Court Rejects Damages in Rights Cases : Cites ‘Abstract’ Value of Loss in Denial of Teacher’s Free Speech

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously today that a Michigan biology teacher suspended because he taught his class about sex is not entitled to $300,000 in damages.

The high court, in an opinion by Justice Lewis Powell, reasoned that the awarding of damages based on the abstract value of constitutional rights is impermissible.

The decision reversed the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, which had said seventh-grade teacher Edward Stachura deserved compensation from the Memphis, Mich., Community Schools because his constitutional rights had been violated.

Abstract Value

Although Stachura may be awarded damages for any concrete harm he suffered, Powell wrote, he cannot be reimbursed for the abstract value of the school’s denial of his constitutional right of free speech.

“Damages based on the value of constitutional rights are an unwieldy tool for ensuring compliance with the Constitution,” the court said. “History and tradition do not afford any sound guidance concerning the precise values that juries should place on constitutional protections.”

The case began in the spring of 1979 when some parents complained about his teaching of sexual reproduction during a life science class.

Suspended With Pay

The school board ordered Stachura suspended with pay pending further evaluation. Stachura promptly filed suit against the school district, claiming violation of his rights of free speech and due process. The jury, instructed at trial that it could give Stachura compensatory damages for actual injury as well as for the worth of constitutional rights, awarded him slightly more than $300,000.

Appealing to the high court, school board lawyers said Stachura was not entitled to damages because he had been reinstated and never lost any salary. They said damages could be awarded only to compensate actual injury.

In other actions, the court:

--Rejected a Reagan Administration bid to curtail the traditional right of labor unions and other groups to file federal lawsuits for their members. The court, by a 5-4 vote, revived a suit by the United Auto Workers seeking an estimated $200 million in extra unemployment benefits for 73,000 auto workers. While the case is relatively obscure, the Administration used it as a test case of the right of groups to represent members in federal lawsuits.

--In a case involving syndicated columnist Jack Anderson, ruled 6 to 3 that public figures suing for libel must prove by clear and convincing evidence that libel occurred, even at a pretrial stage.