## Facts

- Harry T. Krynicky, Jr. was an assistant professor of English at the University of Pittsburgh’s Bradford campus, hired in 1972, placed on a tenure track, and later denied tenure with his employment ending in 1979.
- Krynicky alleged the university failed to give timely notice of tenure denial, denied him due process in the tenure process, and retaliated against him for criticizing administration and using unorthodox teaching methods.
- Rosemary Schier, an employee of Temple University Hospital, alleged discriminatory and retaliatory discharge under § 1983 and Title VII.
- In Krynicky’s case, the district court granted summary judgment to the university on the § 1983 claims, concluding the tenure decision was not taken under color of state law.
- In Schier’s case, the district court denied Temple’s summary judgment motion on the § 1983 claim, relying on circuit precedent treating these “state-related” universities as state actors.
- The appeals were consolidated to resolve whether intervening Supreme Court state-action decisions displaced circuit precedent.

## Issues

1. Whether Supreme Court state-action decisions (Lugar, Rendell-Baker, and Blum) effectively overruled circuit precedent holding the University of Pittsburgh (and by implication Temple University) to be state actors for § 1983 purposes.
2. Whether employment decisions by the University of Pittsburgh and Temple University are actions taken “under color of state law” without proof of direct state participation in the particular personnel decision.

## Decision

- The Third Circuit held circuit precedent remained controlling and had not been overruled by intervening Supreme Court decisions.
- The court concluded the University of Pittsburgh and Temple University are state actors under a Burton-style symbiotic relationship theory.
- The court ruled the challenged employment decisions were taken under color of state law for § 1983 purposes.
- The court reversed the summary judgment entered against Krynicky on the state-action ground and remanded.
- The court affirmed the denial of summary judgment in Schier on the state-action question.

## Legal Principles

- A federal circuit’s prior en banc state-action holding remains binding unless the Supreme Court clearly overrules it or renders it irreconcilable with later decisions.
- State action may be found where the state and an ostensibly private entity maintain a “symbiotic” and interdependent relationship such that the entity’s conduct is fairly attributable to the state (Burton framework).
- Substantial state funding, statutory designation and governance provisions, and state participation in institutional oversight can support attribution of the institution’s actions to the state.
- Supreme Court decisions rejecting state action based solely on regulation and funding do not necessarily eliminate the symbiotic relationship doctrine where the state’s interdependence with the entity is structurally embedded.
- Under the symbiotic relationship approach, state action does not require proof that the state directly participated in the specific personnel decision being challenged.

## Conclusion

The Third Circuit reaffirmed that Pennsylvania’s “state-related” universities, including the University of Pittsburgh and Temple University, act under color of state law for § 1983 when making employment decisions because their ongoing statutory, financial, and governance relationship with the Commonwealth renders their conduct fairly attributable to the state.


Krynicky v. Univ. of Pittsburgh, 742 F.2d 94 (3d Cir. 1984)