University of Tennessee et al. v. Elliott
478 U.S. 788 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An unreviewed state administrative agency's fact-finding is not entitled to preclusive effect in a subsequent Title VII action in federal court. However, it is entitled to preclusive effect in actions under the Reconstruction-era civil rights statutes (e.g., 42 U.S.C. § 1983) if the agency acted in a judicial capacity and afforded the parties a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue.
Facts:
- In 1981, the University of Tennessee informed Robert Elliott, a black employee in its Agricultural Extension Service, that he would be discharged for inadequate work performance and misconduct.
- Elliott requested a hearing under the Tennessee Uniform Administrative Procedures Act to contest his termination.
- Elliott contended that the charges were racially motivated and presented evidence to support this as an affirmative defense during the administrative hearing.
- The hearing was conducted by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) who acted in a judicial capacity.
- After extensive testimony, the ALJ found that the University had not been motivated by racial prejudice but concluded that discharge was too severe a penalty.
- The ALJ ordered Elliott transferred to a new assignment rather than terminated.
- The University's Vice President for Agriculture reviewed and affirmed the ALJ's ruling, specifically agreeing that the proposed discharge was not racially motivated.
Procedural Posture:
- Robert Elliott filed suit against the University of Tennessee in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, alleging his proposed discharge was racially motivated in violation of Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
- The District Court initially entered a temporary restraining order but then lifted it, allowing the state administrative proceeding to go forward.
- Following the final state administrative decision, the University moved for summary judgment in the federal district court, arguing the administrative ruling was entitled to preclusive effect.
- The District Court granted summary judgment for the University, holding that Elliott was precluded from relitigating the issue of racial motivation.
- Elliott, as appellant, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that unreviewed state administrative findings are not entitled to preclusive effect in federal civil rights actions. The University of Tennessee was the appellee.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the Sixth Circuit's decision.
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 an unreviewed state administrative agency's fact-finding on a discrimination claim have preclusive effect in a subsequent federal lawsuit brought under Title VII and the Reconstruction-era civil rights statutes, such as 42 U.S.C. § 1983?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice White
No, for Title VII claims, but Yes, for claims under the Reconstruction-era civil rights statutes, provided the agency acted in a judicial capacity and the parties had an adequate opportunity to litigate. Federal common-law rules of preclusion apply differently to these two types of claims. For Title VII, Congress intended to allow a trial de novo in federal court, as evidenced by the statutory requirement that the EEOC give only 'substantial weight' to state agency findings. Giving preclusive effect would render this provision meaningless, a conclusion supported by prior decisions like Kremer and Chandler. For claims under § 1983 and similar statutes, while the federal full faith and credit statute (28 U.S.C. § 1738) does not apply to unreviewed administrative decisions, federal common-law principles of preclusion do. Based on the reasoning in United States v. Utah Construction & Mining Co., it is sound policy to give preclusive effect to the fact-finding of administrative bodies acting in a judicial capacity to promote repose, judicial economy, and federalism. Congress did not intend for § 1983 to create an exception to these traditional preclusion principles.
Concurring in part and dissenting in part - Justice Stevens
No, unreviewed state administrative findings should have no preclusive effect on claims under either Title VII or the Reconstruction-era civil rights statutes. While the majority is correct about Title VII claims, it is wrong to apply preclusion to § 1983 claims. The very purpose of the Reconstruction-era civil rights acts, as explained in Monroe v. Pape, was to provide a federal forum because state agencies and courts could not be trusted to protect federal rights. Applying preclusion frustrates this congressional intent. Furthermore, this split-holding creates a 'schizophrenic approach' where litigants must re-try the same factual issues for a Title VII claim that are precluded for a § 1983 claim, which saves no judicial resources and risks inconsistent results.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a critical distinction in administrative preclusion doctrine for federal civil rights litigation. By denying preclusive effect for Title VII claims, the Court preserved a plaintiff's right to a fresh review in a federal forum, reinforcing the EEOC's statutory scheme. However, by granting preclusive effect for § 1983 claims, the Court extended common-law administrative estoppel into the civil rights arena, prioritizing federalism and judicial economy. This creates a strategic dilemma for plaintiffs, who must now weigh the risk of an adverse state administrative finding, which could foreclose their § 1983 claim, against the benefits of the administrative process. The ruling forces litigants to choose their forum carefully and may lead some to bypass state administrative remedies altogether to preserve full access to federal court for all their claims.
