Miller v. Mercy Hospital Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Public Court Documents
January 7, 1982
Cite this item
-
Brief Collection, LDF Court Filings. Miller v. Mercy Hospital Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 1982. edb111ac-bd9a-ee11-be36-6045bdeb8873. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/0f80cc65-cadf-47ac-937d-81dbee10f106/miller-v-mercy-hospital-petition-for-writ-of-certiorari-to-the-us-court-of-appeals-for-the-fourth-circuit. Accessed May 17, 2025.
Copied!
No.
Ik the
ftip ra tt? (Eaurt of thz United Stall's
October T eem, 1983
L ula B. Miller,
v.
Petitioner,
Mercy H ospital, etc.
PETITION FOR W RIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
George Daly
Suite 226
One North McDowell Street
Charlotte, North Carolina 28204
(704) 333-5196
J ack Greekberg
O. P eter Sherwood
E ric S chhapper*
16th Floor
99 Hudson Street
New York, New York 10013
(212) 219-1900
Counsel for Petitioner
^Counsel of Record
Does
c o u r t s o
c r e d i b i l i
QUESTION PRESENTED
Rule 5 2 ( a ) , F . R . C . P . , f o r b i d t he
f a p p e a l s f r o m r e v i e w i n g t h e
t y f i n d i n g s o f a t r i a l j u d g e ?
1
PARTIES
The p a r t i e s t o t h i s p r o c e e d i n g a r e
Lula B. M i l l e r and Mercy H o s p i t a l , I n c o r p
o r a t e d , o f C h a r l o t t e , N o r t h C a r o l i n a .
11
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Qu est io n P r e s e n t e d .......................................... i
P a r t i e s .............. i i
Table o f A u t h o r i t i e s ..................................... v
Opin ions Below ...................... 2
J u r i s d i c t i o n ............................................ 2
Rule I n v o l v e d ...................................................... 3
Statement o f the Case .......................... 3
Reason f o r Gr ant ing t he Wri t .................. 9
C e r t i o r a r i Should Be Granted To
R e s o l v e a C o n f l i c t Among the
C i r c u i t s Regarding Whether
Rule 5 2 ( a ) , F . R . c ' . P . , F o r b i d s
A p p e l l a t e Review o f T r i a l Court
C r e d i b i l i t y D e c i s i o n s ................ 9
C o n c l u s i o n ............................................................. 26
APPENDIX
Appendix A: Thi r d C i r c u i t D e c i s i o n s
Regarding Review o f C r e d i b i l i t y
D e t e r m i n a t i o n s .............................. 27
Appendix B: Seventh C i r c u i t D e c i
s i o n s Regarding Review o f
C r e d i b i l i t y Determina
t i o n s ........................................... 29
Page
- i i i -
Page
Appendix C: Eighth C i r c u i t
D e c i s i o n s Regarding Review o f
C r e d i b i l i t y Determina
t i o n s .................................................... 31
Appendix D: Ninth C i r c u i t D e c i s i o n s
Regarding Review o f C r e d i b i l i t y
D e t e r m i n a t i o n s .............................. 33
Appendix E: Tenth C i r c u i t D e c i s i o n s
Regarding Review o f C r e d i b i l i t y
D e t e r m i n a t i o n s .............................. 34
D i s t r i c t Court Memorandum o f
D e c i s i o n , January 7,
1982 .................................................... 1a
D i s t r i c t Court Supplemental
Memorandum o f D e c i s i o n , February
24, 1982 ............................................. 4a
Opinio n o f the Court o f A p p e a l s ,
O c t o b e r 31 , 1983 ....................... 19a
Order o f the Court o f App ea ls
Denying Rehear ing and Rehear ing En
Banc , December 7 , 1983 .............. 86a
IV
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page
Cases
Adamson v. G a l l i l a n d , 242 U.S. 350
(1917) . . ...................................................... 22
A l l s t a t e I n su r a n c e Co. v . Aetna
C a s u a l t y & S u r e t y C o . ,
326 F .2d 871 (2d C i r .
1964) ............................................................. 17
Blunt v . Marion County S c h oo l
Board, 515 F.2d 951 ( 5 th C i r .
1975) ............................................................. 18
Cannon, I n c . v . P l a s s e r American
C o r p o r a t i o n , 609 F.2d 1075 17
( 4th C i r . 1979) .....................................
C . I . T . C o r p o r a t i o n v . J a n i s , 418
F. 2d 960 ( 6 th C i r . 1969) ............... 1 1
Davis v . S ch w ar t z , 155 U.S. 631
( 1894) .................................. 22
Dempster B r o t h e r s , I n c . v .
B u f f a l o Metal C o n t a i n e r C o r p . ,
352 F .2d 420 (2d C i r . 1965) --------- 17
D i l l o n v . M.S. O r i e n t a l I n v e n t o r ,
426 F .2d 977 (5th C i r .
1970) ............................................................. 15
Dunn v . Trans World A i r l i n e s , 589
F .2d 408 ( 9 th C i r . 1978) ................... 13
v
Page
F r a n k l i n L i f e I n su ra n ce Co. v . Wi l l i am
J . Champion and C o . , 350 F.2d
115 ( 6 th C i r . 1965) ........................... 12
Grove v . F i r s t N a t i o n a l Bank o f
Hermine, 489 F .2d 512 (3rd
C i r . 1973) ................................................. 1 1
Henson v . C i t y o f Dundee, 682 F.2d 897
( 5th C i r . 1982) ..................................... 15
Hodgson v . H. Morgan D a ni e l S e a f o o d s ,
I n c . , 433 F.2d 918 ( 5 th C i r .
1970) .............................................................. 15
King v . G u l f O i l C o . , 581 F.2d
1184 ( 5 th C i r . 1978) ......................... 18
La ng fo rd v . C h r y s l e r Motors C o r p . ,
513 F .2d 1121 (2d C i r .
1975) .............................................................. 14,17
Marcom v . Uni tea S t a t e s , 452 F .2d
36 ( 5 th C i r . 1971) .............................. 15
Marable v . H. Walker A s s o c i a t e s ,
644 F .2d 390 ( 5th C i r .
1981) 15
McKeel v . M e e r i l l Lynch P i e r c e ,
Fenner & Smith, I n c . , 419
F .2d 1291 ( 10 th C i r . 1969) .......... 13
Morgan v. Freeman, 715 F.2d 185
( 5th C i r . 1983) ..................................... 16
vi
Page
N. L. R. B. v . D i x i e Gas, I n c . , 323
F. 2d 433 ( 5 t h C i r . 1963) ............... 16,18
N. L . R . B . v . J.M. Machinery C o r p . ,
410 F .2d 587 ( 5 th C i r .
1969) ............................................................. 16
N. L . R . B . v . J a c o b E. Decker and Sons ,
596 F .2d 357 (5th C i r . 1978) . . . 15
O i l Chemical & Atomic Workers v . Ethyl
C o r p . , 703 F .2d 933 ( 5th C i r .
1983) ............................................................. 15
Ol g i n v . D a r n e l l , 664 F.2a 107
( 5th C i r . 1981) ..................................... 18
Or i en t Mia - East L i n e s , I n c . v .
C o o p e r a t i v e f o r A . R . E . , I n c . ,
410 F .2d 1006 ( D . C . C i r .
1969) ....................................... ..................... 1 1
Oxford Sh ip p i ng Co. v . New Hampshire
Trading C o r p . , 697 F.2d 1
( 1 s t C i r . 1982) ................................... 14,17
P l u y e r v . M i t s u i O. S .K. L i n e s , Ltd,
664 F .2d 1243 ( 5th C i r .
1982) ........................................... 16
Pul lman-Standard v . S w i nt , 445 U.S.
273 (1982) .................................................. 24
Robbins v . W h i t e - W i l s o n Medical
C l i n i c , I n c . , 660 F.2d 1004
( 5th C i r . 1981 ) ..................................... 15
- vii -
Page
R o d r i q u e z v . J o n e s , 473 F.2d 599
( 5th C i r . 1973) ..................................... 15
Sawyer v . Arum, 690 F.2d 590
( 6 t h C i r . 1982) ..................................... 1 1
Socash v . Addison Crane C o . , 346
F .2d 420 ( D . C . C i r . 1965) ............... 1 1
Texas Department o f Community
A f f a i r s v . B u r d i n e , 450 U.S.
248 ( 1981) ........................... ................... . 22
T r a d e r t & H o e f f e r , I n c . , v .
P r a g et Watch C o r p . , 633 F.2d
477 ( 7 th C i r . 1980) . ......................... 12
United S t a t e s ex r e l . B i s ho p v .
Wa tkins , 159 F.2d 505 (2d
C i r . 1947) ...................................... 17
United S t a t e s v . Genera l Motors
C o r p . , 384 U.S. 127 (1966) .......... 23
Uni ted S t a t e s v . Oregon S t a t e
Me dica l S o c i e t y , 343 U.S.
326 (1952) .......................... 23
Uni ted S t a t e s v . Reddoch, 467
F . 2d 897 ( 5 th C i r . 1972) ............... 15
United S t a t e s v . Uni ted S t a t e s
Gypsum C o . , 333 U.S. 364
( 1948) ........................................................... 23
- viii -
■p.age
United S t a t e s P o s t a l S e r v i c e Board
o f Governors v . A i k e n s , 75
L . Ed . 2d 403 ( 1983) ............................. 22
V e r r e t t v . McDonough Marine S e r v i c e ,
705 F .2d 1437 ( 5 th C i r .
1983).... .............................................................. 16
Wi l l i ams v . T a l l a h a s s e e M ot o rs ,
I n c . , 607 F .2d 689 (5th C i r .
1979) ............................................................. 15
Other A u t h o r i t i e s
28 U.S .C. § 1254 ( 1 ) ....................................... 3
T i t l e V I I , C i v i l R i g h t s Act o f
1964 ................................................................ 3,21
Rule 5 2 ( a ) , F ed e ra l Rule s o f
C i v i l P r o c ed u re ................................... i , 3 , 9 , 1 6 ,
23 ,25
IX
No
IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
O c t o b e r Term, 1983
LULA B. MILLER,
P e t i t i o n e r ,
v.
MERCY HOSPITAL, e t c .
