Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, No. 79 C 2242, George N. Leighton, Judge.
Before Hon. WALTER J. CUMMINGS, Chief Judge, Hon. JESSE E. ESCHBACH, Circuit Judge, Hon. EUGENE A. WRIGHT, Senior Circuit Judge*fn*
On consideration of the petition for rehearing of defendants-appellees and the response thereto of plaintiffs-appellants, our slip opinion of September 19, 1985, is hereby corrected in the following two respects:
On page 11 of the slip opinion, the paragraph beginning "Count III is more problematic * * *" is replaced with the following four paragraphs:
"Count III is more problematic. Plaintiffs concede that it is based on statutory violations. Generally, where a statute provides its own comprehensive enforcement scheme, that scheme may not be bypassed by pleading an underlying violation of the statute and bringing suit directly under § 1983. Middlesex County Sewerage Authority v. National Sea Clammers Association, 453 U.S. 1, 20 (1981) (Federal Water Pollution Control Act, Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act); Smith v. Robinson, 104 S. Ct. 3457, 3468 (1984) (Education of the Handicapped Act); Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 489 (1973) (habeas corpus).
"Title VII is one of the statutes that may not be bypassed. Grand American Federal Savings v. Novotny, 442 U.S. 366, 375-378 (1979) (Title VII may not be bypassed via § 1985(3)). Is Title VI like Title VII in this respect?
"We think it is. Title VI provides its own administrative enforcement procedure which would be bypassed by pleading Title VI violations under § 1983. Moreover, the remedies available under Title VI should in some cases be limited to declaratory and injunctive relief. Guardians Association v. Civil Service Commission, 463 U.S. 582, 597-598 (1983). This limitation would be lost in the broad grant of a remedy at law or equity available under § 1983.
"Since Title VI provides its own remedial scheme, we hold that private actions based on Title VI may not be brought under § 1983. See Guardians Association, 463 U.S. at 610 n.3 (Powell, J., concurring)."
On page 12 of the slip opinion, the paragraph beginning "We affirm the dismissal * * *" is replaced with the following paragraph:
"We affirm the dismissal of counts I, V and VI on res judicata grounds. We affirm the dismissal of count III for failure to state a claim. We remand counts II and IV to the district court to rule first on the several other grounds raised in the District's summary judgment motion."
The petition for rehearing is ...