related to 1981 and deliberate exclusion of a similar savings clause related to

As the Fourth Circuit concluded in Beardsley, legislative history does not

The defendants rely on Middlesex County Sewerage Auth. v. National Sea

The legislative history accompanying Title VII reflects congressional intent to

discrimination cases); Annis v. County of Westchester, N.Y., 36 F.3d 251, 254

This presumption is supported by the congressional finding accompanying the

The defendants assert that if we do not infer congressional intent to preempt

rights. This count is not at issue on this appeal

We review de novo a question of law certified by the district court pursuant to

You might also like