U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 1974

Henry Keith Sterzing v. Fort Bend Independent School District, Fort Bend, Texas, and Roy Kelly, Individually

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Decided June 24, 1974 · Brown, Coleman, Dyer, Per Curiam

496 F.2d 92; 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 7976 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Leonard J. Schwartz, American Civ. Liberties Union of Ohio Foundation, Columbus, Ohio, George A. Rigely, San Antonio, Tex., Darryl J. Anderson, Michael H. Gottesman, George H. Cohen, Washington, D. C., Clyde Stanley Boose, Houston, Tex., Jeremiah S. Gutman, New York City, for plaintiff-appellant., John L. Jeffers, Jr., John F. Heard, Houston, Tex., for Fort Bend and others., Logene L. Foster, Sugarland, Tex., for Kelly.

Cases that cite this one

62 later published cases cite this decision. The 23 that cite it most often are listed here.

Raymond Muzquiz v. City of San Antonio (5th Cir. 1975)
Professional Ass'n of College Educators v. El Paso County Community College District (5th Cir. 1984)
Miguel A. Rosario-Torres v. Rafael Hernandez-Colon, Etc., Appeal of Franklin Martinez-Monge, Miguel A. Rosario-Torres v. Rafael Hernandez-Colon, Etc. (1st Cir. 1989)
51 Fair empl.prac.cas. 669, 52 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 39,489 Carl Jackson, Cross v. City of Albuquerque, Orlando Sedillo, and Kiki Saavedra, Cross (10th Cir. 1989)
Professional Association Of College Educators v. El Paso County Community College District (5th Cir. 1984)
C. D. (Denny) Abbott v. William F. Thetford, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Judge of the Family Court of Montgomery County, Alabama (5th Cir. 1976)
Todaro v. County of Union (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2007)
Jose Bueno, Leon Trevino and Victor Alegria, Cross-Appellants v. City of Donna, Cross-Appellees (5th Cir. 1983)
Puckett v. Mobile City Commission (United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama 1974)
Federico Erebia, Cross-Appellee v. Chrysler Plastic Products Corporation, Cross-Appellant (6th Cir. 1988)
Lewis v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. (6th Cir. 1988)
Abston v. Woodard (Ala. 1983)
Jerry G. Allen, Cross-Appellee v. Autauga County Board of Education, Cross- Manya E. Ogle v. Autauga County Board of Education (11th Cir. 1982)
Sebastian v. Texas Department of Corrections (District Court, S.D. Texas 1982)
Clary v. Irvin (District Court, E.D. Texas 1980)
16 Fair empl.prac.cas. 396, 15 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 8046 Van Davis v. County of Los Angeles, Etc., Van Davis v. County of Los Angeles, Etc. (9th Cir. 1978)
BOARD OF TRUSTEES, ETC. v. Holso (Wyo. 1978)
Swilley v. Alexander (United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama 1978)
Aumiller v. University of Delaware (United States District Court for the District of Delaware 1977)
Guerra v. Roma Independent School District (District Court, S.D. Texas 1977)
Eloise Ingraham, as Next Friend, Etc. v. Willie J. Wright, I, Individually, Etc. (5th Cir. 1976)
12 Fair empl.prac.cas. 836, 11 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 10,755 Jane Monell v. Department of Social Services of the City of New York, Defendants (2d Cir. 1976)
Peggy BURTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CASCADE SCHOOL DISTRICT UNION HIGH SCHOOL NO. 5 Et Al., Defendants-Appellees (9th Cir. 1975)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

*93 PER CURIAM:

In a very detailed opinion 1 the District Court found that Appellant Sterzing’s First and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated when he was discharged from his position as a school teacher with the Fort Bend Independent School District. 2 As remedy the Court ordered the school district to expunge from its records all references to Sterzing’s discharge and awarded him $20,-000. 00.in general damages and $5,000.00 for attorney’s fees. The Court denied Sterzing’s request for reinstatement as a teacher with the Fort Bend Independent School District on the grounds that his reinstatement would only revive antagonisms and that the award of monetary damages compensated Sterzing for his expectancy of reemployment. Sterzing brought this appeal solely to challenge the Court’s denial of his request for reinstatement. The school district defendants filed notice of cross-appeal but subsequently abandoned their appeal. Since we find that the District Judge based his denial of reinstatement on an incorrect legal standard we vacate the judgment and remand for reconsideration of the issue of remedy.

The District Judge based his holding that Sterzing’s First Amendment rights were violated on the ground that the school board improperly restricted Sterzing’s right to speak and express his opinion in the classroom. In declining to grant reinstatement on the basis that it would be too antagonistic, the Court used an impermissible ground. On the hypothesis of a violation of his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights —an hypothesis which is unchallenged in view of the dismissal of the cross-appeal 3 — the Court could not deny relief on such basis. Enforcement of constitutional rights frequently has disturbing consequences. Relief is not restricted to that which will be pleasing and free of irritation.

But the Court also made clear in its opinion that an equally significant basis for its denial of reinstatement was the award of $20,000.00 in lieu of several years salary. Of course appellant cannot have the right to a consideration of reinstatement on proper grounds without allowing the District Court to weigh all of the factors leading to the remedy ultimately chosen. Consequently the whole judgment, insofar as it prescribed a remedy, must be vacated. The District Court should fully reconsider its remedy in light of our ruling that the basis stated was impermissible. We express no view on what that remedy should be.

Vacated and remanded.

. Sterzing v. Fort Bend Independent School District, S.D.Tex., 1972, 376 F.Supp. 657.

. After exhaustion of his administrative remedies, Sterzing filed this civil rights action basing jurisdiction on 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C.A. § 1343(3) seeking both monetary damages and the equitable relief of reinstatement. His complaint named the Fort Bend Independent School District and all members of the board of trustees and the superintendent of the school district.

Since the Fort Bend Independent School District, “under Texas law, is in the nature of a municipality,” Harkless v. Sweeny Independent School District, 5 Cir., 1970, 427 F.2d 319, 321, jurisdiction does not exist in a § 1983 civil rights action against the school district either for monetary damages or equitable relief under the recent case of City of Kenosha v. Bruno, 1973, 412 U.S. 507, 93 S.Ct. 2222, 37 L.Ed.2d 109. Of course the appropriate named school officials are “persons” within § 1983 and there are no jurisdictional problems concerning these named party defendants. United Farm Workers of Florida Housing Propject, Inc. v. City of Delray Beach, 5 Cir., 1974, 493 F.2d 799.

. Due to the defendants’ abandonment of their cross-appeal, we need not determine nor do we intimate how we would rule on the District Court’s basic finding of constitutional violation. We are confined solely to the issue of remedy.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.