# Joint Appendix — Patsy v. Board of Regents of Fla. > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385007_2073%3A02 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Joint Appendix - **Published:** January 1, 1982 - **Citation:** 457 U.S. 496 ## Text No. 80-1874 AS. CLERK IN THE nia Court of the Hnited States OCTOBER TERM, 1981 > GEORGIA PATSY, Petitioner, — BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, A BODY CORPORATE, FoR AND ON BEHALF OF FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY, Respondents. * ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT — ———— : Wes JOINT APPENDIX ee __ CHARLEs §,. SIMs, JEFFREY H, KLINK, -. Counsel of Record Counsel of Record _ BRUCE J. ENNIS, Jr. ’ Mahoney, Hadlow & Adams JOEL M. GORA 800 Barnett Bank Building E. RICHARD LARSON’ 100 Laura Street American Civil Liberties P.O. Box 4099 ‘Union Foundation Jacksonville, Florida 32201 132 West 43rd Street (904) 354-1100 rvesthah York 10036 MITCHELL D. FRANKS | Dept. of Legal Affairs STEVEN R. SHAPIRO Office of the Attorney General New York, New York Suite 1501 The Capitol ' AVIAM SOIFER “p Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ” Cambridge, Massachusetts (904) 488-1573 gs Sean Sar Rees Counsel Jor Respondents Petition for Certiorari Filed May 7, 1981 Certiorari Granted October 5, 1981 JOINT APPENDIX TABLE OF CONTENTS Relevant Docket Entries ....++-e««-. i Complaint (February 7, 1979) ...... 1 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss March 5, 1979) . ‘ . . . . . . 7 . . *. . . . os . < Defendant's Memorandum in Support of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (March 5, 1979) . . . . . . . . . . . 7 . - . 14 Plaintiff's Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (March 12, 1979) . . . . . . . . . 7 . . . . . 20 OrGer of April 9, 1979 ...-«-e-eee ee 49 Amended Complaint (April 19, 1979) ... 29 Defendant's Motions to Dismiss the Amended Complaint Complaint (June 8, 1979) .. 58 Memorandum in Support of Defendant's Motions to Dismiss the Amended Complaint (June 8, 1979) ....e.-. Plaintiff's Memorandum in Opposition to Denfendant's Motion to Dismiss .... 83 Gamer @e duay 8, 2978 . ce eo ss sss Se The opinions and judgments below are set forth as appendices to the Petition for Certiorari l. 5. ll. 12. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA GEORGIA PATSY Ve BOARD OF REGENTS of the State of Florida, No. 79-732-CIV-JAG RELEVANT DOCKET ENTRIES Complaint. ($500,000.00+). Motion to dismiss complaint (Deft). Memo of law in support of above motion. (Deft). Memo in opposition to deft's motion to dis- miss. (Pltf). ORDER: Deft's motion to dismiss complaint GRANTED. Plitf have 20 days from date of order to file w/court amended complaint Amended Complaint. Feb. Mar. Mar. Mar. Apr. Apr. 12, 19, 1979 1979 1979 1979 1979 1979 14, 15. 17. 18. 19. 20. ii- RELEVANT DOCKET ENTRIES Motions to dismiss amended complaint & alternative motion for a more definite state- ment. (Deft Fla. Board of Regents) Memo in support of above motion. (Deft. Fla. Board of Regents) Memo in opposition to deft's motion to dis- miss. (Pltf). ORDER: Deft's motion to dismiss GRANTED for pltf's failure to ex- haust administrative remedies. (7/9/79- JAG) M-7/25/79. NOTICE OF APPEAL ed by pltf from Order dismissing pltf's complaint entered 7/9/79. COST BOND ON APPEAL in amount of $250.00 de- posited w/registry of Court by pltf/appellant. June June June July July July 14, 8, ll, 9, 26, 26, 1979 1979 1979 1979 1979 1979 -iii- UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 79-2965 Brief for Appellant filed Brief for Appellee filed Reply Brief for Appellant filed Opinion, Reversed and Remanded Appellee's Petition for Rehearing En Banc filed Order for Rehearing En Banc Brief for Appellant filed Brief for Appellee filed Opinion, Vacated and Remanded 1979 1979 1979 1980 1980 1980 1980 1980 1980 oje [CAPTION] Complaint COMES NOW, GEORGIA PATSY, Plaintiff herein, by and through her undersigned counsel, com- plaining of the above Defendant and for cause of action would respectfully show unto the Court as follows: I. JURISDICTION 1. Jurisdiction is conferred on this Court by 28 U.S.C., Section 1343(3) which pro- vides for original jurisdiction of this Court in all actions authorized by 42 U.S.C., Section 1983 to redress the deprivation under color of law of any right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution of the United States, specifically the Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments. II. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 4 GEORGIA PATSY, a white female American and an employee of the above captioned Univer- sity, seeks redress for discrimination due to her race, suffered by her in violation of the Constitution and the laws of the United States. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges she has been denied employment opportunities for which she is well qualified within the above captioned University, while there has been an intentional and concerted effort by the University to pro- mote and hire minorities to available positions for which Plaintiff has applied. Itt. PARTIES 3. GEORGIA PATSY, Plaintiff, is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the Southern District of Florida. Plaintiff is employed by FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY and has attained permanent status within the personnel system of the State of Florida. e 4. The Defendant, FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY, is a Division of the State Univer- sity of Florida and it possesses and exercises all powers necessary for the maintenance of an upper level university. Iv. STATEMENT OF CLAIM 5. On June lst, 1972, Plaintiff began employment as a Clerk Typist III, with Defen- dant University, and is presently classified as a Secretary III. 6. Plaintiff's education consists of a Bachelor of Education Degree (cum laude) from the University of Miami and a Master of Science Degree in Administration and Supervision of Adult Education from Florida International University. Plaintiff has had continuing teaching experience in the Dade County, Florida, Adult Education Program. Ve During the six (6) years while Plain- tiff has been employed at the Defendant Univer- sity, she has applied for numerous employment openings within the Defendant University and has been uniformly rejected with many Latins and non-whites having been selected iz) place of the Plaintiff. 