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
P e t i t i o n e r Lula B. M i l l e r r e s p e c t f u l l y
prays t h a t a Wr i t o f C e r t i o r a r i i s s u e t o
r e v i e w t h e j u d g m e n t and o p i n i o n o f t h e
U n i t e d S t a t e s C o u r t o f A p p e a l s f o r t h e
Fourth C i r c u i t e n t e r e d in t h i s p r o c e e d i n g
on O c t o b e r 31 , 1983
2
OPINIONS BELOW
The d e c i s i o n o f the c o u r t o f a p p e a l s
i s r e p o r t e d at 720 F.2d 356, and i s s e t out
at pp. 19a-85a o f the App end ix . The o r d e r
d eny i ng r e h e a r i n g , which i s not r e p o r t e d ,
i s s e t o ut at p . 86a. The d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s
Memorandum o f D e c i s i o n o f January 7 , 1982,
which i s no t r e p o r t e d , i s s e t o u t at pp.
1 a - 3 a o f t h e A p p e n d i x . The d i s t r i c t
c o u r t ' s Supplemental Memorandum o f D e c i s i o n
o f F e b r u a r y 2 4 , 1 9 8 2 , w h i c h i s n o t r e
p o r t e d , i s s e t o u t a t p p . 4 a - 1 8 a o f t h e
Appendix .
JURISDICTION
The judgment o f the c o u r t o f a p p e a l s
was e n t e r e d on O c t o b e r 31 , 1983. A t i m e l y
p e t i t i o n f o r r e h e a r i n g was f i l e d , which was
d e n i e d on December 7, 1983. On February
2 4 , 1 9 8 4 , t h e C h i e f J u s t i c e g r a n t e d an
o r d e r e x t e n d i n g t h e d a t e on w h i c h t h e
p e t i t i o n f o r w r i t o f c e r t i o r a r i i s due
3
junti l A p r i l 5 , 1984. J u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h i s
Court i s invoked under 28 U. S . C. § 1 2 5 4 ( 1 ) .
dk RULE INVOLVED
R u l e 5 2 ( a ) , F e d e r a l R u l e s o f C i v i l
P r o c e d u r e , p r o v i d e s in p e r t i n e n t p a r t :
In a l l a c t i o n s t r i e d upon the
f a c t s w i t h o u t a j u r y o r w i t h an
a d v i s o r y j u r y , t he c o u r t s h a l l f i n d
t h e f a c t s s p e c i a l l y and s t a t e
s e p a r a t e l y i t s c o n c l u s i o n s o f l aw
t h e r e o n . . . . F i n d i n g s o f f a c t
s h a l l n o t b e s e t a s i d e u n l e s s
c l e a r l y e r r o n e o u s , and due r e g a r d
s h a l l be g i v e n t o the o p p o r t u n i t y
o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o j u d g e t h e
c r e d i b i l i t y o f w i t n e s s e s . . . .
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
P e t i t i o n e r commenced t h i s a c t i o n on
F e b r u a r y 2 2 , 1 9 7 9 , in t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s
D i s t r i c t Court f o r the Western D i s t r i c t o f
North C a r o l i n a . P e t i t i o n e r a l l e g e d t h a t
the d e f e n d a n t Mercy H o s p i t a l had d e n i e d her
employment as a N u r s e ' s Aide on a c c o u n t o f
her r a c e , in v i o l a t i o n o f T i t l e VII o f the
1964 C i v i l R i g h t s A c t . The c a s e was t r i e d
4
i n J a n u a r y , 1 9 8 2 , by a f e d e r a l d i s t r i c t
j u d g e s i t t i n g w i t h o u t a j u r y .
P e t i t i o n e r a p p l i e d f o r work at Mercy
H o s p i t a l on A u g u s t 1 4 , 1 9 7 4 . A l t h o u g h
p e t i t i o n e r i n d i c a t e d on t h e w r i t t e n
j o b a p p l i c a t i o n t h a t s h e p r e f e r r e d a
p o s i t i o n as a L i c e n s e d P r a c t i c a l Nurse , she
t o l d t h e h o s p i t a l ' s A s s i s t a n t P e r s o n n e l
D i r e c t o r , D i l l i e W i n c h e s t e r , t h a t she would
a c c e p t t h e l e s s w e l l p a i d p o s i t i o n o f
N u r s e ' s A i d e . —̂ W i n c he st e r i n d i c a t e d p e t i
t i o n e r ' s i n t e r e s t in a N u r s e ' s A i d e j o b
on the j o b a p p l i c a t i o n s h e e t i t s e l f , and
n o t e d on a r e l a t e d p e r s o n n e l f orm t h a t
" L u l a M i l l e r h a s a p p l i e d t o us f o r a
. . 2/
p o s i t i o n as N . A . ' . . . . The h o s p i t a l
_1_/ 2a , 7 a— 8a.
2/ 8a , 23a, 24a. The c o u r t o f a pp e a l s
d i d n o t q u e s t i o n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s
f i n d i n g t h a t M a r c i n i s z y n had s e e n t h i s
f orm. 58a.
5
o f f i c i a l s a g r e e d t h a t p e t i t i o n e r was
e n t i r e l y q u a l i f i e d f o r t h e p o s i t i o n o f
N u r s e ' s A i d e . P e t i t i o n e r had e x t e n s i v e
p r i o r e x p e r i e n c e in t h a t p o s i t i o n , and her
p r e v i o u s employer a dv i se d W i n c h e s t e r that
p e t i t i o n e r ' s work as a N u r s e ' s A i d e had
2 /b e e n " v e r y g o o d . " H o w e v e r , d e s p i t e
. . . 2 /h e r q u a l i f i c a t i o n s , and t h e e x i s t e n c e
o f v a c a n c i e s f o r N u r s e ' s A i d e s at Mercy
H o s p i t a l , the h o s p i t a l r e j e c t e d her a p p l i
c a t i o n . P e t i t i o n e r c la imed t ha t she was
r e j e c t e d b e ca use the h o s p i t a l knew she had
f i l e d a c l a i m o f r a c i a l d i s c r i m i n a t i o n
a g a i n s t a p r e v i o u s empl oy er .
The h o s p i t a l o f f e r e d in r e s p o n s e t o
t h i s prima f a c i e c a s e o f d i s c r i m i n a t i o n a
d e f e n s e w h i c h r e s t e d e n t i r e l y on t h e
c r e d i b i l i t y o f the d e f e n s e w i t n e s s e s . The
1 / 2a.
3 / 8a , 9a , 24a.
6
a c t u a l d e c i s i o n t o r e j e c t p e t i t i o n e r ' s
a p p l i c a t i o n was made by a second p e r s o n n e l
o f f i c i a l , Casmira M a r c i n i s z y n . M a r c i n i s z y n
t e s t i f i e d , i n r e s p o n s e t o q u e s t i o n s by
d e f e n s e c o u n s e l , t h a t she had r e j e c t e d
p e t i t i o n e r ' s a p p l i c a t i o n by m i s t a k e ,
e r r o n e o u s l y b e l i e v i n g t h a t p e t i t i o n e r was
o n l y s e e k i n g , and w o u ld o n l y a c c e p t , a
5 /p o s i t i o n as a L i c e n s e d P r a c t i c a l Nu r s e . -
On c r o s s e x a m i n a t i o n , however , M a r c i n i s z y n
a dm it t ed t ha t she had no a c t u a l r e c o l l e c
t i o n o f p e t i t i o n e r ' s a p p l i c a t i o n , b u t
was m e r e l y s p e c u l a t i n g a b o u t why t h e
6/a p p l i c a t i o n had b e e n r e j e c t e d . - M a r -
c i n i s z y n ' s s p e c u l a t i v e e x p l a n a t i o n was
d i r e c t l y c o n t r a d i c t e d by p e t i t i o n e r , who
t e s t i f i e d t h a t W i n c he st e r had s t a t e d t h a t
p e t i t i o n e r ' s a p p l i c a t i o n had been r e j e c t e d
5 / 9 a , 12a, 15a, 27a.
6/ 2a— 3a, 9a, 11a— 12a.
7
b e ca us e o f her prob lems wi th her p r e v i o u s
employer
The d i s t r i c t c o u r t c o n c l u d e d t h a t the
r e a so n a r t i c u l a t e d by the h o s p i t a l f o r not
h i r i n g p e t i t i o n e r - - a mi s t a k e - - was
, 8/
p r e t e x t u a l . The t r i a l j ud ge emphasized
t h a t M a r c i n i s z y n conc ede d she c o u l d not in
f a c t remember why she r e j e c t e d p e t i t i o n e r ' s
j o b a p p l i c a t i o n , and c r i t i c i z e d W i n
c h e s t e r ' s t e s t i m o n y as " g e n e r a l and weak" .
The j u d g e c h a r a c t e r i z e d p e t i t i o n e r ' s
t e s t i m o n y , on the o t h e r hand, as " d i r e c t ,
s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d , and b e l i e v a b l e . " — ^ The
d i s t r i c t c o u r t a c c o r d i n g l y c o n c l u d e d
t h a t the h o s p i t a l was g u i l t y o f d i s c r i m i n a -
9 /
7 / 2 8 a - 2 9 a .
8 / 15a, 18a.
9/ 2a.
10/ 3a, 10a; see also 13a.
8
t i o n , and awarded p e t i t i o n e r back pay and
11 /
o t h e r a p p r o p r i a t e r e l i e f .
The F o u r t h C i r c u i t r e v e r s e d e a c h o f
t he d i s t r i c t j u d g e ' s c r e d i b i l i t y d e t e r m i n a
t i o n s . The t e s t i m o n y o f the p e t i t i o n e r ,
which had been c r e d i t e d by the t r i a l j u d g e ,
was denounced by the c o u r t o f a p p e a l s as
1 2/" h o p e l e s s l y c o n f u s e d and c o n t r a d i c t o r y . " —
The c o u r t o f a p p e a l s , c o n v e r s e l y , c r e d i t e d
t h e v e r y d e f e n s e t e s t i m o n y which had been
11/r e j e c t e d by the t r i a l j u d g e . The Fourth
C i r c u i t e x p r e s s l y d i s m i s s e d t h e t r i a l
j u d g e ' s r e l i a n c e on demeanor , denounc ing
h i s d e c i s i o n as b a s e d on " a p r o c e s s o f
s p e c u l a t i o n o r i n t u i t i o n r a t h e r t ha n o f
l e g a l l y j u s t i f i a b l e i n f e r e n c e f r o m t h e
„ 1 4 /e v i d e n c e . —
11/ 1a, 3a, 14a, 17a.
