Harrington v. Vandalia-Butler Board of Education
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
649 F.2d 434 (1981)
- Written by John Waller, JD
Facts
In a prior action, Jeanne Harrington (plaintiff) brought suit against the Vandalia-Butler Board of Education (Board of Education) (defendant) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio for discrimination in former employment. Harrington sought relief under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII). At trial, judgment was entered in favor of Harrington and she was awarded compensatory damages. The Board of Education appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The court sustained the finding of discrimination, but reversed the judgment on the grounds that Title VII does not authorize compensatory damages. While Harrington’s appeal was pending, the Supreme Court decided Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978). That decision overruled Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167 (1961), and effectuated a change in the law, making municipalities subject to liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. As a result of this change in the law, Harrington brought this action against the Board of Education, alleging discrimination and seeking relief under § 1983. The Board of Education moved for summary judgment on the grounds that Harrington’s claim was barred by the doctrine of res judicata. The district court granted the Board of Education’s motion for summary judgment, and Harrington appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Martin, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 807,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
