Patsy v. Board Of Regents

457 U.S. 496 (1982)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P claims that even though she is well qualified and has received uniformly excellent performance evaluations she has been rejected for more than 13 positions at D. P claims that D has unlawfully filled positions through intentional discrimination on the basis of race and sex. She seeks declaratory and injunctive relief or, in the alternative, damages. P filed this action. The District Court granted D's motion to dismiss because P had not exhausted available administrative remedies. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings. The full court then granted D's petition for rehearing and vacated the panel decision. The Court of Appeals concluded that current cases did not preclude the application of a 'flexible' exhaustion rule. It decided that a §1983 plaintiff could be required to exhaust administrative remedies if the following minimum conditions are met: (1) an orderly system of review or appeal is provided by statute or agency rule; (2) the agency can grant relief more or less commensurate with the claim; (3) relief is available within a reasonable period of time; (4) the procedures are fair, are not unduly burdensome, and are not used to harass or discourage those with legitimate claims; and (5) interim relief is available, in appropriate cases, to prevent irreparable injury and to preserve the plaintiff's rights during the administrative process. If the minimum standards are met, a court must further consider the particular administrative scheme, the nature of the plaintiff's interest, and the values served by the exhaustion doctrine in order to determine whether exhaustion should be required. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.