12/ 66a.
13/ See p . 19, i n f r a .
14 / 62a.
9
REa s o n s _ f o r _ g r a n t i n g _ t h e _ w r i t
Ce r t i o r a r i S h o u l d b e G r a n t e d To
M s o l v e _ a _ C o n f l i c t ___
C i r c u i t s R e g a r d i n g Whet h e r Ru l e
5 2 ( a ) F . R . C . P . t F o r b i d s A p p e l l a t e
R e v i e w o f T r i a l C o u r t C r e d i b i l i t y -
D e c i s i o n s
The d e c i s i o n o f the Fourth C i r c u i t in
t h i s c a s e marks a widening o f the complex
d i v i s i o n which e x i s t s among the c o u r t s o f
a pp ea ls r e g a r d i n g whether a d i s t r i c t c o u r t
d e c i s i o n about the c r e d i b i l i t y o f a w i t n e s s
i s s u b j e c t t o r e v i e w on a p p e a l . T r i a l
c o u r t c r e d i b i l i t y d e c i s i o n s have l ong been
r e g a r d e d as t h e l i n c h p i n o f t h e R u l e 52
" c l e a r l y e r r o n e o u s " s t a n d a r d . Rule 5 2 ( a )
admonishes t h a t on appeal
due r e g a r d s h a l l be g i v e n t o t he
o p p o r t u n i t y o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o
j u d g e t h e c r e d i b i l i t y o f w i t n e s s .
At o ne t i m e v i r t u a l l y a l l t h e c o u r t s o f
a pp e a l s he ld t h a t such "due r e g a r d " p r e
1 0
e lud ed any a p p e l l a t e r e v i e w w h a t s oe v er o f
. . . . . 1 5 /c r e d i b i l i t y d e c i s i o n s . — A l t h o u g h t h a t
1 6 /r e m a i n s t o d a y t h e m a j o r i t y r u l e , — ' t h e
F o u r t h C i r c u i t w i t h t h e o p i n i o n i n t h i s
1 7 /c a s e j o i n s t h e t h r e e o t h e r c i r c u i t s
which ho ld t h a t c r e d i b i l i t y d e t e r m i n a t i o n s
must be r e v i e w e a and can be r e v e r s e d on
a p p e a l .
The c o u r t o f a p p e a l s in t h e i n s t a n t
c a s e r e c o n s i d e r e d and r e j e c t e d the d e c i s i o n
o f the t r i a l j ud g e r e g a r d i n g the c r e d i b i l
i t y o f the key w i t n e s s e s f o r the p l a i n t i f f
and d e f e n d a n t . Such a p p e l l a t e r e v i e w i s
i m p e r m i s s i b l e as a m a t t e r o f l a w i n
15/ See pp. 1 1 - 13 , and n o t e s 3 7 - 3 9 , i n f r a .
1 6 / A p p e l l a t e r e v i e w o f c r e d i b i l i t y
d e t e r m i n a t i o n s i s f o r b i d d e n in the T h i r d ,
S i x t h , Se v ent h , E i g ht h , N i n th , Tenth and
D i s t r i c t o f C o l u m b i a c i r c u i t s . See p p .
1 1 - 13 , i n f r a .
1 7 / A p p e l l a t e r e v i e w o f c r e d i b i l i t y
d e t e r m i n a t i o n s i s a l s o a u t h o r i z e d in the
F i r s t , S e co n d , and F i f t h C i r c u i t s .
seven c i r c u i t s . The D i s t r i c t o f Columbia
c i r c u i t i n s i s t s t ha t a p p e l l a t e c o u r t s " are
not f r e e t o . . . e v a l u a t e the c r e d i b i l i t y o f
1 8 /
w i t n e s s e s . " The Third C i r c u i t r u l e i s
t h a t " c r e d i b i l i t y i s a m a t t e r t o be
determined by the t r i a l j u d g e , and not by
19 /the Court o f A p p e a l s " . — The S i x t h C i r
c u i t has r e p e a t e d l y he l d that " t h e c r e d
i b i l i t y o f t h e w i t n e s s e s was f o r t h e
t r i a l c o u r t . - A p p e l l a t e p an e ls in the
18/ Socash v . Addison Crane C o . , 346 F.2d
420, 421 (D.C. C i r . 1 9 6 5 ) ; see a l s o O r i e n t
M i d - E a s t L i n e s , I n c , v . C o o p e r a t i v e f o r
A . R . E . , I n c . , 410 F . 2 d 1 0 0 6 , 1009 ( D . C .
C i r . 1 9 6 9 ) . ( " [ I ] t i s not the f u n c t i o n o f
t h i s c o u r t t o e v a l u a t e the c r e d i b i l i t y o f
the w i t n e s s e s . " )
19/ Grove v . F i r s t N a t i o n a l Bank o f Her
o i n e , 489 F . 2d 512, 515 (3rd C i r . 1 97 3) .
There are seven o t h e r Third C i r c u i t d e c i
s i o n s b a r r i n g a p p e l l a t e r e v i e w o f c r e d i b i l
i t y d e t e r m i n a t i o n s . S e e A p p e n d i x A.
20/ C . I . T . C o r p o r a t i o n v . J a n i s , 418 F.2d
960, 968 ( 6th C i r . 1 9 6 9 ) ; see a l s o Sawyer
S e v e n t h C i r c u i t a r e " o b l i g a t e d t o d e f e r
t o t h e t r i e r o f f a c t on s u c h m a t t e r s as
2 1/w i t n e s s c r e d i b i l i t y . — The E i g h t h C i r
c u i t h a s r e f u s e d s i n c e 1 9 4 6 t o r e v i e w
the c r e d i b i l i t y d e t e r m i n a t i o n s o f a d i s -
22/
t r i c t c o u r t . in the Ninth C i r c u i t " t h e
t r i a l c o u r t ' s a p p r a i s a l o f the c r e d i b i l i t y
- 1 2 -
20/ c o n t i n u e d
v . Arum, 690 F.2d 590, 592 ( 6 th C i r . 1982)
( a p p e l l a t e c o u r t not t o " r e d e t e r m i n e the
c r e d i b i l i t y o f w i t n e s s e s ) ; F r a n k l i n L i f e
I n s u r a n c e Co . v . W i l l i a m J , Champion and
C o . , 350 F . 2 d 1 1 5 , 131 ( 6 t h C i r . 1 9 6 5 )
( " T h e . . . c r e d i b i l i t y o f t h e w i t n e s s e s
w [ a s ] f o r t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o d e t e r m i n e
21 / T r a d e r t & H o e f f e r , I n c , v . P r a g e t
Watch C o r p , 633 F . 2 d 4 7 7 , 479 ( 7 t h C i r .
1 9 8 0 ) . There are s i x o t h e r Seventh C i r c u i t
d e c i s i o n s b a r r i n g a p p e l l a t e r e v i e w o f
c r e d i b i l i t y d e t e r m i n a t i o n s . See Appendix
B.
2 2 / T h e r e a r e t h i r t e e n E i g h t h C i r c u i t
d e c i s i o n s b a r r i n g a p p e l l a t e r e v i e w o f
c r e d i b i l i t y d e t e r m i n a t i o n s . See Appendix
C.
13
o f the w it n e s s e s is to be a c c e p te d ; no
challenge to such appraisal is permitted at
2 3 /th e a p p e l l a t e l e v e l . " ---- in t he Tenth
Circuit "the c r e d i b i l i t y of a witness is
for determination by the t r i e r of fact and
,.2 4 /not by the a p p e l l a t e c o u r t . a t o t a l
of 47 d i f fe r e n t decisions in these seven
c i r c u i t s e x p r e s s l y f o r b i d the s o r t o f
appellate redetermination of c r e d i b i l i t y
which occurred in th is case.
On the other hand, three c i r c u i t s in
addition to the Fourth sanction appellate
23/ Dunn v . Trans World A i r l i n e s , 589 F.2d
4 0 8 , 414 ( 9 t h C i r . 1 9 7 8 ) . T h e r e a r e s i x
o t h e r N i n t h C i r c u i t d e c i s i o n s b a r r i n g
a p p e l l a t e r e v i e w o f c r e d i b i l i t y d e te r m i n a
t i o n s . See Appendix D.
24/ McKeel v . M e r r i l l Lynch P i e r c e , Fenner
& S m i t h , I n c . , 419 F.2d 1291, 1292 (10th
C i r . 1 9 6 9 ) . There are seven o t h e r Tenth
C i r c u i t d e c i s i o n s b a r r i n g a p p e l l a t e rev iew
o f c r e d i b i l i t y d e t e r m i n a t i o n s . See Ap
p endi x E.
14
r e v i e w o f d i s t r i c t c o u r t c r e d i b i l i t y
d e c i s i o n s . The c i r c u i t s a p p l y i n g t h i s
m i n o r i t y r u l e f o l l o w a w i d e v a r i e t y o f
s t a n d a r d s r e g a r d i n g when a t r i a l c o u r t
c r e d i b i l i t y judgment can be o v e r t u r n e d . In
t he F i r s t C i r c u i t t h e r e must be "a c om pe l -
25 /l i n g showing o f e r r o r . " — The most r e c e n t
Second C i r c u i t d e c i s i o n a p p l i e s t o c r e d
i b i l i t y d e c i s i o n s t h e same " c l e a r l y
e r r o n e o u s " s t and ar d a p p l i c a b l e t o o r d i n a r y
2 6 /
f a c t u a l f i n d i n g s . The F i f t h C i r c u i t has
e n u n c i a t e d no f e w e r t h a n f i v e d i f f e r e n t
s t a n d a r d s f o r d e c i d i n g whether a c r e d i b i l
i t y d e t e r m i n a t i o n i s t o be o v e r t u r n e d on
a p p e a l : ( 1 ) t h e e x i s t e n c e o f " c l e a r
25/ Oxf ord S h i pp i ng Co. v . New Hampshire
T r a d i n g C o r p . , 697 F . 2 d 1 , 5 ( 1 s t C i r .
1982) .
