EDUC 432

Diana Martin and Jennifer Napp

April 14, 1999

Derek I. Tolbert vs. Queens College, et.al. US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. No. 98-7272, 164 F.3d 132 (1999)

THE FACTS:

Derek Tolbert was a black teacher in the NYC school system. In order to maintain his teaching eligibility and to qualify for certain promotions, he enrolled in the media studies program offered by the Queens College Department of Communications Arts and Sciences with the intent of obtaining a master's degree in communication. He completed the necessary course work and earned a satisfactory GPA but did not pass the comprehensive exam necessary for the degree.

In a meeting attended by Helen Smith Cairns (the Chairperson of the Dept. of Communications), Stuart Leibman (the professor who gave Tolbert the failing grade on the exam), one of Tolbert's teaching colleagues, and an Adjunct Lecturer in the Department (whose purpose was to take unofficial notes of the meeting), Tolbert interpreted a statement made by Leibman to mean that the exams of Chinese and other English-as-a-Second-Language (ESL) students had been graded on a different basis than his had been graded. More precisely, he left the meeting feeling that he had been penalized and, consequently, had not passed the exam because of his poor writing skills while Chinese and other ESL students with inferior writing skills had passed.

Tolbert brought suit alleging racial discrimination in the grading of his exam.

In the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York, the defendants Leibman and Cairns moved for the case against them to be dismissed asserting qualified immunity for summary judgment. This basically means that 1) they thought they should not be held personally liable for the situation since they had acted within the guidelines they were expected to follow, and 2) they thought that there was not sufficient evidence to warrant any case against them in the first place.

There were many conflicting opinions as to what Leibman had actually said at the meeting with Tolbert concerning the grading of the exams of ESL students because the note-taker was not a stenographer and, therefore, there was no word for word record of statements made. In addition, the objectivity of the grading was questioned during the hearing. Due to the uncertainty surrounding these issues, the district court denied summary judgment, stating that the actual facts of what had happened would have to be decided before any decision about whether or not to dismiss the charges brought against Leibman and Cairns could be made.

THE ISSUE:

The issue for the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, to decide was whether or not to uphold the lower court's denial of summary judgment.

THE DECISION:

The appeal was dismissed because of a lack of appellate jurisdiction.

REASONING:

The Court of Appeals of the Second Circuit considered all of the defendant's contentions about whether or not the denial of summary judgment could be appealed and decided that it could not. This was based on precedent that stated, generally speaking, a denial of summary judgment is not immediately appealable as a final decision. The exception to this rule is when the case is based on a defense of qualified immunity. Because the district court rejected this defense as a matter of law, the denial of summary judgment in this case was not immediately appealable. Only when there is a given set of facts can a denial of summary judgment be immediately appealed. In this case, the facts were sharply disputed and although the defendants feel as though they have not engaged in any behavior that is in violation of any clearly established constitutional rights, questions surround their conduct.

The district court believed that the statements made at the meeting that were attributed to Liebman could be interpreted by a rational fact finder as reflecting a grading policy that was designed to give special treatment, at least in part to students based on their ethnicity. Further, the district court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to permit a jury to determine whether or not the conduct alleged by Tolbert actually occurred. The question of the defendants qualified immunity could only be decided after the facts of the case were determined. The evidence was sufficient to warrant a jury's findings regarding the case and the denial of the summary judgment was not immediately appealable.

DISSENTING OPINION:

Senior District Justice Pollack reasoned that Tolbert brought suit because he was not granted a master's degree in communications. He felt that Tolbert did not submit evidence that he failed to receive that degree because of illegal discrimination against him as a Black American. Thus, Justice Pollack believed the summary judgment should have been granted and felt that the district court lost sight of the relevant issues of the case. He would grant summary judgment or at least remand the case to the district court for a more comprehensive review of the motion by the defendants for summary judgment.

ADDITIONAL RELEVANT EDUCATIONAL ISSUES OF THE CASE:

Once the case makes it to trial Tolbert will present issues related to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that prohibits racial discrimination. A school that violates this law faces losing all of its funding. The Office of Civil Rights later added a memorandum in 1970 interpreting this prohibition of discrimination to include national origin and added that violation of this statute does not require intent. This statute will play a key role in the Tolbert case.