Envelope from the EPA to Guinier

    -,' t 
'-

':ir','J lji. i 
;

''i',4.i-',
-\rrl'{""

.j'l:ii;.:,,li
,'trir.. : ,.1, .

v i 7! ., .

, \t.("',

r'

lit'
t{.' .

:r'

qi
It is not to be,-lt,r.ried that- urldr)r Titl.e VIf, the
action of the EEOC is not a(,cncy actj_on of
a quasi-ludicia1 nature rvhich determines the
riqhts of the parties subject only to the pos-
sibility that the reviewing courts might conclude
that the EEOC's actions are arbitrary] capricious
or an abuse of cliscretion.' Instead, the civil
litigation at the district court level clearlv
takes on the character of a trial de novo, compfetely
separate from the actions , of the IitiOC. Ur:ited
States v II. K. Porter Company, hl. D. Ala, 1968-
296 r. supp-40.T-r'ne c.eses 5rs. 7 o LRzu[ 2l3I; King
v Georgia Porver Co., ElLp_Ie. IL is thus clear that
the iepoit-is Tn no sense binding on the clistrict
court and is to be given no more weight than any
other testimony given at trial

This is not to sa)/, however, that the reoort is in
admissible. A trial de novo is not to be considered
a trial in a vacuum. fo thE conLrary, thc disLrict
court is obligated to hear evidence of whatever
nature which tends to throw factual liqht on the
controversy and ease its fact-finding burden.

The Commission's decision contains findings of fact
made from accounts by different witnesses, subjective'
comment on the credibility of these witnesses, and
reaches the conclusion that there is reasonable
cause to believe that a violation of the Civil Rights
Act has occurred. Certainly these are determina-
tions that are to be made by the district court in
a dg novo proceeding. We think, holever, that to
ignore the manpower and resources expetrded on the
EEOC investigation and the expertise acquired by its
.[ieId investi.gators in the area of discriminatory
employment practices would be wasteful and unnecessary.

The fact that an investigator, trained and experieuced
in the area of discriminatory practices and the v.rrious
methods by which thev can be secreted, has found that
it is likeIy that such an unlawful practice has
occurred, is highly probative of the ultimate issue
involved in such cases. Its probat-ive value, wc
beljeve, at least outrveighL.s an\/ possible i?rejudice
to defendant. "Prejudicial" cannot be equited with
"harmful" in aIl cases; rather jt connotes "harmful",
plus "non-probative". (Citatiotrs omitted) .
4 FEP Cases at IBB.

The strong pronouncement in favor of admissibility made

in Smith vras in late:: cases citing Snith with approval. See

B,ra9shaw, supra

108, ISfr n. L7

1064 (.9th Cir,

, 569 F2d at 1069.

4 (D.C. Cir, 1975),

]_B_cllgJ v Roudeb_us.l'r, 520 F2d

Scott v Perry, 569 F2d

, 5I6 F2d

v Sei1er,

I978), Peters v Jefferson Chemical- Co.

477 , 11 FEP Cases 294, 299 (lv,o, Texas , L974) , Egqg"_

558 P2d 284, (5th Cir, ),977) fn a federal case broughL in

t4ichi9dfl, Smith was cited as support for Lhe l)roposibion l-irat



r' ,i', ::.
.,1"", .; -,
'1") i ir r'
r ,,i!.r,.., . .

. _r :.:.j,';1

]rr

.t,
' .:r...".,

t, '.' ... . j"

i,'

t,

i'{'.,1.' 'r . -tl 
.:r

'' ,'."t:. ..;'

'r r-"

.i'
t'

II]TT{

Di. st

f indincrs al:e admi

rict of Irernclal,e,

ss ible a L .t-rial .

lttich 400 Ir. Srrr:n.

States v Schoolliui teg

r.t4l- , n, 8 (n. D. t.tich,

L975) (I(ennedy, C.J.)