26/ La ng ford v . C h r y s l e r Motors C o r p . , 513
F .2d 1121, 1127 (2d C i r . 1 9 7 5 ) .
- 15 -
e r r o r " , (2) whether the c r e d i b i l i t y d e t e r -
2 8 /m i n a t i o n " p r o c e e d s upon a f a u l t y t h e o r y " , —
( 3 ) " o n l y i n t h e m o s t u n u s u a l c i r c u m -
2 9 /s t a n c e s " , — (4) where the c r e d i t e d t e s t i -
3 0 /mony i s " i n h e r e n t l y i n c r e d i b l e " ---- and
(5) where the c r e d i b i l i t y d e t e r m i n a t i o n i s
c o n t r a d i c t e d by " u n c o n t r o v e r t i b l e e v i d e n c e
27/
27/ C a r r o l l v . S e a r s , Roebuck & C o . , 708
F .2d 183, 188 ( 5th C i r . 1 9 8 3 ) ; O i l Chemical
& Atomic Workers v . Ethyl C o r p . , 703 F.2d
9 3 3 , 9 35 ( 5 t h C i r . 1 9 8 3 ) ; R £ b b j. n £ _ v .
Whi t e - W i l s o n Me di ca l C l i n i c , I n c . , 660 F.2d
1064, 1066 (5th C i r . 1 9 8 1 ) ; Marable v . H.
Walker A s s o c i a t e s , 644 F.2d 390 , 395 ( 5th
C i r . 1 9 8 1 ) ; W i l l i a m s v . T a l l a h a s s e e M o t o r s ,
I n c . , 607 F . 2d 689, 690 ( 5th C i r . 1 9 7 9 ) ;
^£it £AiI£££._lL.__^ £££-§. ' 473 F . 2 d 5 9 9 , 604
( 5th C i r . 1 9 7 3 ) ; Uni ted S t a t e s v . R e dd o c h ,
467 F .2d 897, 898 ( 5th C i r . 1 9 7 2 ) ; Hodgson
v j l_H M o r g a n__ D a n j. e 1 _ St e a f o o d s , I n c . ,
433 F .2d 918, 920 ( 5 th C i r . 1 9 7 0 ) .
28 / Henson v . C i t y o f D u n d e e , 6 8 2 F . 2d
897, 912 ( 5th C i r . 1 9 8 2 ) .
29/ N .L . R . B . v . J a c o b E. Decker and Sons ,
569 F . 2d 357, 364 ( 5th C i r . 1 9 7 8 ) .
30/ Marcom v . Uni ted S t a t e s , 452 F.2d 36,
39 ( 5 th C i r . 1 9 7 1 ) ; D i l l o n v . M.S. O r i e n t a l
I n v e n t o r , 426 F . 2 d 9 7 7 , 978 ( 5 t h C i r .
1 9 7 0 ) .
16
o r p h y s i c a l f a c t . " — o t h e r F i f t h C i r c u i t
d e c i s i o n s announce l e s s s p e c i f i c a l l y t h a t a
t r i a l j u d g e ' s c r e d i b i l i t y d e t e r m i n a t i o n ,
w h i l e r e v i e w a b l e on a p p e a l , w i l l n o t
3 2 / 3 3 /
" l i g h t l y " — o r " o r d i n a r i l y " be r e v e r s e d .
The m i n o r i t y v i e w t h a t c r e d i b i l i t y
d e c i s i o n s can be rev i ewe d and r e v e r s e d on
a pp ea l i s a c o m p a r a t i v e l y r e c e n t , a l th o u g h
s p r e a d i n g , d o c t r i n e . Al though Rule 52 was
o r i g i n a l l y a d o p t e d i n 1 9 3 7 , t h e f i r s t
a p p e l l a t e d e c i s i o n s a n c t i o n i n g such r e v i e w
3 4 /
d i d n o t come u n t i l 1963. The p r a c t i c e o f
31/ N . L . R . B . v . J.M. Machinery C o r p . , 410
F .2d 587, 590 ( 5 th C i r . 1 9 6 9 ) ; N . L . R . B . v .
D i x i e G a s , I n c . , 323 F . 2 d 4 3 3 , 437 ( 5 t h
C i r . 1 9 6 3 ) .
32/ V e r r e t t v . McDonough Marine S e r v i c e ,
705 F .2d 1437, 1443 ( 5 th C i r . 1 9 8 3 ) ; P l u y e r
v . M i t s u i O. S. K. L i n e s , L t d . , 664 F.2d
1243, 1245 ( 5 th C i r . 1 9 8 2 ) .
3 3 / M o r g a n v . __F r e e m a n , 715 F . 2 d 1 8 5 ,
1 8 6- 87 ( 5th C i r . 1983) .
34/ N . L . R . B . v . D i x i e Gas, I n c . , 323 F.2d
433, 437 ( 5th C i r . 1 9 6 3 ) .
reviewing t r i a l court c r e d i b i l i t y determi
nations, which began in that year in the
Fifth C i r c u it , was adopted by the Second
3 5 /C i r c u i t i n 1 9 7 5 , — by t h e F i r s t C i r c u i t
3 6 /
i n 1 9 8 2 , and i n 1 9 8 3 b y t h e F o u r t h
Circuit in the instant case. The majority
view precluding such review was at one time
3 7 / 3 8 /
accepted in the Second, Fourth and
35/ La ng ford v . C h r y s l e r Motors Corp. 513
F . 2d 1121, 1127 (2d C i r . 1 9 7 5 ) .
36/ Oxf ord Sh i pp ing Co. v . New Hampshire
T r a d i n g C o r p . , 697 F . 2 d 1 , 5 ( 1 s t C i r .
1982) .
37 / D e m p s t e r B r o t h e r s , I n c , v . B u f f a l o
Metal C o n t a i n e r C o r p . , 352 F.2d 420, 424
(2d C i r . 1 96 5) ; A l l s t a t e I ns ur an ce Co. v .
Aetna C a s u a l t y & S u r e t y C o . , 326 F.2d 871,
874 (2d C i r . 1 9 64 ) ; Uni ted S t a t e s ex r e l .
Bishop v . W a t k i n s , 159 F.2d 505, 506 ( 2d
C i r . 1 9 4 7 ) ; Uni ted S t a t e s v . Aluminum C o .
o f A m e r i c a , 148 F . 2 d 4 1 6 , 433 (2d C i r .
1 9 4 5 ) .
3 8 / C a n n o n . I n c , v . P l a s s e r A m e r i c a n
C o r p o r a t i o n , 609 F.2d 1075, 1075 ( 4th C i r .
1979 ) .
18
3 9 /
F i f t h c i r c u i t s .
The F o u r t h C i r c u i t o p i n i o n i n t h i s
c a s e r e p r e s e n t s t h e m o s t e x t r e m e and
o u t s p o k e n d e c i s i o n among t h e c i r c u i t s
f o l l o w i n g the m i n o r i t y r u l e . The c o u r t o f
a p p e a l s h e r e , e x p r e s s l y a ckno wledg ing t h a t
the t r i a l j u d g e ' s d e c i s i o n turned l a r g e l y
on h i s judgment o f the c r e d i b i l i t y o f the
4 0 /w i t n e s s e s , — h e l d t h a t " t h e d i s t r i c t
c o u r t ' s c r e d i b i l i t y a s se ss me n ts . . . [were]
4 1 /a m i s t a k e . " — ' The d i s t r i c t j u d g e had h e l d
t h a t p l a i n t i f f ' s t e s t i m o n y was " d i r e c t ,
39/ Somewhat i n e x p l i c a b l y F i f t h C i r c u i t
p a n e l s on a number o f o c c a s i o n s s i n c e D i x i e
Gas in 1963 have announced t h a t c r e d i b i l i t y
d e t e r m i n a t i o n s a r e n o t r e v i e w a b l e on
a p p e a l . O l g i n v . D a r n e l l , 664 F .2d 107, 108
( 5 t h C i r . 1 9 8 1 ) ; King v . G u l f O i l C o . , 581
F.2d 1184, 1186 ( 5 th C i r . 1 9 7 8 ) ; Blunt v .
Marion County S c h o o l B o a r d , 515 F.2d 9 51 ,
958 ( 5 t h C i r . 1 9 7 5 ) .
4 0 / 32a n . 2 , 5 9 a , 6 0 a , 6 3 a , 6 4 a , 7 2 a .
41/ 72a.
19
' d i r e c t , s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d , and b e l i e v
a b l e . "
42 /
The c o u r t o f a pp e a l s d i s a g r e e d ,
a s s e r t i n g t h a t p l a i n t i f f ' s t e s t i m o n y was
4 3 /" h o p e l e s s l y c o n f u s e d and c o n t r a d i c t o r y " ,
4 4 /
" i n t e r n a l l y s u s p e c t " , and permeated by
" d e m o n s t r a b l e i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s and ambigui
ties."
4 5 /
The d i s t r i c t j u d g e c o n c l u d e d
t h a t the t e s t i m o n y o f d e f e n s e w i t n e s s Win-
. - 4 6 /
C he st er was " g e n e r a l and w e ak " , - - and t ha t
4 7 /
W in c h e s t e r " v a c i l l a t e d s e v e r e l y " . The
c o u r t o f a p p e a l s d i s a g r e e d , i n s i s t i n g
t h a t W i n c h e s t e r ' s t e s t i m o n y " [ f ] a i r l y
48a s s e s s e d . . . never e v a d e d . . . . " —
42/ 3a , 10a; see a l s o 13a.
43/ 66a.
4 4 / 68a.
45/ 71a; s e e a l s o 67a.
4 6 / 2a.
4 7 / 11a.
48/ 73a.
