W. Dorrean Graves v. Lorraine Duganne

Graves, formerly a probationary schoolteacher in Ganado, Arizona, brought a civil rights action against the superintendent of the school district and members of the school board after her teaching contract was not renewed. According to the letter notifying Graves of the board’s decision, the reasons for the action was:

Graves complained that the termination violated her constitutional rights of privacy and association. In addition, she contended that the failure of the board to grant her a hearing violated her right to due process. The district court ordered the parties to select an impartial panel from among members of the education community to hold a hearing, determine the facts and make a recommendation to the board. The board was to reconsider the matter in light of the *224 findings of the panel, giving reasons for its final decision. A majority of the panel found “no proof” of misconduct on the part of Graves and recommended that she be rehired. The board stood by its original decision. The court granted summary judgment for defendants and Graves appeals.

Graves argues that she was not accorded sufficient due process. The district court concluded that the reasons for not…

concurring in part and dissenting in part:

Issues remain which should preclude the district court’s grant of summary judgment for the school board. The board imposed an impermissible stigma on Graves by firing her without a hearing and making more or less public its reasons for termination. A copy of the board’s letter in her placement file at Northern Arizona University may effectively prevent her from finding other *225 employment. At least the question calls for trial.

I agree that Graves did not have a property interest in her position and is not entitled to reinstatement and back pay as such. But the board, after trial, could be liable for damages for any losses Graves sustained as a result of the manner in which her case was handled. Those losses could be calculated by the trier for the period of the stigma, less mitigation. The record also satisfies me that there was a triable issue whether the board was biased against Graves. If found to have been biased, the board could not properly reject the hearing board’s recommendation that she be rehired. These questions might also affect the amount of her damages.

The majority apparently expects the board to remove all traces of…

581 F.2d 222 W. Dorrean GRAVES, Appellant, v. Lorraine DUGANNE et al., Appellees. No. 75-1231. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Aug. 30, 1978. Jerry D. Anker (argued), of Lichtman, Abeles, Anker & Nagle, Washington, D. C., for appellant. Lawrence Wright (argued), of Snell & Wilmer, Phoenix, Ariz., for appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. Before CHAMBERS and GOODWIN, Circuit Judges, and CONTI * , District Judge. CHAMBERS, Circuit Judge: 1 Graves, formerly a probationary schoolteacher in Ganado, Arizona, brought a civil rights action against the superintendent of the school district and members of the school board after her teaching contract was not renewed. According to the letter notifying Graves of the board's decision, the reasons for the action was: 2 (T)he lack of acceptance by the community of your out-of-school activities and the example which you are setting for the young people of the school district with your personal behavior. 3 Graves complained that the termination violated her constitutional rights of privacy and association. In addition, she contended that the failure of the board to grant her a…