8. The following is a partial list of available positions advertised by the Defendant for which Plaintiff applied for, but was rejected: Position with Career Development and Placement Department Interim Counselor in School Education Liason Officer and Student Affairs Coordinator Continuing Education Coordinator Coordinator/Director Alumni Affairs Vocational Counselor II Personnel Aide College Work-Study Coordinator Conference Coordinator University Public Functions Manager Financial Aid Counselor Student Affairs Coordinator Admissions Counselor 9. The former President of FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY, Charles Perry has recognized that Plaintiff's background qualifies her for a higher position than the Secretary III position then and now held. See Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof. 10. The professional skill and management abilities of the Plaintiff have been recognized by the Head of the Department of Psychology at FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY. See Exhibit "B" attached hereto and made a part hereof. ll. The Performance Appraisal. conducted annually in accordance with the State of Florida Personnel System shows the Plaintiff to be outstanding, not only with respect to her assigned tasks, but innovative, resourceful, efficient and functioning more as a Staff Assistant than as a Secretary. See Exhibit "C" (composite) attached hereto and made a part hereof. ll(a). The Defendant has engaged in em- ployment practices which have discriminated against Plaintiff on the basis of her race and/or sex in the promotion of its employees. 12. The Defendant has maintained and continues to maintain a policy of preference to minority applicants for both available admin- istrative and non-administrative positions which results in discrimination against the Plaintiff, a white-female, contrary to the Constitution and laws of the United States. 13. FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY has continually sought out individuals from minority groups to fill positions resulting in discrimina- tion against the Plaintiff, contrary to the Constitution and laws of the United States. See Exhibits "D" and "E" attached hereto and made a part hereof. 14. FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY through its agents, deceived Plaintiff into believing that she was being considered for a position she applied for when in reality, Plaintiff's name had not been submitted as one of the final candidates for the position of Interim Counselor. See Exhibit "F" (composite) attached hereto and made a part hereof. 15. FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY not only rejected Plaintiff for positions for which she was qualified and had applied, but rejected Plaintiff for a position for which she had not applied. See Exhibit "G" attached hereto and made a part hereof. 16. FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY as further evidence of its discriminatory policies maintains files on qualified applicants for positions by segr@€gating them as follows: White, Black, Male, and Female, contrary to Federal law and Equal Employment guidelines. 16(a). The acts and practices by the Defendant described in this complaint constitute a pattern and practice of resistance to the full enjoyment of the right to equal employment opportunities without distinction based on race and/or sex and such acts and practices are intended to deny the full exercise of rights secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States. 17. An actual controversy exists between the Plaintiff and Defendant in that Plaintiff contends that the actions of FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY are in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Plaintiff is in doubt as to her status and rights under the Constitution of the United States and seeks a declaration of the legal and constitutional rights of the parties with respect to the subject matter of this action. 18. Plaintiff will continue to suffer immediate and irreparable injury, loss of damage unless this Court grants the injunctive relief sought. There is no plain, adequate or speedy remedy at law to redress these deprivations. V. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF 19. There exists between the parties an actual controversy as heretofore set out. The Plaintiff is suffering and is threatened with immediate and irreparable injury as a result of the actions of the Defendant stated above. The Plaintiff has no plain nor adequate remedy at law to redress the wrongs and unlawful con- duct complained of herein. FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY has severly damaged Plaintiff by its discriminatory practices and has painfully stigmatized Plaintiff, and continues to do so. By the actions of FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVER- SITY, Plaintiff has been discriminated against and denied due process of law in violation of -10- her rights under the Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The Defendant has acted in violation of Title 42, U.S.C., Section 1983, to inflict said depriva- tions on the Plaintiff. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays this Honorable Court to enter the following relief: A. Assume jurisdiction of this cause; B. Enter a final judgmert pursuant to 28 U.S.C., Section 2201, and Rule 57, of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure declaring that the Plaintiff has suffered from acts of dis- crimination at the hands of the Defendant or its agents, contrary to the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; Cc. Require Defendant to remedy the dis- crimination practiced upon Plaintiff by promot- ing her to the next available position consistent with those previously applied for and for which she is qualified or in the alternative, to require the Defendant to pay to the Plaintiff -ll- the sum of $500,000 as actual and exemplary damages; D. Assess all costs against the Defendant and award the same to the Plaintiff; E. Award attorney's fees to the Plaintiff; F. That the Court order further equitable and injunctive relief as it deems appropriate and necessary to correct the conditions of dis- crimination complained of herein. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, LAW OFFICES OF EUGENE P. SPELLMAN Attorneys for Plaintiff, GEORGIA PATSY 100 North Biscayne Boulevard Penthouse Suite Miami, Florida 33132 -12- ‘ [CAPTION] DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS Pursuant to Rule 12(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the defendant, Florida Interna- tional University (hereafter "FIU"), respect- fully moves this Honorable Court to dismiss the complaint against it for the following reasons: 1. The Court lacks subject matter juris- diction because the defendant is not a "person" under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 2. The defendant lacks the legal capacity to be sued. WHEREFORE, FIU respectfully requests this Honorable Court to dismiss plaintiff's complaint against it with prejudice, and award FIU a reasonable attorney's fees. Respectfully submitted, GUY O. FARMER II JEFFREY H. KLINK Mahoney Hadlow & Adams Post Office Box 4099 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 (904) 354-1100 JOHN W. KOZYAK Mahoney Hadlow & Adams 1401 First Federal Building One Southeast 3rd Avenue Miami, Florida 33131 (305) 358-5550 Jeffrey H. Klink -14- [CAPTION] MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS INTRODUCTION Plaintiff, a white female clerical employee at Florida International University ("FIU"), has sued FIU under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging “reverse discrimination" regarding alleged promotion opportunities. (Complaint, #4 1, 11l(a), 19) Plaintiff has also filed a motion to transfer this matter to the Honorable Judge Eaton on the grounds that he already has another "reverse discrimination" suit against FIU pending before him. For the reasons discussed below, it is clear that the complaint against FIU should be dismissed with prejudice. Accordingly, the requested dismissal, if granted, would moot the motion to transfer. =1 Se ARGUMENT I. THIS COURT SHOULD DISMISS THE COMPLAINT AGAINST FIU BECAUSE IT IS NOT A "PERSON" WITHIN THE MEANING OF 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The courts have consistently held that states and their agencies are not "persons" within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Vick v. Texas Employment Commission, 514 F.2d 734 (5th Cir. 1975); Cheramie v. Tucker, 493 F.2d 586 (5th Cir. 1974). In addition, the courts have also consistently held that state universities and their governing Board of Regents are state agencies, and thus not "persons" within the meaning of Section 1983. Ingraham v. Wright, 525 F.2d 909, 912 (5th Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 952, aff'd on other grounds, 430 U.S. 651 (1977); Blanton v. State University of New York, 489 F.2d 377, 382 (2d Cir. 1973). The recent U.S. Supreme Court decision of Monell v. Dept. of Social Services, U.S. ? 56 L.Ed. 2d 611 (1978) has not overruled these decisions with respect to state agencies being =16= considered "persons" under § 1983. In Monell, the United States Supreme Court held that local governments, municipal corporations, and/or local indeyendent school »Soards are "persons" subject to liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 56 L.Ed. 2d at 618. The Supreme Court also overruled Monroe v. Pope, 365 U.S. 167 (1967), but only insofar as it had completely immunized municipalities from suit under § 1983. Id. at 619. The Supreme Court explicitly noted that its holding was “limited to local government units which are not considered part of the State" for Eleventh Amendment purposes. (Emphasis added) Id. at 635 n. 54. Thus, a fair reading of the Monell decision can only lead to the conclusion that it is limitec to local government units that are not considered part of the state. The Fifth Circuit in Bogard v. Cook, 586 F.2d 399 (Sth Cir. 1978) has re- cently noted that the holding in Monell is so limited: ai Fo The plaintiff contends that the recent Supreme Court de~ision in [Monell] . . . has abrogated the state’s eleventh amendment immu- nity when it is sued pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Nothing in Monell, however, goes that far. The Supreme Court explicitly noted that its Monell holding was "limited to local government units which are not considered part of the state for eleventh amendment purposes." 