20
More i m p o r t a n t l y , the Fourth C i r c u i t
a t t a c k e d as a m a t t e r o f p r i n c i p l e t h e i d e a
t h a t a t r i a l j ud g e c o u l d r e j e c t t e s t i m o n y
on t he b a s i s o f demeanor and c r e d i b i l i t y on
t h e w i t n e s s s t a n d . The r e j e c t i o n o f
t e s t i m o n y on t h a t b a s i s , t h e Fourth C i r c u i t
c o m p l a i n e d , " r e q u i r e d a p r o c e s s o f s p e c u l a
t i o n o r i n t u i t i o n r a t h e r than o f l e g a l l y
49,
j u s t i f i a b l e i n f e r e n c e from t h e e v i d e n c e . "
To r e j e c t a w i t n e s s ' s t e s t i m o n y on t h e
b a s i s o f c r e d i b i l i t y , t he c o u r t o f a p p e a l s
r e p e a t e d l y o b j e c t e d , would mean t h a t the
.. 5 0 /w i t n e s s was " a r a c i s t and p e r j u r e r " ; a
demeanor - based c r e d i b i l i t y a s se s s m e n t , the
Fourth C i r c u i t h e l d , c o u l d n o t " s e r v e as a
r a t i o n a l b a s i s f o r [ s u c h ] c r i t i c a l f a c t
5 1 /f i n d i n g s . . . . " — i n t h e f i n a l a n a l y s i s ,
4 9 / 62a.
50/ 75a; s e e a l s o 57a ( w i t n e s s l y i n g ) , 63a
( w i t n e s s l y i n g ) , 71a ( p e r j u r y ) , 72a ( p e r -
j u r y ) m 65a ( d e l i b e r a t e f a l s i f i c a t i o n ) .
51/ 63a-64a; see also 53a.
21
the c o u r t o f a p p e a l s c o n c l u d e d , a T i t l e VII
d e f e n d a n t ' s e x p l a n a t i o n o f i t s c o n d u c t
c ou l d not be he ld t o be p r e t e x t u a l mere ly
b e ca use the t r i a l j ud g e r e f u s e d t o b e l i e v e
the d e f e n s e w i t n e s s e s . Such a t r i a l c o u r t
d e c i s i o n , the Fourth C i r c u i t h e l d , would
n e c e s s a r i l y be "on the b a s i s o f an i n t u i
t i o n o r i n s i g h t whose p r o b a b l e a c c u r a c y
l i e s beyond the c a p a c i t y o f an a p p e l l a t e
. .52/
c o u r t t o r e v i e w . . . . This pas sa ge l i t e r
a l l y s t a n d s on i t s h e a d t h e r a t i o n a l e
o f Rule 5 2 ( a ) ; in the Fourth C i r c u i t , s i n c e
t h e r e i s no way a p p e l l a t e c o u r t s can r e v i e w
d e me ano r e v i d e n c e , su c h e v i d e n c e i s a p
p a r e n t l y t o be d i s r e g a r d e d . And a l t houg h
t h i s Court has r e p e a t e d l y he ld t h a t in a
T i t l e VII c a s e a d e f e n d a n t ' s e x p l a n a t i o n o f
i t s b e h a v i o r may be r e j e c t e d as "unworthy
52/ 8 4 a- 8 5 a . (Emphasis a dd e d ) .
22
o f c r e d e n c e " , — in the Fourth C i r c u i t such
c r e d i b i l i t y m u s t s o m e h o w b e a s s e s s e d
w i t h o u t r e g a r d t o t h e d e m e a n o r o f t h e
c r i t i c a l w i t n e s s e s .
P r i o r t o t he a d o p t i o n o f Rule 5 2 , t h i s
Court on a number o f o c c a s i o n s he l d t ha t
t r i a l c o u r t c r e d i b i l i t y d e c i s i o n s c o u l d not
be r e v i ew ed at a l l on a p p e a l . " [ S ] o f a r as
t he f i n d i n g o f the . . . j u d g e who saw the
w i t n e s s e s ' d e p e nd s upon . . . the c r e d i b i l i t y
o f w i t n e s s e s ' . . . i t must be t r e a t e d as
u n a s s a i l a b l e . " Adamson v . G a l l i l a n d , 242
U . S . 3 5 0 , 353 ( 1 9 1 7 ) ; s e e a l s o D a v i s v .
S^h wj3 rt. z: , 155 U . S . 6 3 1 , 63 6 ( 1 8 9 4 ) .
D e c i s i o n s o f t h i s Court s i n c e t he a d o p t i o n
o f R u l e 52 h av e c o n s i s t e n t l y emphas i z e d
t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f d e m e a n o r e v i d e n c e .
53/
53/ Uni ted S t a t e s P o s t a l S e r v i c e Board o f
Go ve rn or s v . A i k e n s , 75 L .Ed .2d 403, 410
( 1 9 8 3 ) ; T e x a s D e p a r t m e n t o f Commu n i t y
A f f a i r s v . __B u rd i n e , 450 U . S . 2 4 8 , 256
( 1 9 8 1 ) .
23
U n i t e d S t a t e s v . Uni ted S t a t e s Gypsum C o . ,
333 U.S. 364, 395 ( 1 9 4 8 ) .
Face t o f a c e wi t h l i v i n g w i t n e s s e s
the o r i g i n a l t r i e r o f f a c t h o l d s a
p o s i t i o n o f a d v a n t a g e f rom w h i c h
a p p e l l a t e j u d g e s are e x c l u d e d . In
d o u b t f u l c a s e s e x e r c i s e o f h i s power
o f o b s e r v a t i o n o f t e n p r o v e s the most
a c c u r a t e m e t h o d o f a s c e r t a i n i n g
t h e t r u t h . . . . How can we s a y t h e
j u d g e i s w r o n g ? We n e v e r saw t h e
w i t n e s s e s . . . .
Un_i jted_S tja_teji_v_.__O r e g o n S t a t e M e d i c a l
S o c i e t y , 343 U . S . 326 , 339 (1 9 5 2 ) . In
United S t a t e s v . Genera l Motors C o r p . , 384
U.S. 127 ( 1 9 6 6 ) , the Court e x p l a i n e d t ha t
" t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s customary o p p o r t u n i t y t o
e v a l u a t e the demeanor and thus the c r e d
i b i l i t y o f the w i t n e s s e s . . . i s the r a t i o n
a l e behind Rule 5 2 ( a ) " . 384 U.S. at 142
n. 16. Only two y e a r s ago t h i s Court he ld
t h a t "Determining ---- c r e d i b i l i t y . . . i s
the s p e c i a l p r o v i n c e o f the t r i e r o f f a c t . "
Inwood L a b o r a t o r i e s v . I v e s L a b o r a t o r i e s ,
456 U.S. 844, 856 ( 1 9 8 2 ) .
24
The d e c i s i o n o f the Fourth C i r c u i t in
t h i s c a s e thus s t r i k e s at the v e r y h e a r t o f
R u l e 5 2 ( a ) . I f t h e d i s t r i c t j u d g e s a r e
d e p r i v e d o f t h e i r t r a d i t i o n a l preeminent
r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r a s s e s s i n g c r e d i b i l i t y ,
t h e i r r o l e in the r e s o l u t i o n o f a c a s e such
as t h i s w i l l be l i t t l e more than t h a t o f a
s p e c i a l master s u p e r v i s i n g t he c ond uc t o f
d e p o s i t i o n s . S u c h an a p p r o a c h w o u l d
i n e v i t a b l y s u b v e r t t h e p r i n c i p l e t h a t
" f a c t f i n d i n g i s t h e b a s i c r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o f
the d i s t r i c t c o u r t s , r a t h e r than a p p e l l a t e
c o u r t s , " P u l l m a n - S t a n d a r d v . S w i n t , 445
U.S. 273, 291 ( 1 9 8 2 ) , and undermine Rule
5 2 ( a ) ' s l i m i t a t i o n s on the s c o p e o f a p p e l
l a t e r e v i e w . The c o n f l i c t among t h e
c i r c u i t s on t h i s i s s u e r e f l e c t s the compet
ing v a l u e s t h a t are a t s t a k e . The a l l o c a
t i o n o f f a c t f i n d i n g r e s p o n s i b i l i t y mandated
b y R u l e 5 2 ( a ) r e q u i r e s , a t t h e l e a s t ,
c o n s i d e r a b l e d e f e r e n c e t o t r i a l c o u r t
25
c r e d i b i l i t y a s s e s s m e n t s . On t h e o t h e r
hand, t he a p p e l l a t e c o u r t s c o u l d not meet
t h e i r r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t o r e v e r s e c l e a r
e r r o r , and t o a s su r e c om p l i a n c e with the
l a w , i f t h e m e r e p r e s e n c e o f a s i n g l e
c r e d i b i l i t y i s s u e t o t a l l y immunized a t r i a l
c o u r t d e c i s i o n from r e v i e w . The d i f f e r e n t
b a l a n c e s t r u c k by t h e c i r c u i t s b e t w e e n
t h e s e c o n f l i c t i n g c o n s i d e r a t i o n s u n d e r l i e s
t h e w i d e v a r i a t i o n s in t h e i r c o n s t r u c
t i o n o f R u l e 5 2 ( a ) . T h o s e d i f f e r e n c e s
t ouch on a l l areas o f c i v i l l i t i g a t i o n in
the f e d e r a l c o u r t s , a f f e c t i n g p l a i n t i f f s
and d e f e n d a n t s a l i k e . C e r t i o r a r i s ho uld be
g rant ed t o r e s o l v e t h i s complex and impor
t a n t d i s a g r e e m e n t among t h e c i r c u i t s
r e g a r d i n g the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f Rule 5 2 ( a )
and t h e a l l o c a t i o n o f f a c t f i n d i n g r e s
p o n s i b i l i t y between the d i s t r i c t c o u r t s and
c o u r t s o f a p p e a l s .
26
CONCLUSION
F o r t h e a b o v e r e a s o n s a w r i t o f
c e r t i o r a r i s h o u l d i s s u e t o r e v i e w t h e
judgment and o p i n i o n o f the Fourth C i r c u i t .