There are so many cases frorl the Federal cr:urts i_n

support of the admissibiLitv of IlllOC rjecision that even pl-aintiff

can't avoid mentioning two of these cases, and m.istakenry try to

,rely on their authority. These two cases are Bljzard. V Fieldins-r,

17 FIIP Cases' L49, (l-st Cir, I97B), and. Gj.l.-Lin rz Federal paoer

Boar:d Co. , 479 F2d 97 , 5 FIip Cases 1094 (2c1 C-.i_r. I973) . In

Bl--i.zard the Court of Apoeals acknovrlecicred and anoroved of the

District court's admission of the EFoc reoort into evid,ence.

The issue on aoneal vra-s whether the Dist::ict Court was obligatecl

to mention the FEoc.report in its opinion; the court of Ar:peals

saicr. i-t was not. Ilence, since the issue was not admissiblitv

but rather the duty to comment on erricl.ence, this case can not

l.end supoort to Plaintiff s' oosition. On the cont-rary, the

court recoqnized that "findings by the EROC are entitled to great

deference by the distrj.ct court. " l7 FEP Cases at I50.

Plaintif f s' r:el j-ance upon Giltirl, .is al-so misplaced

Althouqh Plaintif f s c.ite Gil Iin as authority for tl-re j n-

adr:issibilit-v of. EPOC reDorts, the Court in that case

ari.r,r'i.tted the FIIOC decision rvl'rile excludinq the IIIOC f ield

investiqatorrs reoorts. 'l.7hy Pl-aintiff s cite and ouote frorn

GiIlin is dif f icr:] t to oercieve, since Plaint.if f s are seeki.ng

to exc-lude an IIROC decision, anc1. not anv f-i-eld investigator's

::eoorts.

of their

view or

Plaintif fs cite three additional cases i:n suJ)Dort

contenL.i.on t:ha1: tlI,lOC .roporLij ;rI:c j.nacllnj,ssjrble, )ru L in

the more recenl cases citec'l ahove, those autoril-ics;)rc

simplv irnnersttas-i-ve. In BuIter: v Loc:aI l.lo. 4, 303 F. Sur:o 52.8,

tr
- l-



s
il

,' .::

t'

2 Ff,P Cases 569 (r,'.

!g.j2.., 5 FP.D 242t 2

D. It.L. :1t6,9) , ancl !:N-J v tlnit--ejl Afft3 j!

F'EL'] Cases 722 (D.C. Conn, f970), and }{oss
\, irri . ,

., r, it':,.,,
ri,iiiiiy;'i,;
' ' \il 1:. ''

iii',f, ''

ll'

v.Lane, 50 FRD L22, 2 FF,P Cases 918 aff 'r1 47L F2d 853, 5 FEP Case

37 6 (4th Cir , I97 3 ) , the court excludeci the IIEOC dec.is j.ons hased

on a belief that the clecision is i::relevant except to establish

the furisdiction of the Court. This is an erroneous belief,

aS seen b1z the ho.Ldings of the LTS Supreme Cop::t in Chandler, supr

and Alexancler, sunra, hoth holdinq thaL findinqs of administrati

agencies may be ::elevant ancl aCmissible as evidence in triaIS

de novo. Pl-aint-if f s also reJ-y lloon Co>: v llabcox & I{ilcox Co.

471, Ezd, 13, 5 FnP Cases 374 (4th Cir, l-97?.), but the Fourth

Circrrit in that case merely sta tes that since "the adnission of

slch IEnOC] records is rl-tscretionarv vrith the District Court"

5 FFP cases at 375, then it was not reversihle el:l:or for the

District Court to exclu<le them. Defendants concede that the

trial iudqe may have d.iscretion under Fed.era} Rule of Evidence

403 to excl-ude an otherwise aclmissible renort- as sub:;tantiallv,

unfairly orejucLicial; horreve::, in the 'ahsence of such a showj-ng

the f inrlings must be admitted. Defendants rnaintain that

the rel-evance of orobati-'le value of the renort outweiqhs anll

possible nreiuclice to Pl.ainti f f s. (see inf ra) -

Plaintif f s also rellz on Ileard v l'Iuel ler Co, 46!; Y2d'