586 F.2d 399 at 410 (5th Cir. 1978). In sum, the defendant FIU, as a state agency, is not considered to be a "person" within the meaning of § 1983. See Aldredge v. Turlington, TCA 78-0830, Order dated January 25, 1979 (N.D. Fla.) (A copy of this Order is attached). Therefore, the complaint against FIU should be dismissed with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. II. THIS COURT SHOULD DISMISS THE COMPLAINT AGAINST FIU BECAUSE IT LACKS THE CAPACITY TO BE SUED. Pursuant to Rule 17(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, defendant FIU's capacity to be sued is determined by Florida law. Byron #18- v. University of Florida, 403 F. Supp. 49 (N.D. Fla. 1975). Under Florida law the indi- vidual public universities which comprise the State University System, including FIU, see Fla. Stat. §§ 239.01, 239.02, lack separate corporate existence and the capacity to be sued. Accordingly, the Court should dismiss FIU as a party defendant. Byron, supra, 403 F. Supp. at 54. CONCLUSION For the preceding reasons, defendant FIU respectfully requests this Honorable Court to dismiss the complaint against it with preju- dice, and award FIU a reasonable attorney's fee, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988. Respectfully submitted, GUY O. FARMER II JEFFREY H. KLINK Mahoney Hadlow & Adams Post Office Box 4099 Jacksonville, Florida 3220: (904) 354-1100 =19e JOHN W. KOZYAK Mahoney Hadlow & Adams 1401 First Federal Building One Southeast 3rd Avenue Miami, Florida 33131 (305) 358-5550 By__/s/ Jeffrey H. Klink LAB12/G -20- [CAPTION] PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS In spite of the decision in Bogard v. Cook, 586 F.2d 399 (5th Cir. 1978), it is still an unsettled question as to whether or not a "State" and/or one of its agencies or depart- ments is considered a "person" for jurisdictional purposes under the Civil Rights Act, Title 42 U.S.C., Section 1983. There is no question but that Bogard takes the position that Monell v. Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S. , 98 S.Ct. 2018 (1978) continues to preclude civil rights suits against State or their departments while at the same time permitting suits against "local government units". A close reading of Monell indicates no such limitation. Mr. Justice Brennan, in footnote number 53 stated the following: = "Since there is nothing in the ‘context’ of §1 of the Civil Rights Act calling for a res- tricted interpretation of the word 'person', the language of that section should prima facie be construed to include ‘bodies politic' among the entities that could be sued." and finally, the Monell concludes with a dis- cussion of the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Award Act of 1976, allowing attorney's fees to the prevailing party in a 1983 Civil Rights action. The Court pointed out in quoting from the Senate Report on the Bill that defendants in those cases are often states or local bodies and that it was intended that attorney's fees could be collected, if necessary, from the state or local government. The Court in Monell concluded by stating as follows: ", . ». there can be no doubt that Section 1 of the Civil Rights Act was intended to pro- vide a remedy, to be broadly construed against, all forms of official violation of federally protected rights." -22- It should be noted that the question pre- sented by the Defendant's motion to dismiss is, in effect, not whether or not FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY can be sued as a party defendant, but whether or not monetary damages can be obtained against that entity, since the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has entertained all actions against political subdivisions except those for money damages. Harkless v. Sweeny Independent School Dist., 427 F.2d 319 (5th Cir. 1970) cert. den. 400 U.S. 991, 91 S.Ct.451; Butts v. Dallas Inde- pendent School Dist., 436 F.2d 728 (5th Cir. 1971). The Plaintiff herein has asked for money damages in the claim for relief only as an alternative to injunctive and equitable relief and clearly if this Court is of the opinion that monetary damages could not be assessed against the Defendant, this Court has the authority to strike the claim for monetary =230 damages and permit the case to proceed solely on the injunctive and equitable relief sought. The Defendant takes the position that the Supreme Court decision in Monell overrules Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167, 81 S.Ct. 473 (1961) only insofar as Monroe had completely immunized municipalities from suit under Sec- tion 1983. Whether that analysis is correct or not, it should be noted that in the seven- teen years during the existence of Monroe v. Pape and prior to the Monell decision, Monroe v. Pape was interpreted only as outlawing actions for monetary damages against states and municipal corporations. Adams v. Park Ridge, 293 F.2d 585 (7th Cir. 1961); United States v. Clark, 249 F.Supp. 720 (DC Ala. 1965). Counsel for the Defendant have cited no cases to this Court and, in fact, none exist prohibiting injunctive relief against a state or one its agencies and to the contrary, in addition to the above cited authorities it is quite clear that states are subject to suit for injunctive and declaratory relief. Gates v. Collier, 559 F.2d 241 (5th Cir. 1977). There- fore, this Court should deny Defendant's motion to dismiss and permit this cause to proceed to a determination of the merits. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, LAW OFFICES OF EUGENE P. SPELLMAN Attorneys for Plaintiff, GEORGIA PATSY 100 North Biscayne Boulevard Penthouse Suite Miami, Florida 33132 PY Seats BORN SRC THIS CAUSE came before the Court on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Complaint on substantive and procedural grounds. After due consideration, the Court finds the Com- plaint must be dismissed for its failure to join the proper Defendant to this action. State law determines the capacity of an individual, corporation or other entity to sue and be sued. Rule 17(b), Fed. R. Civ. P. Florida Interational University is an inst- itution which is part of the state univer- sity system. Fla. Stat. §239.01 (1977). The Board of Regents of the Division of Universities of the Department of Education is a corporate body with the power and capacity to sue and be sued. Fla. Stat. §240.042 (1977). No state university, in its individual capacity, is granted such power. “Under Florida law the University =-26- is not endowed with the authority to be sued in its own name. Rather, these char- acteristics are bestowed upon the Board of Regents, as head of the State's University System." Byron