R e s p e c t f u l l y s u b m i t t e d ,
GEORGE DALY
S u i t e 226
One North McDowell S t r e e t
C h a r l o t t e , North
C a r o l i n a 28204
(704) 333-5196
JACK GREENBERG
0 . PETER SHERWOOD
ERIC SCHNAPPER*
16th F l o o r
99 Hudson S t r e e t
New York, New York 10013
(212) 219-1900
Counsel f o r P e t i t i o n e r
♦Counsel o f Record
APPENDIX A
Taggart v . W a d l e i g h - M a u r i c e , L t d . , 489 F.2d
434, 439 (1973) ( a p p e l l a t e c o u r t
cannot " r e s o l v e c r e d i b i l i t y i s s u e s "
even i n an a c t i o n i n v o l v i n g c o n s t i
t u t i o n a l c l a i m s . )
HML C o r p o r a t i o n v . General Foods C o rp or a
t i o n , 365 F .2d 77, 82 (1966) c r e d
i b i l i t y i s an i s s u e " p e c u l i a r l y
f o r [ the ] judgment" o f the t r i a l
c o u r t . )
Uni ted S t a t e s v . C a v e l l , 294 F.2d 12, 22
(1961) ( " [ I ] t was f o r the t r i a l
j ud ge t o d e te r mi n e the c r e d i b i l i t y
o f t he w i t n e s s e s . . . . " )
Speed v . Tra ns amer i c a C o r p o r a t i o n , 235 F.2d
369, 373 (1956) ( " [ c ] r e d i b i l i t y was
a m a t t e r t o be r e s o l v e d by the
t r i a l j u d g e , no t by u s . " )
Smith v . Lane, 174 F . 2o 819, 821 (1949)
( " I t i s hornbook
law t h a t an a p p e l l a t e t r i b u n a l in a
c i v i l s u i t w i l l not r e d e t e r m i n e
the c r e d i b i l i t y o f w i t n e s s e s
when, as h e r e , the t r i a l j ud g e has
had the o p p o r t u n i t y t o o b s e r v e the
demeanor o f the key w i t n e s s e s upon
the stand and has reached a c o n c l u
s i o n amply s up por t ed by e v i d e n c e
adduced at the t r i a l " . )
Third Circuit Decisions Regarding
Review of Credibility Determinations
28
D r e x l e r
0 1 i v e r
v . Kcza, 156 F.2d 370 ( 1946) ( "The
c o n c l u s i o n upon the q u e s t i o n o f
c r e d i b i l i t y i s p e c u l i a r l y one f o r
the t r i e r o f the f a c t . " )
v . B e l l , 103 F .2d 760, 763 (1939)
( " [ T ] h e c r e d i b i l i t y o f w i t n e s s e s
. . . [was] f o r the d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f
the t r i a l j u d g e who saw and heard
the w i t n e s s e s and h i s d e t e r m i n a t i o n
i s b i n d i n g upon u s . " )
29
APPENDIX B
Seventh Circuit Decisions
Regarding Review of Credibility
Determinations
C i t y o f Mishawaja , Ind. v . American E l e c
t r i c , e t c . , 616 F .2d 976, 979 (1980)
("We cannot b e t t e r j ud g e the
c r e d i b i l i t y o f t h o s e w i t n e s s e s
unseen by us than the t r i a l j u d g e . " )
Denison Mines , Lt d. v . Michigan Chemical
C o r p . , 469 F .2d 1301, 1310 (1972)
("We are not i n c l i n e d t o make
a f r e s h a p p r a i s a l o f the c r e d i b i l i t y
o f w i t n e s s e s whom the t r i a l j u d g e
saw and h e a r d . " )
Brennan v. Midwestern Uni ted L i f e I nsura nce
C o . , 417 F .2d 147, 149 (1969)
( " [ W ] e may not . . . at tempt t o
j ud ge the c r e d i b i l i t y o f w i t n e s s e s . " )
M e t a l e x p o r t Co. v . Gen-O-Ral P r o c e s s i n g
C o r p . , 365 F .2d 178, 180 (1960)
( " I t was the f u n c t i o n o f the t r i a l
c o u r t t o d e te r mi n e the c r e d i b i l i t y
o f w i t n e s s e s . . . . " )
J u l i e n v . Sarkes T a r z i a n , I n c . , 352 F.2d
845, 848 (1965) ( "Any q u e s t i o n s o f
c r e d i b i l i t y wer e , o f c o u r s e ,
f o r the D i s t r i c t J u d g e " . )
30
Matthews v . James T a l c o t t , I n c . , 345 F.2d
374, 381-82 ( 1 9 6 5 ) , c e r t , d e n i e d
382 U.S . 837 (1965) ( " Q u e s t i o n s
o f c r e d i b i l i t y were p r o p e r l y r e s o l v e d
by the d i s t r i c t c o u r t and a re not
t o be c o n s i d e r e d on a p p e a l " . )
P e t r i v . R he i n , 257 F.2d 268, 270 (1958)
( " R u l e 52 makes i t u n n e c e s s a r y t o
d i s c u s s the f i n d i n g s made b e l o w . . . .
[ c ] r e d i b i l i t y o f w i t n e s s e s [ i s a]
ma tt er [] f o r the t r i a l j u d g e . " )
31
APPENDIX C
Gibbons v . Bond, 668 F.2d 967, 968 (1982)
( " I t i s f o r the t r i a l c o u r t t o
j ud ge the c r e d i b i l i t y . . . o f
a w i t n e s s ' s t e s t i m o n y " )
Dani e l Hamm Drayage Co. v . Wald inger C o r p . ,
666 F .2d 1213, 1215 (1981) ( "The
c r e d i b i l i t y o f the w i t n e s s e s
was f o r the t r i a l c o u r t t o d e t e r m i n e . " )
Uni ted S t a t e s v . P o i t r a , 661 F.2d 98 (1981)
( " I t was f o r the t r i a l c o u r t t o
d e te r m i n e the c r e d i b i l i t y o f
the w i t n e s s e s . We w i l l not d i s t u r b
i t s f i n d i n g s . " )
C ot t on v . L o c k h a r t , 620 F.2u 670, 671
(1980) ( "The c r e d i b i l i t y o f w i t
n e s s e s . . . [ i s a] matter [] w i t h i n
the p r o v i n c e o f the d i s t r i c t c o u r t . " )
M e r r i l l Lynch, P i e r c e , Fenner & Smith, I n c .
v . Goldman, 593 F.2d 129, 131
( 1 9 7 5 ) . ( " [ I ] t i s not the f u n c t i o n
o f an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t t o . . . pass
upon t he c r e d i b i l i t y o f w i t n e s s e s . . . . " )
Shul l v . Dain , Kalman & Q u a i l , I n c . , 561
F . 2d 152, 155 ( 1 9 7 7 ) , c e r t , denied
434 U.S. 1086 (1978) ( " H T T
i s no t the f u n c t i o n o f an a p p e l l a t e
c o u r t t o . . . pass upon the c r e d i b i l
i t y o f w i t n e s s e s . . . . " )
Eighth Circuit Decisions
Regarding Review of Credibility-
Determinations
32
I m p e r i a l C a s u a l t y Co. v . C a r o l i n a C a s u a l t y
C o . , 402 F .2d 41, 44 (1968) ( c r e d
i b i l i t y o f w i t n e s s e s was an
i s s u e " f o r the t r i a l c o u r t . " )
Dunlap v . Wa rma ck- Fi t t s S t e e l C o . , 371 F .2d
876, 879 (1967) ( "The c r e d i b i l i t y
o f a w i t n e s s ---- i s a m a t t e r which
i s l e f t t o the sound d i s c r e t i o n o f
the t r i a l c o u r t , who a l o n e can
o b s e r v e t he demanor o f t he w i t n e s s e s
" )• • • • /
Edgar v . T r a v e l e r s I ns ur a nc e C o . , 351 F.2d
690, 691 (1965) ( " c r e d i b i l i t y
i s s u e s are t o be r e s o l v e d by the
t r i a l c o u r t ____ [ T ] h i s c o u r t w i l l
no t s u b s t i t u t e i t s judgment f o r
t h a t o f the t r i a l c o u r t . " )
Baker v . Uni ted S t a t e s , 343 F.2d 222, 224
(1965) ( q u o t i n g G e e r - M e l k u s )
Anthony v . L o u i s i a n a & Arkansas Rai lway
C o . , 316 F .2d 8 58 , 860 (1963)
( q u o t i n g G e e r - M e l k u s )
Geer -Melkus C o n s t r u c t i o n Co. v . Uni ted
S t a t e s , 302 F.2d 181, 183 (1962)
("We w i l l no t at tempt t o s u b s t i t u t e
our judgment , based upon the c o l d
r e c o r d , f o r t h a t o f t he t r i a l c o u r t
in d e t e r m i n i n g c r e d i b i l i t y o f
w i t n e s s e s . " )
Anderson v . F e d er a l C a r t r i d g e C o r p o r a t i o n ,
156 F .2d 681, 684 (1946) ( " [W]e do
not c o n s i d e r t he c r e d i b i l i t y
o f the w i t n e s s e s . . . . ' ' )
33
Ninth C i r c u i t D e c i s i o n s
R egard ing Review o f C r e d i b i l i t y
D e t e r m i n a t i o n s
White v . Washington P u b l i c Power Supply-
System, 692 F.2d 1286, 1289 (1982)
( " [ W ] e do n o t r e v i e w the c r e d i b i l i t y
o f w i t n e s s e s as s u c h . " )
No rt hr op A r c h i t e c t u r a l Systems v . Lupton
Mfg. C o . , 437 F .2d 889, 891 (1971)
( "A d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f which e x p e r t
i s more c r e d i b l e w i l l not be d i s
t urbed on a p p e a l . . . . " )
DeWelles v . Uni ted S t a t e s , 378 F.2d 37 , 39
(1967) ( " [A]n a p p e l l a t e c o u r t w i l l
assume t h a t the l ow er c o u r t
c o r r e c t l y measured c r e d i b i l i t y . " )
B o n n e v i l l e Locks Towing Co. v . United
S t a t e s , 343 F.2d 790, 792 (1965)
("We cannot . . . pass upon the
c r e d i b i l i t y o f w i t n e s s e s . " )
Nuelsen v . S o r e n s o n , 293 F.2d 454, 460
(1961) ( " [T]he t r i a l c o u r t ' s
a p p r a i s a l o f the c r e d i b i l i t y o f the
w i t n e s s e s i s t o be a c c e p t e d , no
c h a l l e n g e t o such a p p r a i s a l be ing
p e r m i s s i b l e in t he a p p e l l a t e c o u r t . " )
Wittmayer v . Uni ted S t a t e s , 118 F.2d 808,
811 (1941) ( " [ s ] o f a r as the
f i n d i n g s o f the t r i a l j ud ge who saw
the w i t n e s s e s ' de p en d s upon . . . the
c r e d i b i l i t y o f w i t n e s s e s ' . . . i t
must be t r e a t e d as u n a s s a i l a b l e . " )
APPENDIX D
34
APPENDIX E
Tenth Circuit Decisions
Regarding Review of Credibility
Determinations
Davis Vi C i t i e s S e r v i c e O i l C o . , 420 F.2d
1278, 1279 (1970) ( [ T ] h e t r i a l
c o u r t , not t he a p p e l l a t e c o u r t ,
d e t e r mines t he c r e d i b i l i t y o f w i t n e s s e s " . )
Wood v . Western Beef F a c t o r y , I n c . , 378
F. 2d 96 , 99 (1967) ( " [ I ] t i s the
t r i a l j u d g e who d e t e r m i n e s the
c r e d i b i l i t y o f w i t n e s s e s . " )
D e V i l l i e r s v . A t l a s C o r p o r a t i o n , 360 F.2d
292, 294 (1966) ( " D e t e r m i n a t i o n o f
the c r e d i b i l i t y o f w i t n e s s e s
i s a f u n c t i o n o f t he t r i a l c o u r t —
no t o f the a p p e l l a t e c o u r t . " )
Southwe st ern Invest ment Co. v . Cactus Motor
C o . , 355 F .2d 674, 676 (1966) ( "The
t r i e r o f f a c t s — n o t t he a p p e l l a t e
c o u r t — d e t e r m i n e s the c r e d i b i l i t y
o f w i t n e s s e s . " )
Ruth v . Utah C o n s t r u c t i o n & Mining C o . , 344
F . 2d 952, 953 (1965) ( " S i n c e the
c r e d i b i l i t y o f w i t n e s s e s i s a
f u n c t i o n p e c u l i a r l y and p r o p e r l y f o r
the t r i a l c o u r t we ca nno t d i s t u r b
the f i n d i n g . " )
3 5
Ruud v . American Packing & P r o v i s i o n C o . ,
177 F .2d 538, 541 (1949) ( " A c c e p t
i n g , as we must , t he judgment
o f t he t r i a l c o u r t as t o t he c r e d
i b i l i t y o f t he . . . w i t n e s s e s . . . . " )
Uni ted B r ot h er ho o d o f C a r p e n t e r s , e t c . v .
