Case: Chandler v. City of Dallas

3:85-cv-02580 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas

Filed Date: Dec. 20, 1985

Closed Date: March 28, 1994

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On December 20,1985 two plaintiffs filed this action on behalf of a putative class in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas against the City of Dallas and individual municipal officials. The plaintiffs alleged that the City’s Driver Safety Program, which excluded insulin-dependent diabetics and people with certain vision impairments from holding jobs as primary drivers, violated the Rehabilitation Act and the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendm…

On December 20,1985 two plaintiffs filed this action on behalf of a putative class in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas against the City of Dallas and individual municipal officials. The plaintiffs alleged that the City’s Driver Safety Program, which excluded insulin-dependent diabetics and people with certain vision impairments from holding jobs as primary drivers, violated the Rehabilitation Act and the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The suit was filed via 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The plaintiffs, represented by private counsel, further claimed that the City retaliated against them for their opposition to the Driver Safety Program in violation of the free speech clause of the First Amendment. The case was assigned to Judge Jerry Buchmeyer.

The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and added claims under the Revenue Sharing Act and the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, which the district denied, except with respect to claims barred by the statute of limitations.

The district court certified two classes of plaintiffs: insulin-dependent diabetics and people with vision impairments excludable under the Driver Safety Program. After a bench trial, the court found in favor of the plaintiffs for the claims under the Rehabilitation Act, the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act, First Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, and § 1983. The court awarded retroactive repeal of one plaintiff’s demotion, retroactive promotions, lost back pay, compensatory damages, and injunctive relief requiring the City to certify all class members as primary drivers unless their medical conditions actually interfered with their driving abilities. The plaintiffs were also awarded attorneys’ fees and costs.

The City appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which vacated the opinion on April 9, 1992 for failure to make findings of fact and conclusions of law in violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a). 958 F.2d 85.

The case was remanded to the district court and on September 10, 1992, the district court reinstated judgment again in favor of the plaintiffs.

The defendants appealed the new judgment and the Fifth Circuit ordered a stay of injunctive relief pending judgment on appeal on July 28, 1993. The plaintiffs requested the court vacate the stay of injunctive relief, which the court denied on August 6, 1993. 

On September 20, 1993, the Fifth Circuit reversed the decision of the district court and rendered judgment for the City. Writing for the court, Judge Wiener found that the plaintiffs had “failed to establish that they were both handicapped and otherwise qualified…for Primary Driver positions.” The court also found that class certification was inappropriate since the Rehabilitation Act favored individualized determinations. Further, they found that the City had a rational basis for adopting the Driver Safety Program and there were no valid constitutional claims. 2 F.3d 1385.

On November 2, 1993, the Fifth Circuit denied the plaintiffs’ request for rehearing en banc. The plaintiffs petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari but were denied on March 28, 1994. This case is closed.

Summary Authors

Robin Peterson (5/4/2023)

People


Judge(s)

Barksdale, Rhesa Hawkins (Mississippi)

Buchmeyer, Jerry (Texas)

Duhe, John Malcolm Jr. (Louisiana)

Goldberg, Irving Loeb (Louisiana)

Attorney for Plaintiff
Attorney for Defendant

Garza, Frank J. (Texas)

Judge(s)

Barksdale, Rhesa Hawkins (Mississippi)

Buchmeyer, Jerry (Texas)

Duhe, John Malcolm Jr. (Louisiana)

Goldberg, Irving Loeb (Louisiana)

Smith, Jerry Edwin (Texas)

Wiener, Jacques Loeb Jr. (Louisiana)

Attorney for Plaintiff

show all people

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

3:85-cv-02580

Docket [PACER]

June 2, 1995

June 2, 1995

Docket

91-01580

Opinion

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

April 9, 1992

April 9, 1992

Order/Opinion

958 F.2d 958

92-01849

Opinion

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Sept. 20, 1993

Sept. 20, 1993

Order/Opinion

2 F.3d 2

92-01849

Denials of Rehearing En Banc

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Nov. 2, 1993

Nov. 2, 1993

Order/Opinion

9 F.3d 9

93-01250

Memorandum Decision

Supreme Court of the United States

March 28, 1994

March 28, 1994

Order/Opinion

511 U.S. 511

Docket

Last updated March 17, 2024, 3:04 a.m.

Docket sheet not available via the Clearinghouse.

Case Details

State / Territory: Texas

Case Type(s):

Equal Employment

Disability Rights

Key Dates

Filing Date: Dec. 20, 1985

Closing Date: March 28, 1994

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Two City employees on behalf of a class contesting a policy prohibiting insulin-dependent diabetics and people with certain vision impairments from working as primary drivers.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Public Interest Lawyer: No

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Granted

Defendants

City of Dallas, City

Defendant Type(s):

Jurisdiction-wide

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

Section 504 (Rehabilitation Act), 29 U.S.C. § 701

State law

Constitutional Clause(s):

Due Process

Due Process: Procedural Due Process

Freedom of speech/association

Equal Protection

Available Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Defendant

Nature of Relief:

None

Source of Relief:

None

Issues

General:

Classification / placement

Retaliation

Disability and Disability Rights:

Visual impairment

Discrimination-area:

Demotion

Medical Exam / Inquiry

Promotion

Discrimination-basis:

Disability (inc. reasonable accommodations)