v. University of Florida, 403 F, Supp. 49, 54 (N.D. Fla. 1975). Ac- cordingly, the Court finds Florida Inter- national University not to be the proper party Defendant in this cause. It is thereupon ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss be and the same is hereby GRANTED and it is further ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff shall have TWENTY (20) days from the date of this Order in which to file with the Court an Amended Complaint. | DONE and ORDERED in Chambers at -27- F. Supp. 49, 54 (N.D. Fla. 1975). Accordingly, the Court finds Florida International University not to be the proper party Defendant in this cause, It is thereupon ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss be and the same is hereby GRANTED and it is further ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff shall have TWENTY (20) days from the date of this Order in which to file with the Court an Amended Complaint. DONE and ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 9th day of April, 1979. ONTTED-S °K CEE DISTRICT COURT JUNCE copies: Eugene P. Spellman, Esq. Guy O. Farmer, II, Esq. Jeffrey H. Klink, Esq. -28- Miami, Florida, this 9th day of April, 1979. Ss UNITED STA copies: Eugene P. Spellman, Esq. Guy 0. Farmer, II, Esq. Jeffrey H. Klink, Esq. -29- [CAPTION] AMENDED COMPLAINT COMES NOW, GEORGIA PATSY, Plaintiff herein, by and through her undersigned counsel, com- plaining of the above Defendants and for cause of action would respectfully show unto the Court as follows: I. JURISDICTION 1. Jurisdiction is conferred on this Court by 28 U.S.C. §1343(3) which provides for original jurisdiction of this Court in all actions authorized by 42 U.S.C. §1983 to redress the deprivation under color of law of any right, privilege or immunited secured by the Constitution of the United States, spe- cifically the Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments. =30= If. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 2. GEORGIA PATSY, a white female American and an employee of the above captioned Univer- sity, seeks redress for discrimination due to her race, suffered by her in violation of the Constitution and the laws of the United States. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges she has been denied employment opportunities for which she is well qualified within the above captioned University, while there has been an intentional and concerted effort by the University to promote and hire minorities to available posi- tions for which Plaintiff has applied. Itt. PARTIES 3. GEORGIA PATSY, Plaintiff, is a citi- zen of the United States and a resident of the Southern District of Florida. Plaintiff is employed by FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY =o and has attained permanent status within the personnel system of the State of Florida. 4. The Defendant, BOARD OF REGENTS, of the State of Florida is a corporate body, head of the State's University System, of which FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY is an institution part of that system. IV. STATEMENT OF CLAIM S. On June lst, 1972, Plaintiff began employment as a Clerk Typist III, with FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY and is presently Classified as a Secretary III. 6. Plaintiff's education consists of a Bachelor of Education Degree (cum laude) from the University of Miami and a Master of Science Degree in Administration and Supervision of Adult Education from FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY. Plaintiff has had continuing teaching experience in the Dade County, Florida, Adult Education Program. =326 7. During the six (6) years while Plain- tiff has been employed at FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY, she has applied for numerous employment openings within FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY and has been uniformly rejected with many Latins and non-whites having been selected in place of the Plaintiff. 8. The following is a partial list of available positions advertised by FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY for which Plaintiff applied for, but was rejected: Position with Career Development and Placement Dept. Interim Counselor in School Education Liason Officer and Student Affairs Coordinator Continuing Education Coordinator Coordinator/Director Alumni Affairs Vocational Counselor II Personnel Aide College Work-Study Coordinator Conference Coordinator -33- University Public Functions Manager Financial Aid Counselor Student Affairs Coordinator Admissions Counselor 9. The former President of FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY, Charles Perry, has recognized that Plaintiff's background qualifies her for a higher position than the Secretary III position then and now held. See Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof. 10. The professional skill and management abilities of the Plaintiff have been recognized by the Head of the Department of Psychology at FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY. See Exhibit "B" attached hereto and made a part hereof. ll. The Performance Appraisal conducted annually in accordance with the State of Florida Personnel System shows the Plaintiff to be out- standing, not only with respect to her assigned tasks, but innovative, resourceful, efficient and functioning more as a Staff Assistant than -34- as a secretary. See Exhibit "C" (composite) attached. hereto and made a part hereof. ll(a). FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY has engaged in employment practices which have discriminated against Plaintiff on the basis of her race and/or sex in the promotion of its employees. 12. FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY has . maintained and continues to maintain a policy of preference to minority applicants for both available administrative and non-administrative positions which results in discrimination against the Plaintiff, a white-female, contrary to the Constitution and laws of the United States. 13. FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY has continually sought out individuals from minority groups to fill positions resulting in discrimina- tion against the Plaintiff, contrary to the Constitution and laws of the United States. See Exhibits "D" and "E" attached hereto and made a part hereof. -35- 14. FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY through its agents, deceived Plaintiff into believing that she was being considered for a position she applied for when in reality, Plaintiff's name had not submitted as one of the final candidates for the position of Interim Counselor. See Exhibit "F" (composite) attached hereto and made a part hereof. 15. FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY not only rejected Plaintiff for positions for which she was qualified and had applied, but rejected Plaintiff for a position for which she had not applied. See Exhibit "G" attached hereto and made a part hereof. 16. FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY as further evidence of its discriminatory policies maintains files on qualified ap- plicants for positions by segregating them as follows: White, Black, Male and Female, contrary to Federal law and Equal Employ- ment guidelines. -36- 16(a). The acts and practices by FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY described in this complaint constitute a pattern and practice of resistance to the full enjoy- ment of the right to equal employment opportunities without distinction based on race and/or sex and such acts and prac- tices are intended to deny the full exer- cise of rights secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States. 17. An actual controversy exists between the Plaintiff and FLORIDA INTER- NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, in that Plaintiff contends that the actions of FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY are in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Plaintiff is in doubt as to her status and rights under the Constitution of the United States and seeks a declaration of the legal and constitutional rights of -37- the parties with respect to the subject matter of this action. 18. Plaintiff will continue to suf- fer immediate and irreparable injury, loss or damage unless this Court grants the injunctive relief sought. There is no plain, adequate or speedy remedy at law to redress these deprivations. V. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF 19. There exists between the parties an actual controversy as heretofore set out. The Plaintiff is suffering and is threatened with immediate and irreparable injury as a result of the actions of FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY as stated above. The Plaintiff has no plain nor adequate remedy at law to redress the wrongs and unlawful conduct complained of herein. FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVER- SITY has severely damaged Plaintiff by -38~- its discriminatory practices and has painfully stigmatized Plaintiff, and continues to do so. By the actions of FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY, Plain- tiff has been discriminated against and denied due process of law in violation ‘of her rights under the Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY has acted in violation of Title 42, U.S.C. §1983, to inflict said deprivations on the Plaintiff. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays this Honorable Court to enter the following relief: A. Assume jurisdiction of this cause; B. Enter a final judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C., §2201 and Rule 57, of the © Florida Rules of Civil Procedure declar- _ing that the Plaintiff has suffered from acts of discrimination at the hands of -39- the Defendants or its agents, contrary to the Due Process Clause of the Four- teenth Amendment; C. Require Defendants to remedy the discrimination practiced upon Plaintiff by promoting her to the next available position consistent with those previously app’ ied for and for which she is quali- fied or in the alternative, to require the Defendants to pay to the Plaintiff the sum of $500,000 as actual and exemplary damages; D. Assess all costs against the Defendant and award the same to the Plaintiff; E. Award attorney's fees to the Plaintiff; F. That the Court order further equitable and injunctive relief as it deems appropriate and necessary to cor- “rect the conditions of discrimination -40- complained of herein. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, LAW OFFICES OF EUGENE P. SPELLMAN Attorney for Plaintiff 100 North Biscayne Boulevard Penthouse Suite Miami, Florida 33132 BY: ef ; BY: (8/ LnAN -4l- October 30, 1972 Me. D. Burke Kibler, III Post Office Box 1772 Lakeland, Florida 33802 Dear Burkes ©, g, “Thank you for your recent latter concerning the employment status of Mrs. John Patsy at Florida’ International, Our Personnel Department has advised me that Mrs. Patsy is being considered for the position of Secretary III in the Division of iimalth and Physical Education, Recreation and _ Athletics in the School of Iducation,. “* ty the past she has been interviewed by the Dean of the “Division of Special Programs and the Director of Financial Aid. ‘Cader tnnaeesy, there are just not an y Seenesler positions o available. realize Mrs. Patsy's ba ekground ifies her for a higher position than the c typies position she now holds. wUowever, as che situation sta the Secretary III position is the highest one we have to offer. + op je Thank you for your interest-and best wishes. , ., Sincerely, , ‘Charles gE. Perry “* President : FC/jm — bee:* ‘Personnel Department with file Cana 7 rat -42- FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY MEMORANDUM ne. pe 7 TO: Mrs. Georgia Patsy 4 DATE: June 21, 1977 FROM: Dr. Ronald