S p e r r y , 170 F.2d 863, 867 (1948)
( " [ I ] t i s the p r o v i n c e o f the t r i a l
c o u r t t o o b s e r v e the w i t n e s s e s . . .
(and] t o a p p r a i s e t h e i r c r e d
i b i l i t y . . . . " )
APPENDIX
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
C h a r l o t t e D i v i s i o n
C -C- 79- 069
LULA B. MILLER,
P l a i n t i f f ,
v.
MERCY HOSPITAL, INC. , d / b / a
MERCY HOSPITAL,
D e f e n d a n t .
ssss
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
I am o f the o p i n i o n and r u l e t h a t t he
d e f e n d a n t d e ni ed t h e p l a i n t i f f employment
as a n u r s e ' s a i d e b e ca us e o f her r a c e , and
t h a t a p p r o p r i a t e r e l i e f s hou ld be g r a n t e d .
The p l a i n t i f f i s r e q u e s t e d t o draw
a p p r o p r i a t e f i n d i n g s o f f a c t and c o n c l u
s i o n s o f l a w and a p r o p o s e d j u d g m e n t .
Among t h e f i n d i n g s should be i n c l u d e d
f i n d i n g s t ha t the p l a i n t i f f ' s a p p l i c a t i o n
2a
was f o r a j o b as e i t h e r a l i c e n s e d p r a c t i
c a l nurse o r a n u r s e ' s a s s i s t a n t ; t h a t at
no t ime d i d she narrow her a p p l i c a t i o n t o
the j o b o f l i c e n s e d p r a c t i c a l n u r s e ; t h a t
t he d e f e n d a n t had o p e n i n g s f o r such j o b s
and a d v e r t i s e d them p u b l i c l y and f i l l e d
them wi t h o t h e r s n o t b e t t e r q u a l i f i e d than
p l a i n t i f f d u r i n g t he p e r t i n e n t p e r i o d ; t h a t
when p l a i n t i f f c a l l e d t o i n q u i r e about the
s t a t u s o f h e r a p p l i c a t i o n , s h e was t o l d
t h a t t h e t r o u b l e was i n h e r r e c o r d f r om
P r e s b y t e r i a n H o s p i t a l and t h a t t he P r e s b y
t e r i a n H o s p i t a l h i s t o r y was the r e a s o n she
was no t employed. Ms. W i n c h e s t e r ' s d e n i a l
o f t h o s e f a c t s was g e n e r a l and weak; and
Ms. M a r c i n i s z y n , a l t h o u g h s he t e s t i f i e d
b r o a d l y a b o u t why p l a i n t i f f was n o t em
p l o y e d , f i n a l l y s a i d t h a t s h e had no
r e c o l l e c t i o n o f the s i t u a t i o n and t ha t she
was s imply r e c o n s t r u c t i n g from the paper
3a
r e c o r d what s he " w o u l d h av e d o n e " c a s e d
upon her normal p r a c t i c e .
P l a i n t i f f ' s t e s t i m o n y i s d i r e c t ,
s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d and b e l i e v a b l e . She was
d e n i e d e m pl oy m en t b e c a u s e o f h e r r a c e ,
and s p e c i f i c a l l y b e c a u s e s h e had made
c o m p l a i n t s o f r a c i a l d i s c r i m i n a t i o n when
she was working at P r e s b y t e r i a n H o s p i t a l .
This 7 day o f J anuary , 1982.
/ s / _______________________________
James B. McMil lan
Uni ted S t a t e s D i s t r i c t Judge
4a
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
C h a r l o t t e D i v i s i o n
C- C- 79 -69 -N
LULA B. MILLER,
P l a i n t i f f ,
v .
MERCY HOSPITAL, INC. , d / b / a
MERCY HOSPITAL,
Def enda nt .
SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM
OF DECISION
This i s an a c t i o n under T i t l e V I I , 42
U . S . C . § 2 0 0 O e . P l a i n t i f f c l a i m s t h a t
D e f e n d a n t d e n i e d h e r e m p l o y m e n t as a
N u r s e ' s A ide on August 14, 1974 on a c c o u n t
o f her r a c e . P l a i n t i f f se ek s a d e c l a r a t o r y
judgment t h a t Def endant u n l a w f u l l y f a i l e d
t o h i r e h e r , and an award o f b a c k p a y .
5a
The c a s e was t r i e d t o t h e C o u r t on
January 4, 1982. Based on the competent
t e s t i m o n y at t r i a l , t h e C o u r t makes t h e
f o l l o w i n g -
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. P l a i n t i f f Lula M i l l e r i s Negro .
2. Defendant Mercy H o s p i t a l , I n c . ,
o p e r a t e s the Mercy H o s p i t a l in C h a r l o t t e ,
North C a r o l i n a . Defendant i s engaged in
an i n d u s t r y a f f e c t i n g commerce and has had
15 o r more employees f o r each working day
in each o f 20 o r more c a l e n d a r weeks at a l l
p e r t i n e n t t i m e s .
3 . In 1970 P l a i n t i f f r e c e i v e d a
h i g h s c h o o l d i p l o m a and in 1972 s h e r e
c e i v e d a P r a c t i c a l N u r s i n g d e g r e e , b o t h
from C e n t r a l Piedmont Community C o l l e g e in
C h a r l o t t e . In 1968 s h e was e m p l o y e d by
P r e s b y t e r i a n H o s p i t a l , C h a r l o t t e , N o r t h
C a r o l i n a , as a N u r s e ' s A i d e ; she was l a t e r
promoted t o Nurse T e c h n i c i a n . A f t e r her
6a
g r a d u a t i o n from C e n t r a l Piedmont P r a c t i c a l
N u r s i n g S c h o o l , P r e s b y t e r i a n H o s p i t a l
a l l o w e d her t o f u n c t i o n as a L i c e n s e d Nurse
even though she had not then ( and has not
now) p as s ed the S t a t e l i c e n s i n g examina
t i o n . In J u l y , 1973, P l a i n t i f f v o l u n t a r i l y
r e s i g n e d from P r e s b y t e r i a n H o s p i t a l a f t e r
h a v i n g w h a t s h e b e l i e v e d was a r a c i a l
d i f f i c u l t y wi t h her f l o o r s u p e r v i s o r , which
she c ou l d not a d j u s t t o her s a t i s f a c t i o n
wi t h the D i r e c t o r o f Nu r s i ng . P r e s b y t e r i a n
H o s p i t a l r e p o r t e d t o t h e N o r t h C a r o l i n a
Employment S e c u r i t y Commission t h a t P l a i n
t i f f "was u n s a t i s f i e d w i t h h e r w o r k i n g
s i t u a t i o n and made s e v e r a l e r r o r s i n
a d m i n i s t e r i n g m e d i c a t i o n . " When P l a i n t i f f
l e a r n e d o f t h e a l l e g e d r e a s o n f o r h e r
t e r m i n a t i o n , she had h er a t t o r n e y c o n t a c t
P r e s b y t e r i a n H o s p i t a l . She l a t e r f i l e d a
r a c i a l d i s c r i m i n a t i o n c h a r g e a g a i n s t
P r e s b y t e r i a n H o s p i t a l w i t h t h e E q u a l
7a
Employment O p p o r t u n i t y Commission.
4. On August 14, 1974, about a y e a r
a f t e r h e r t e r m i n a t i o n f r o m P r e s b y t e r i a n
H o s p i t a l , P l a i n t i f f a p p l i e d f o r employment
wi th Def endant in r e s p o n s e t o a r e c u r r i n g
a d v e r t i s e m e n t in l o c a l n e w s p a p e r s t h a t
D e f e n d a n t was s e e k i n g t o h i r e LPNs and
N u r s e ' s A i d e s . On h e r a p p l i c a t i o n she
i n d i c a t e d t h a t her " t y p e o f work p r e f e r r e d "
was "LPN, " t h e l a s t type work she had done
at P r e s b y t e r i a n H o s p i t a l . A f t e r f i l l i n g
o u t her a p p l i c a t i o n she t a l k e d wi t h Mrs.