.9A, l: !'i'? Lzt:;r-:s ri1!,, (6*ui-r Cit, .L)-,-). T.',---.s, cirsC -.s l'laL rrr '^)oll-i';

as the Court statecl that its reason for e:<clurling the Ef,OC::eport

was that the reoort tvas not relevant to the issues before the

Court. The report contai-ned findincrs relevant onlv to the

one issue, t,thich issue tvas disposecl. o f bv summal:y iudqment ,

and r^ras therefore not relevant to arlv issues remaininq before the

Court. The Sixth Circuit specifically noted, "In this respect

this case cl j.f fers f rom Srn-i-Lh v Llnivorsal. Servi.ccs, 454 Ir2cl .154,

4 FRPCases LB7 (5Lh Ci::, 1.972) , where the rcpo::t was l:outtcl t-o be

hiqhl',2 nrohatj-ve of L.tr ultirnate issues involveil. " 4 li'Iil'] Cascs at

l,*"*'+;t-gi:l-?;lt*i*f;v*ii*fri;B,*

' qt; l:.' '. . '

,. '. Y i ,'.i.:i' -1,;{
\r(.i_h: :.:::ik6.l$j,.1.

. .t

I



&
,i. ir ..i

. j r: ,r

).: .'', I

Lr22. Def endants submiL tha t-, as in smit-h , the nEoc reDort

at issue here, is hiqhry probative of t-he urtimate issues

invol-ved since it deals directly with the comnlaints of man\/

of the Plainitf fs at bar. rt -is therefo::e hiqhly rerevant and

accorciing to Rule 403 of the Feder:al RuIes of Eviclence,

can be excluded on-lv if overwhelninql_y unfair nrejudice is shown.

See Defendants Brief in Oppos-i-tion to l4otion fn limine (re:

DPLSA agreement) . As was observe<l in SrniUh, stut)rii, pre judicc

is not to be enuated vr.itlr adverse eviclence: "Of course,

"unfai:: nrejudice" AS used in P.uIe 403 is not to be ecluated rvith

testimonv simolrT a.d.verse to the onposing nartv. Virtually al1

evid.ence is preiudical o:: it j-sn't- mate::ial-. The ore j udice must

be runfair' " Do-]-Iar v Lonq .tilf q. Co. , 561 F2d. 613, 618 (1977) .

As noted above many t-i-mes, courts have found that it is not

'unf air r:re j udice' to adrnit adverse iiI-OC rlecisions v:hich reviewed

the ultimate facts and -issues and mad.e determinations thereon.

I-le nce, under RuIe 403, the FFOC's decision in Raumqa::t shou-]cl

be found adm.issible i.n this action.

Plaintiffs nrotest that the EFOC decision rvas nade in

the cou.rse gf a non-adversarv nrocecc'l -i-nq ancl thab "jl- is

undisr>uted that Lhe i'lliOC report i s nrcrcl.v an .lcculnul at-.i r,ltr () [

hearsay" (olaintiffs' brief , o.2.); I)e{=enclants fincl it otttra<1eous

for Plaintif fs to orotest the fact that it E,as a non-;rclvel:sary

proceecling rr,hen aIJ- of the comolainants Jrefore the trEOC are nol,r

Plaintif f s in this matter. f n addition, j-t 'is emphatica.lly not

rrndisputed that the reoo::t is hearsay, os Def endants stronglv

believe that the evidence r,ras qiven a fair eval.uation befor:e the

pEOC. Besides, even if Defendants \{ere viilling to stipuf"rte

that the report was.hearsay, it would stil-1 be adnissible

evidence under F.ute 803 (S) (c) of the Pederal. Rules of E}-ide-ce,

to vit:
, i" . t;.', -

tl

a:.: r1,,i
r.' i't : !

-7-

E
a
a

f

r

t
:

E

I

t
I