S. rioters SUBJECT: CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY It goes without saying, from my point of view that your presence in the Department as ny Secretary and Office Manager have created what [ believe to be an outstanding professional attitude within the office staff. I have worked with many secretaries over the peers but never have I been so pleased and proud to e able to recognize formally the contribution of some- one like yourself. You have really taken charge and set a tone and atmosphere that is absolutely outstanding. Your professional competence, personal skills, and management abilities have impressed me greatly. More work is being done in the Department than has ever been done before, it is being done better, and with more professionalism than before. You have created an esprit de corps among the other members of the secretarial staff that is going a long ways to keeping our Department ene efficient in the face of all sorts of pressures and demands. Your nde ade 4 to handle pressure situations, keeping me and other members of the faculty in tow when necessary, and dealing with administrative matters within the University that relate to the Department,.in a cool and proficient way with a sense of humor, has made a significant contribution to the well being of the Department. It gives me great pleasure to be able to take this opportunity to recognize in a formal way your outstanding contributions to the Department and in particular for your work directly related to my activities. I wish there were some way that I could more properly recognize the contributions you ahd other members of the secretarial staff have made to all of us in the Department. cc: Dean Arthur Herriott, College of Arts § Sciences Mrs. Patricia Caruso, Director of Personnel ( Inter—office Communicarion ) Fy» y 0 rt : my FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY 00046 . ERFORMANCE WPrHAISAL . Nene PALSY. Georgia D. Social Security No. 222eSAel69S Oepariment _ 2ayeholocy Clasticavon Title Tyee ot Aoererat: C Prananenary Annwersary ” §9 Segeiat OTR: 18 eee 4 10 Be Smee Wy RE ES ore meer ERT Ew errenE meh IMO Ree MRE rER ANE (RN A he FEE ent [he Grane sent WF cemermng CO smewe teareteevery Justification: OC sassetoctery excentional ne rs oa a OC cwnssereret r} oa wmaesseiaewery 40 O Net seprcsoe . 3. QUANTITY ‘? sty, vol B cvatmneng . O seve sersstornery cme -Mrs_2atsy always dears OC tecsetecvery OC Comtserenes o Qwest. ef cowry CNet heormnre 4. DEPENDASILITY (Reliable, trustworthy, requias in attendance) Jeseséientions Sompletely reliable... if (Consider delegation of sesiensents, directing «ere flew snd fellewing up on resuits. ica : | i (Dene (6 wet sitean sed achnewe goes wens sich One! e.oeredee(y | Justification: ~Somplete self-starter, : i responsibility voluntarily. WETTE-Persenne. Serviess + CANART-Evelescer’s Copy - PINE-Capleyes Cop, ee 1 aye te -44- 4 a . * 00047 of others, inetudeng vertal anet eeriiten comemumeat-on. t ecven) Vee only whes 7. SUPERVISORY ABILITY (Eite a . é femie §«—- eVENCES and co™OIEN, ong Satan, @ supervisor. O amore seasetectory Justification: OC sesssteceoey CO comes cranes ( tnsessstenvery O Net Anpicaste ° (D *mere seesetacrory £ S eastesweer y sotetttontt ind stir Hef¥tery— o Comat tomes more a3 By $ a nt Use ectschrenca, |! neceesary. Seqratere of Emoe Osce: (Dees net imply conaurrence with espervenr's evewatien, enty thet evelueuen wes made End reviewed By employes.) Sagnemse of sete SupErvrter Data: Signacere of Seeend-Level Supervises or Dept. Reed Oates The employee vase iaforned of his/her progess on the following dates: Supervisor and employee should indicate agreenent ef dates by initisling. -45- 00048 2.” Te FLO’ 2A INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSI’ ~ . PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL Name —_—— a: i! Socia! Security No. 99% 610" **t Tyee et Agoret: O Precstionsry OAnnwermry 0 Sensis OTE: «The term @ 0 Be eEmeteeed By Ce enEE GEE ON (Oren Om OO ~ mee eee en oe eee wees Ns eee me ome ree ee re om Bee rowerte mae ter O ‘seve Gometerey Justification: ated =m see Ye - ton etoamery comets thoes pela Ae emoets sisceery aa? AAS 2H ASESee @ feane. | le ose awe - 3. (Productivity, volume) ii if (Deowe te met ste ow gue seeks ettiuenst vdS. “racsy éoesn't wiit te *: t013 whet €o do. she rsce-ritcs FPR e Fe a ee ah e m Pia a ee WEITE-Perscnnel Services - CAMARI-tvalseter’ ° vonmesmaale nd . © Copy p eg SPe oe? SRE weed? *:.: Py it -46- O Ovescancing 4 supervisor. © sasve sessetenseey Justification: O seaseteoweey CO comssesones Seessstecwry O Net Appiacsate fj aoe toe Aewwe tease fenrery Ol teaseternery O comttetenes Q Mettiotamnerr = kK . Y ey if nemeary. tensa win 4 ees fot OF Generar aeee * Gnty Ct evahsaten wes made and revenwed By emolover | Sagrsnse of |nrmemote Z , me 4. fae 2°42 7” 7 “rej! me nf Signecere ef Secend-Level Supervises os Dept. feed we! ave Se ecnes 723! » Gea ual sia ly GE ile i i : it iL ii a ae : ‘I is it Hil He iE : Gait ie EE stil a ial s¥iss i ‘f Sa rut He Wik AT Hi if si Bi it HUA i i efeill Pe He i ele ti eg ani A li at Hie mu Ht it ius Ht i ul! ae if aH TE Hi itis A) iid fli iii ili Fe Ht rll i ie ig a ee eel 1/71 ~~» 4! -48- sels athe 4 va *"\Omma inttenat iOnaa miucasity PRAPURPANGL APPRAISAL IGAMLA SCAVICK LPLOTELS) cnusdoninnen Pays test Education ion aces @ the reverse side of tars 00051 WIM, SCMITY WO. 23254-1695 ‘rtoment ote: G=-)-72 uASSiF ication: Jaceotary Tit AmmivERsaay = EVALUATION — PERIOD COVERED BY THIS EV ICW=n=Freml ) = 1O7Sle Yon-suservisery employee - cote only [ec iera lod thts revvew anti! sou read ane understane iw oo on the Performance Acpraital System for Career 48 reorceuced on a, Ny 1. Sweervisory emplover + “pup. al! “s6sarn ich vagton GAT ISP acTOsY COND LT | Crna, SaTisvactoay Sal iavactoay 1 7 3 o°O°@ Fé A , 1) grewlecge of | Mes HOt gained ade | Insufficient tnewi~ | Adewete tae! [aero commie sa — eoee of wens orate | rege of oi! presen jeege of o!! sneses of 0. af ‘oe. Igentscs ane wore (2) Quality 6 tty (2) Sepenaaet tity ees tate ona = | Freqwentiy tate one | Utuall, orerene ‘Serge tate oF ane . ton spsent. 