Piercing Qualified Immunity:  Up, Close and Personally Liable

On November 16, 2006, Judge Sam A. Lindsey of the United States District, Northern District of Texas issued an opinion and order in the Santamaria ex rel Doe Children 1-3 v. Dallas Independent  School District, 2006 WL 3350194 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 16, 2006).  In Santamaria, Latino students sued the Dallas Independent School District, Superintendent Michael Hinojosa, and Principal Teresa Parker for segregating “Latino” students from Anglo students at Preston Hollow Elementary.[1]  Specifically, non-Limited English Proficient (“non-LEP”) Latino and African American students were assigned disproportionately to English as a Second Language (“ESL”) classes while non-LEP Anglo students were assigned to “neighborhood schools,” which were general education classes.  Superintendent Hinojosa was sued in his individual capacity, and Principal Parker was sued in both her official and individual capacity. 

The Court found that Principal Parker unlawfully segregated students based upon race and national origin.  The evidence demonstrated that Principal Parker placed students in ESL classes because of their national origin regardless of language ability, streamlined incoming Anglo students to general education classes, and redistributed Anglo students from a proportionately proposed roster of racially mixed classroom assignments to a final roster of classroom assignments based upon race and national origin.  The Court opined that “Principal Parker was, in effect, operating, at taxpayer’s expense, a private school for Anglo children within a public school that was predominantly minority.”  Finding that Principal Parker violated the plaintiffs’ equal protection rights, the court determined that she was monetarily liable for her actions.

Moreover, Principal Parker was not entitled to the defense of qualified immunity under section 1983.  In assessing the immunity defense, the court examines (1) whether the plaintiff alleged a deprivation of a constitutional right, (2)  whether the right was clearly established at the time and (3) whether the defendant’s conduct was objectively unreasonable.[2]  The plaintiffs’ allegation of unlawful segregation in public education was protected under the Fourteenth Amendment and the right was clearly established at the time.[3]  The Court concluded that “no reasonable school administrator in Principal Parker’s shoes could have believed her actions met constitutional muster.”   Under section 1983, the plaintiffs were not awarded damages for their mental anguish, but they were awarded nominal damages in the sum of $200.00.  In addition, the plaintiffs were awarded punitive damages.  Principal Parker must pay a sum of $20,000.00 to plaintiffs.[4]

Personal Liability and Punitive Damages

Although this case is extreme (who could believe that a principal in 2006 would intentionally segregate students), it demonstrates that an employee’s unreasonable conduct in violation of a constitutional right may trigger personal liability and punitive damages.  So, how were plaintiffs able to recover punitive damages?  Punitive damages are not recoverable against school districts or persons acting in their official capacity.  However, a court may award punitive damages against employees in their individual capacities for “reckless and callous indifference to the federally protected rights of others.”[5]

As a defense, Principal Parker argued that the educational scheme was “separate but equal”—the ESL classes received the same education as Anglo students in general education.  The court did not buy it and concluded that the non-LEP students in the ESL class would most likely choose a general education class over an ESL class.  She never provided a pedagogical rationale explaining why non-LEP minority students were disportionately represented in ESL classes.

The court awarded punitive damages based upon Principal’s Parker reckless indifference to the constitutional rights of the students.[6] She had the final word in determining classroom assignments, but chose intentionally to segregate students. Consequently, the hallways were racially divided and the students not did not intermingle among each other except during non-core classes.  The principal even attempted to cover up the segregation once litigation commenced.  When an investigator came to visit, she shuffled the Anglo students to make it appear that the school was less segregated than it actually was. These factors led the court to find Principal Parker personally liable.

In accessing the punitive damages, the court used its discretion by considering (1) the degree of reprehensibility of the defendant’s conduct; (2) the disparity between the harm suffered and the damage award; and (3) the difference between the damages awarded in this case and comparable cases.[7] In making its decision, the court did not consider whether the principal could afford to pay for the $20,000.00.  Rather, the court imposed an amount it determined would likely deter such behavior.  The court noted that in this particular case, the defendants did not address the issue of punitive damages in its briefs and the plaintiffs had one sentence about damages.  The plaintiffs did not state a proper monetary amount for damages and had no evidence to demonstrate Principal Parker’s net worth.  The punitive damages assessment may have come out differently if the plaintiffs had specified a damage amount or provided evidence of the principal’s net worth. 

The court’s decision, in the narrowest sense, indicates that segregation will not be tolerated in public education.  In a broader sense, the decision sends a warning that a potential deprivation of a constitutional right can trigger personal liability, where the courts will impose punitive damages upon individuals.  Personally liable means that the individual is responsible for paying the damages.  Be smart, think before you act.

What's New

Construction Basics for New Superintendents

January 9th

Austin, Texas

Legal Issues for Cheerleader and Drill Team Sponsors

January - February

Locations throughout Texas

Effectively Ending Employment

February 9 & 19

Austin & D/FW Metroplex Offices

Visit www.edlaw.com to reserve your spot today!