Texas Teachers Assn. v. Garland School Dist.
489 U.S. 782 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To be considered a 'prevailing party' eligible for attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, a plaintiff must succeed on any significant issue in the litigation that achieves some of the benefit sought and materially alters the legal relationship between the parties; success on the 'central issue' is not required.
Facts:
- The Garland Independent School District (GISD) maintained Administrative Regulation 412, which prohibited employee organizations from accessing school facilities during school hours.
- The regulation also banned the use of school mail and other internal communication systems by employee organizations.
- GISD's policies prohibited teacher-to-teacher conversations that promoted employee organizations during the school day.
- Teachers were, however, generally permitted to use school mail and billboard facilities for personal messages of all kinds.
- The policy allowed employee organizations to meet with teachers on campus before or after school hours, but only with prior approval from the school principal.
- There was no evidence that GISD officials had ever actually denied an employee organization's request to use school premises during non-school hours.
Procedural Posture:
- The Texas State Teachers Association (TSTA) sued the Garland Independent School District (GISD) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, alleging violations of their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
- The District Court granted summary judgment largely in favor of GISD but found for TSTA on the minor issue that the principal-approval requirement for after-school meetings was unconstitutionally vague.
- TSTA, as appellant, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed the denial of union access during school hours but reversed the District Court regarding teacher-to-teacher communications, holding that GISD's prohibitions on such speech and use of internal mail were unconstitutional.
- GISD's subsequent appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court was summarily affirmed.
- TSTA then filed a motion in the District Court for attorney's fees under § 1988.
- The District Court denied the motion, applying the Fifth Circuit's 'central issue' test and concluding TSTA was not a 'prevailing party' because it had lost on the primary issue of gaining access to school campuses during school hours.
- TSTA, as appellant, appealed the fee denial to the Fifth Circuit, which affirmed the District Court's decision.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a conflict among the Courts of Appeals regarding the proper standard for determining 'prevailing party' status.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a plaintiff need to succeed on the 'central issue' of the litigation and obtain the 'primary relief sought' to be considered a 'prevailing party' eligible for attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice O’Connor
No. A plaintiff is a 'prevailing party' for purposes of attorney's fees under § 1988 if they succeed on any significant issue in litigation which achieves some of the benefit the parties sought in bringing the suit; they do not need to prevail on the 'central issue.' The Court rejected the 'central issue' test as contrary to its precedent in Hensley v. Eckerhart, which held that the degree of a plaintiff's success determines the reasonableness of the fee amount, not the initial eligibility for a fee award. The proper standard, derived from Nadeau v. Helgemoe, is whether the plaintiff's victory on a significant claim materially alters the legal relationship between the parties, such as by modifying the defendant's behavior in a way that directly benefits the plaintiff. A purely technical or de minimis victory is insufficient to confer prevailing party status. The 'central issue' test is also judicially unworkable, as it requires a distracting and subjective inquiry into the litigants' primary goals. In this case, the Texas State Teachers Association achieved a significant victory by invalidating GISD's restrictions on teacher-to-teacher communications about union activities, which materially altered the school district's policy and thus qualified them as a prevailing party.
Analysis:
This decision resolves a circuit split by rejecting the restrictive 'central issue' test and establishing a more generous and uniform standard for 'prevailing party' status under federal fee-shifting statutes. By clarifying that any victory on a significant issue that materially alters the parties' legal relationship is sufficient, the Court lowered the threshold for plaintiffs in civil rights cases to become eligible for attorney's fees. This encourages the bringing of meritorious civil rights claims even if the plaintiff is not certain to win on all, or even the most prominent, of their legal theories. The ruling shifts the inquiry from the subjective importance of a claim to the objective outcome of whether the plaintiff achieved a meaningful, court-ordered change in the defendant's conduct.
Unlock the full brief for Texas Teachers Assn. v. Garland School Dist.