41th s00eRt. Aubt be ree-| at sen@tulew Limes. [arnt aares coil in p+. tweervisien | ularly sreeses ‘0 lemgiras wily ders i" suyence soldem fintenes as- | eccomplien ansrqned [eae comeran, | teRk Saorertion een lS A... ws eal — =———— i ? 1 sep? 4 ‘ (4) tnvetacive Shows «© \eterest Fremwantiy sperers | emt mterett 18 lire tatermiog io ‘a 308. beg ant atl liees Ce [yet mt trem qeoas wetiling ce sccept | ac. cpt respensi~ Oe ie revpensieility. tot ity. a... - ' ? ’ seer ea (8) Seservisery y pon md Gemne- §=— | Consistently trmm itgme rates os- aptlity Stretes deficient eile? malities (vee enty ton, sresntiatien, plane ro c Seeciict) | Messrs sins. |erlitig. tre rr |tmo ttiie; obs” [nie sei. Soe a tegery' ser) § tal of - 4 o 1On : “at + tonetty cura we come olete enoertise of ~. —_- ——_--_-_ Fe Tene itten- WAeee Frened. dares wtepetontiy often manihire affurt Se~ ye AT) «] tate im we fal. Commitonts werees tore. (6 loorny off ig voneves ‘Vell tie *eurte- 0F 201, Omg 98. iL) (her qwaticves aminnty Orta 18 Loe der fareance ‘em 415 lew the satisfectery core.) swsers tier} a with Saenmte’ 05 (0 Gay Gnd OBn thle Guplague 19 pooturatan enter toute OP be: —latd_eatkeenes stems if osoeeeery) COMPIOERT IAD ~ GRET CORI ITD, aat amt fame in cern Sangin, Gum (tie . m* i" pathic b,c. Best Copy Available wsdl dt -49- rss ( wt -u tae : i a HA lsh i He hy aff A | -ieiiin ‘Hi ba 9 or care thee 38 with examples os we SUES Cncnives Cor cay eonrenen leu Cre set! sfectery sere.) -50- Sas hh ae UUUSG F* ~ GA INTERNATIONAL WITVERSITY ~~ PERFORMANCE APPPAISAL Sageer Service tmployees / Vem _P. Classification. Gleck: Typist Uz College/Division__preical stucaricn_____., Social Security Number Pe a ae Bayleywent 060e:__ 621272 “— acnoccesososcsooy/Anniversary Date Evaluation Period Covered by this Review: From Licld-71_. te Lslo-74 Sy bes cintinen tite seviey winks ses send cnt understand TIU policies on the and Uniform Pay Plan for Career Service tnployees. Rate each factor - by eizeling the Above | @ if woeweeeene ew we e Fre Fe ere Ke Ke ee eeeeeseeee Signature: _Date "S JUSTIFICATION: (Required for any score less than 16 of acre than 23, with exacgies an te why and hew this eaployee is performing either above or Selow the Satisfactory ern.) lis past year. She does not need to be told wnat to do. she is organized. let _vork is very good. and she puts « great des extra time into her —iobs_.she_nes handled her Oivision responsibilities well and she gots siong ibilities wel she gats along ith everyone. She is always able to do the little extira things that nake -5l- Gareer Service Employees Classification ae ras a p Social Security ‘umber : Purpose: = ayleyeent once dL Dah — 6 mo. tvaluattonSgaiversary Date tvaluati>, “exiled Covered by this Review: From &.40:-7 3 4:-10.773 _. so not camflete this review until you reed and understand PIU policies on the and Uniform Pay Plan for Career Service Exployees. “ppearance noo ® 2 2 ° Actendance scot ey) 2 a 0 Mmoviedse of ob 6 @) 3 2 2 ° Quality of work 3 2 2 0 Quantity of work =f) 3 2 1 0 Initiative 0) 3 2 a 9 Dependability 1) 3 2 1 ° Acti tude 9 a 2 1 0 Relationship vith 4 ® a 1 ° Others ceestanding , 32 and above Total Seore 2.2 MLA pantin (deren) WAAAY 2as aie Af 59 70: Dean Sowards . ° 00055 Gageer Service Exployces wame___Patsy, Georgie 0. Classification Secretary 122 College/Pivision__ Physical Eduestion Social Security Mumba s_232-54-}695 ~ Bayloyeent Doce: 11/20/72. ‘ 6 to. teasieslenneNeNNpEEnetionen Period Covered by this Review: from 11/10/72 gt} —«8/10/73 De not camlete this review until you read and understand TIU policies on the and Uniform Pay Plan for Career Service Employees, by circling the Above ‘ gumerical velue Outstanding setisfectory satisfactory _Conditionel __unsstislacsory Appearance xxx (y 2 1 C) Attendance Uo 3 2 1 () Knowledge of Job 1D) 3 2 1 Q Quality of Work y 3 2 1 C) Quantity of work Y 3 2 1 r) Initiative y 3 2 1 C) Dependability ¥ 3 1 ° 3 1 C) 3 1 C) 47 60 -53- INDIANA "NIVERSI1. School of Heauh, Phyncal Kducauan, ana Reerauen 40re erusnne BLOOMINGTON. INOIAmA stene PUVOIGAs LOUGETION Fon wan April 17, 1973 sete Geen 41+ 337=LB4s Te... +e. fe ar Dr. Poul £. Mavtren of Health, Physical Eduestion and Vlovide International Caiversity Temieai Treil “Niemi, Florida 33144 Dear Dr. Hartman: s you have indicated Slacks end Latins, I have no other people to ic Big at the present cine, but vill their names for consideration if I find a pbladke 23-73 Yld0g-m. TO THALST Coll 24°78 0 pth Neate L fame ap WS TF. TH Alen, FB Cotte Exner D Bh 6) 6 a es 00087 TLS7DSA CTANATIONAL UiIVER icy ait st OFA MS oF 88 rx | Cr. Giann A. Goerke DATE: fuly 9, 1973 FROMs Cuaries €. 7arcy SUITECT: Wreatling Coach Just @ remioder wt you end to Cr. Sartmman that sone of ‘te head coaches are ta Se appointed without Seing interviewed and approved by =e. | assume thas this will be dene in regard to the wrestling coach. Dis sy undersandisg that thers is an cutstamding Black ‘wrestling ¢sach <= Mlami-Cade Sout who is 4 graduate of Tlerida A&M and has &@ Masters degree from semeplace. | further understand that be has had 3 great (aterest <2 the wrestliag job here at Plerida Icternaticnal. = -vould seem to =e that we should lcok very carefully et this young san, secause having & heed coach whe news the local wrestiing siszaticn (and who (2 lack) would se a great edvemtage ta the University. Thank you. esr Cr. Peul Hartman (~ Cr? /nen -55- " (0058 FLOniDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVER ITY GATE: Cotober 22, 1976 ae - js wH IIT Y 63 9 -56- Paul Gallagher Oct. S$, 1976 Judy Blucker t “. : Candidates for Counseling Position . 4 My ranking of the candidates after reviow of