Johnnie Pegues v. Morehouse Parish School Board

Citations: 706 F.2d 735; 32 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 210; 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 26845; 32 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 33,677Docket: 82-4329

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit; June 10, 1983; Federal Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Johnnie Pegues, the plaintiff-appellant, challenged the Morehouse Parish School Board regarding his demotion from head to assistant football coach during the implementation of a court-ordered desegregation plan. Initially, the Fifth Circuit upheld the dismissal of Pegues' Section 1983 action due to untimeliness but reversed the district court’s ruling on Singleton relief, instructing the court to evaluate the implications of Pegues’ delay under laches. Following a bench trial on remand, the district court ruled against Pegues, determining he failed to demonstrate entitlement to Singleton remedies and that his claim was barred by laches.

Pegues, a black male, had served as head football coach at Morehouse High School for five years prior to its conversion to a junior high in 1969, resulting in a parish-wide desegregation order that consolidated schools. He was transferred to Bastrop High as assistant coach, where he was not informed of subsequent head coach vacancies that were filled by white candidates. In 1977, Pegues was reassigned to head track coach and filed his complaint in March 1978.

On remand, the district court found that Pegues' demotion did not violate Singleton since the number of head coaching positions remained unchanged after desegregation. Furthermore, even if Singleton standards applied, Pegues' delay in raising his complaint was deemed inexcusable and prejudicial, satisfying the defendants' burden of proving laches. On appeal, Pegues argued for the first time that the district court should have adhered to the previous panel's ruling regarding Singleton’s applicability and the violation of his rights.

An issue not raised in the trial court is typically not considered on appeal, except for pure questions of law or instances where refusing to address the issue could lead to a miscarriage of justice. Federal appellate courts have discretion to resolve previously unaddressed issues if the resolution is clear or if failing to do so would result in injustice. The doctrines of law of the case and res judicata are related but distinct; res judicata applies to final judgments and prevents re-litigation of claims, while the law of the case prevents re-examination of issues decided during a single proceeding. In the discussed case, the previous court's reversal of a summary judgment did not constitute a judgment on the merits regarding the Singleton claim, thus not invoking either doctrine. The Pegues I court did not definitively address whether Pegues' complaint fell under Singleton's protections, rendering any comments on the merits as obiter dicta. Pegues challenges the trial court's interpretation of Singleton, which established standards to prevent racial discrimination during the transition from segregated to integrated schools, mandating that dismissals or demotions not be based on race and ensuring displaced qualified staff members have rights of first refusal for vacancies.

The Singleton reinstatement preference applies only where there is a demonstrated reduction in school staff related to desegregation. While there was an overall decline in faculty, the number of football coaches at Morehouse Parish School Board remained unchanged, indicating that personnel reductions should be assessed in terms of positions similar to those held by the displaced employee, such as principals and teachers. Pegues did not meet the burden of proof for a Singleton violation, resulting in the denial of his claim. The court found Pegues' claims of racially-motivated demotion and denial of head coach positions not entirely meritless, thus rejecting the defendants' request for sanctions or double costs under Fed. R.App. P. 38. The ruling was affirmed without addressing the trial court's handling of the laches issue.