Respondents Brief — Springfield Township School Dist. v. Knoll

64 UF

No. 82-1889

———— ie

IN THE

Supreme Court of the United States

OcToBER TERM, 1982

SPRINGFIELD TOWNSHIP SCHOOL DISTRICT,

A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, et al.,

Petitioners,

Vv.

MADELIN H. KNOLL,

Respondent.

On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

BRIEF OF RESPONDENT IN OPPOSITION

‘pp

THEODORE M. LIEVERMAN RosBert H. CHANIN

1425 Walnut Street (Counsel of Record)

Philadelphia, Pa. 19102 1201 Sixteenth Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036

(202) 822-7408

Counsel for Respondent

WILSON - Eres Prewrine Co.. Inc. . 769-0096 . WasHincron. D.C. 20001

o> ~

BEST AVA'LABLE COPY

(i)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

COUNTER-STATEMENT OF QUESTION PRE-

SENTED

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ..

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .......

(iii)

Page

iv

iv

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES Page

Board of Regents v. Tomanio, 446 U.S. 478 (1980) .. 5

Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen v. Bangor &

Aroostook R.R., 389 U.S. 327 (1967) -................. 7

Burns Vv. Sullivan, 619 F.2d 99 (1st Cir.), cert. de-

nied, 449 U.S. 898 (1980) .......................--.------------ 3, 4,5

Carter v. Supermarkets General Corp., 684 F.2d

ee Ce cterneeccenecntetenccel iain 4,5

Dewey Vv. University of New Hampshire, 694 F.2d

Ef. Sie ees 4

Garmon Vv. Foust, 668 F.2d 400 (8th Cir.), cert.

denied, ——— U.S. ——., 102 S. Ct. 2283 (1982) .... 6

Green Vv. Ten Eyck, 572 F.2d 1233 (8th Cir. 1978) .. 2

Holden v. Massachusetts Comm. Against Discrimi-

nation, 671 F.2d 30 (1st Cir. 1981), cert. denied,

— U.S. ——, 108 S.Ct. 97 (1962) .................... 4,5

Hussey Vv. Sullivan, 651 F.2d 74 (ist Cir. 1981) .... 4

McNutt v. Duke Precision Dental and Orthodontic

Laboratories, 698 F.2d 676 (4th Cir. 1983) ....... 6

Patsy v. Board of Regents, —— U.S. ——, 102 S.

Fae Se iltcicctincrpntensinincindinnsitinninemenne 3

Warren v. Norman Realty Co., 513 F.2d 730 (8th

Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 855 (1975)... 2,6

STATUTES

KE EL eee 2, 5,7

Title VII, Civil Rights Act cf 1964 2,7

TREATISES

R. Stern and E. Gressman, Supreme Court Prac-

I I en rerineunatsiinyeesn 7

IN THE

Supreme Court of the United States

OCTOBER TERM, 1982

No. 82-1889

SPRINGFIELD TOWNSHIP SCHOOL DISTRICT,

A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, et al.,

Vv. Petitio ners,

MADELIN H. KNOLL,

Respondent.

On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

BRIEF OF RESPONDENT IN OPPOSITION

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

1. Contrary to petitioners’ contention, there is no ir-

reconcilable conflict between the decision in this case and

decisions of the First and Eighth Circuits. The Eighth

Circuit has not addressed the question whether the appli-

cation of a six-month statute of limitations to a civil

rights claim is inconsistent with federal policy. To the

extent that the First Circuit has the question,

its decisions have turned on the ties of the par-

ticular state statutes invelved, and present no true con-

flict with the decision below.

2. The question on which review is sought has rarely

arisen, and this case does not present any of the questions

pertaining to statutes of limitations for federal civil

rights claims that have recurred with frequency in the

federal courts. The question presented here would, at

best, warrant review only in a case presenting those other

issues of more general importance.

3. The decision of the court of appeals is interlocutory,

and the question presented may have no impact on the

outcome of this litigation. That question only involves

respondent’s claims under § 1983, and does not affect her

claims under Title VII. Respondent may ultimat~ly ob-

tain under Title VII all the relief to which she would be

entitled under § 1983. The case will in any event be the

subject of further proceedings in the district court, and

were plaintiff eventually to obtain independent relief un-

der § 1983, any issue warranting review could be pre-

sented to this Court at that time.

For these reasons, the petition for certiorari should

be denied.

ARGUMENT

The question petitioners ask this Court to review in-

volves no square conflict among the circuits, presents no

issue of general importance, and quite possibly will have

no impact on the ultimate outcome of this litigation. The

petition for certiorari should therefore be denied.

1. Petitioners assert that the decision in this case con-

flicts with decisions of the First and Eighth Circuits “as

to whether six-month statutes of limitations may, con-

sistent with federal policy, be applied to federal civil

rights actions” (Pet. at 8-11). But in fact, the cases

present no irreconcilable conflict.

a) In the Eighth Circuit cases cited by petitioners, the

only issue addressed by the court was the question of

which state cause of action was “most closely analogous”

to the plaintiff’s federal claim. Warren v. Norman Realty

Co., 513 F.2d 730, 733-734 (1974), cert. denied, 423 U.S.

855 (1975); Green v. Ten Eyck, 572 F.2d 1233, 1287-

1238 (1978). In both cases the state cause of action

found to be “most analogous” was governed by a six-

month statute of limitations, and the court applied that

limitations period. But there is no indication in either

case that the six-month limitations period was challenged

as inconsistent with federal policy, and in neither case

did the court address that issue.

b) In certain of the First Circuit cases cited by peti-

tioners—unlike the Eighth Circuit cases—federal policy

was one of the fxctors considered by the court in deter-

mining which statute of limitations to apply. ~But~ the

First Circuit’s decision to apply a six-month limitations

period in those cases, and the Third Circuit’s decision to

(1) The First Circuit decision upon which petitioners

principally rely is Burns v. Sullivan, 619 F.2d 99, cert.

denied, 449 U.S. 893 (1980). The plaintiff in Burns

abt he 445 46 333. 4

iE fH jiu H Mea i ha

iat itiig il )

z Hii HTL Hi it

Ht Ht Hi Hit HE 7 HH Hit

HA Hi 7 ile

ait aE GH ETH

Ht eat Hite i i

diy bier [eats 1

nil ph : aE z 3 id i

see weet ie Bd

aetdilttile aa TE

blest Eta ui

+ igthanigaii 3: (ua ue

HBR Tn FEE Ee

Hutt ait ay 7 taf

, Hin : ii! 4

3 [2 tad 3 2 at ith

¥ it ayes i2i q22 } jee] 185

UCTS NIE. ai!

ielishalainr | HE

iiaancitill Hi

“; aah itt 3 1

THOS eH eran ee

ee iF ii ; + t i it i

silt ii a fill inn

. Han sli ie] H te i

it tH i i ity i

13 Hal it Lal

PE dil it ie i Ht