Krynicky v. University of Pittsburgh
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
742 F.2d 94 (1984)
- Written by Mike Begovic, JD
Facts
Two consolidated cases addressed the question of whether public universities act under color of state law for purposes of a claim brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which allowed individuals to sue state officials for violating their rights if they acted under color of state law. Harry Krynicky (plaintiff) was an assistant professor at the University of Pittsburgh (Pittsburgh) (defendant), a state university. After being denied tenure, Krynicky filed an action under § 1983, alleging that Pittsburgh, acting under color of state law, violated his due-process rights and denied him tenure in retaliation for criticizing the administration. A district court granted Pittsburgh’s summary-judgment motion, finding that the officials had not acted under color of state law. In the second case, Rosemary Schier (plaintiff) worked at Temple University Hospital (Temple) (defendant), a state university hospital. Schier sued Temple under § 1983, alleging sexual discrimination and retaliation. The district court denied Temple’s motion for summary judgment on Schier’s § 1983 claim, finding that a symbiotic relationship existed between the state and Temple. The district court, recognizing the conflicting decisions, certified for interlocutory appeal the specific question addressed in both cases. Both Pittsburgh and Temple argued that the symbiotic-relationship test promulgated by the United States Supreme Court had been overruled or, at a minimum, significantly narrowed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Becker, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 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.