W i n c h e s t e r t h a t she p l a n n e d s h o r t l y t o
a t t e m p t , f o r the t h i r d t i m e , t o pass the
S t a t e LPN e x a m i n a t i o n . Mrs . W i n c h e s t e r
t o l d P l a i n t i f f t h a t Mercy H o s p i t a l had no
o p e n i n g s as LPNs e x c e p t f o r p e r s o n s who had
passed the S t a t e ex ami na t i on or who were
r e c e n t g r a d u a t e s a w a i t i n g t h e i r f i r s t
at tempt t o pass i t . She then asked P l a i n
t i f f i f P l a i n t i f f would a c c e p t a j o b as a
8a
N u r s e ' s A i d e . P l a i n t i f f s a i d she would.
M r s . W i n c h e s t e r t h e n w r o t e " N A " ( f o r
" N u r s e ' s A i d e " ) i n t h e " c l a s s i f i c a t i o n "
b l ank o f P l a i n t i f f ' s a p p l i c a t i o n and t o l d
P l a i n t i f f she would hear from her in a few
d a y s . Some t ime t h e r e a f t e r Mrs. Wi n c h e s t e r
c a l l e d P r e s b y t e r i a n H o s p i t a l t o i n q u i r e
w h e t h e r t h e y recommended P l a i n t i f f f o r
employment. Mrs. W i n c h e s t e r had no r e c o l
l e c t i o n at t r i a l o f her c o n v e r s a t i o n with
P r e s b y t e r i a n , but the documents which she
made at the t ime i n d i c a t e t h a t P r e s b y t e r i a n
s a i d t h a t P l a i n t i f f had pe r f ormed v e r y w e l l
as a N u r s e ' s A ide but " c o u l d not f u n c t i o n
as an LPN, was unhappy when t he h o s p i t a l
r e p o r t e d t h i s on h e r 5 02 [ E m p l o y m e n t
S e c u r i t y Commission T e rm in at i on N o t i c e ] ,
[and] had lawyer c o n t a c t h o s p i t a l . " The
P l a i n t i f f ' s a p p l i c a t i o n was f o r a j o b as
e i t h e r n u r s e ' s a i d e or l i c e n s e d p r a p t i c a l
nurse (LPN). She was q u a l i f i e d and e x p e
9a
r i e n c e d f o r both j o b s , though not l i c e n s e d
as an LPN. At no t ime d i d the P l a i n t i f f
narrow o r r e s t r i c t her a p p l i c a t i o n t o the
LPN j o b o n l y .
5 . P l a i n t i f f ' s a p p l i c a t i o n was
forwarded t o Casmira M a r c i n i s z y n , Defen
d a n t ' s D i r e c t o r o f Nur s i ng . Wi thin a week
a f t e r P l a i n t i f f ' s a p p l i c a t i o n , Ms. Marc in
i s z y n i n d i c a t e d t h a t she was " n o t i n t e r
e s t e d " in h i r i n g P l a i n t i f f . She t e s t i f i e d
at t r i a l t ha t she had no r e c o l l e c t i o n o f
P l a i n t i f f ' s a p p l i c a t i o n , but op ined from
l o o k i n g at i t t h a t she r e j e c t e d i t f o r t h
wi th be cause i t was an a p p l i c a t i o n f o r an
LPN p o s i t i o n and P l a i n t i f f had p r e v i o u s l y
f a i l e d t o pas s her S t a t e Boards . N e i t h e r
Ms. M a r c i n i s z y n nor Mrs. Wi n c h e s t e r had any
r e c o l l e c t i o n w h e t h e r t h e r e f e r e n c e f rom
P r e s b y t e r i a n H o s p i t a l accompanied P l a i n
t i f f ' s a p p l i c a t i o n at the t ime Ms. Marcin
i s z y n re v i ewe d i t .
10a
6. At the c o n c l u s i o n o f her i n t e r
v iew wi t h P l a i n t i f f , Mrs. W i n c h e s t e r had
t o l d P l a i n t i f f s h e w o u l d l e t h e r know
something w i t h i n a few d a y s . When P l a i n
t i f f heard n o th in g from her a f t e r s e v e r a l
d a y s , she t e l e p h o n e d t o i n q u i r e whether she
had been h i r e d . Mrs. W i n c h e s t e r t o l d her
t h a t Mercy c o u l d not h i r e her b e ca us e o f
P r e s b y t e r i a n ' s r e f e r e n c e . Mrs. W in c h e s t e r
r e f u s e d t o t e l l her what the r e f e r e n c e had
b e e n , and s a i d t h a t she s h o u l d g o ba ck
t o P r e s b y t e r i a n and s e e i f s h e c o u l d
s t r a i g h t e n t h i n g s o u t wi t h them.
7 . The C o u r t b e l i e v e s P l a i n t i f f ' s
t e s t i m o n y , and in p a r t i c u l a r b e l i e v e s t h a t
Mr s . W i n c h e s t e r t o l d P l a i n t i f f t h a t h e r
r e f e r e n c e from P r e s b y t e r i a n H o s p i t a l was
t he r e a so n she was not h i r e d . P l a i n t i f f ' s
t e s t i m o n y was d i r e c t , s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d and
b e l i e v a b l e . Mrs . W i n c h e s t e r had l i t t l e
r e c a l l o f t h e o c c a s i o n . She c o u l d n o t
1 1a
r e c a l l whether the r e f e r e n c e c he c k accom
panied t h e a p p l i c a t i o n when i t was s e n t t o
t h e D i r e c t o r o f N u r s i n g , and c o u l d n o t
e x p l a i n why she would b o t h e r t o o b t a i n
r e f e r e n c e c h e c k s i f t h e y wer e n o t t o be
r o u t i n e l y used in e v a l u a t i n g a p p l i c a t i o n s
f o r e m p l o y m e n t . She a l s o v a c i l l a t e d
s e v e r e l y when q u e s t i o n e d as t o w h e t h e r
P l a i n t i f f ' s a p p l i c a t i o n was an a p p l i c a t i o n
f o r a N u r s e ' s A ide p o s i t i o n . She t e s t i f i e d
t h a t h e r e n t r y o f " N u r s e ' s A i d e " i n t h e
" q u a l i f i c a t i o n s " blank o f the a p p l i c a t i o n
i n d i c a t e d " t h e q u a l i f i c a t i o n s o f the j o b
t ha t the i n t e r v i e w e r [ Winchest er ] t h i n k s
t h i s p e r s o n would q u a l i f y f o r , " but n e v e r
t h e l e s s i n s i s t e d t h a t the a p p l i c a t i o n was
f o r an LPN p o s i t i o n b e c a u s e P l a i n t i f f
o r i g i n a l l y i n d i c a t e d , when f i l l i n g o u t
the a p p l i c a t i o n a l o n e , t h a t she " p r e f e r r e d "
LPN work. Ms. M a r c i n i s z y n t e s t i f i e d t h a t
she had no a c t u a l r e c o l l e c t i o n o f r e v i e w i n g
1 2a
P l a i n t i f f ' s a p p l i c a t i o n , b u t h e l d v e r y
f i r m l y t o the o p i n i o n t h a t i t was o n l y an
a p p l i c a t i o n f o r an LPN p o s i t i o n . T h i s
r e a d i n g o f t h e a p p l i c a t i o n m a k e s t h e
" c l a s s i f i c a t i o n " b la nk u s e l e s s , and means
t h a t t h e e f f o r t s o f Mrs . W i n c h e s t e r t o
d e t e r m i n e a b e s t c l a s s i f i c a t i o n f o r an
e m p l o y e e a r e i g n o r e d by t h e p e r s o n who
makes t h e h i r i n g d e c i s i o n . A l s o , J a y n e
Murray, a w h i t e f e m a l e , a p p l i e d f o r employ
ment two d a y s b e f o r e P l a i n t i f f d i d . On
her a p p l i c a t i o n n e i t h e r the " t y p e o f work
p r e f e r r e d " b l ank nor the " c l a s s i f i c a t i o n "
b l ank are c o m p l e t e d , y e t Ms. M a r c i n i s z y n
h i r e d h e r as a N u r s e ' s A i d e . Under t h e
t h e o r y s h e c l a i m s t o h a v e a p p l i e d t o
P l a i n t i f f , s h e w o u l d h av e c o n c e d e d t h a t
J a y n e M u r r a y was n o t a p p l y i n g f o r a n y
p o s i t i o n .
8 . D e f e n d a n t had o p e n i n g s f o r
N u r s e ' s A i d e when P l a i n t i f f a p p l i e d ,
13a
a d v e r t i s e d them p u b l i c l y a l l d u r i n g A ugust ,
1 9 7 4 , and f i l l e d them w i t h p e r s o n s n o t
b e t t e r q u a l i f i e d than P l a i n t i f f ( as shown
by P l a i n t i f f ' s E x h i b i t 2 3 ) . In 1971 Ms.
M a r c i n i s z y n h i r e d a wh i t e nurse d e s p i t e her
h i s t o r y o f having c ur sed her s u p e r v i s o r ,
and d i d not f i r e t h i s nurse a y e a r l a t e r
d e s p i t e s e r i o u s m a l i n g e r i n g . By c o n t r a s t ,
in 1975 a b l a c k woman a p p l i e d ; her r e f e r
e n c e c h e c k r e v e a l e d t h a t a t h e r f o r m e r
p l a c e o f e m pl oy m en t she was t h e " f i r s t
b l a c k h i r e d i n o f f i c e , c a u s e d some t e n
s i o n " ; and Ms. M a r c i n i s z y n f a i l e d t o h i r e
he r d e s p i t e h er b e i n g q u a l i f i e d f o r t h e
p o s i t i o n s o u g h t . P l a i n t i f f ' s t e s t i m o n y was
not impeached in any way; her a p p l i c a t i o n
cannot be r a t i o n a l l y passed o f f as be ing
f o r an LPN p o s i t i o n o n l y , as Ms. Marcin
i sz yn would have i t ; the r e f e r e n c e check
f rom P r e s b y t e r i a n had b e e n r e c e i v e d by
M e r c y b e f o r e t h e d e c i s i o n n o t t o h i r e
1 4 a
P l a i n t i f f was made ; and Ms. M a r c i n i s z y n
h i r e d and r e t a i n e d a " w h i t e t r o u b l e m ak er "
but r e f u s e d t o h i r e a " b l a c k t r o u b l e m a k e r . "
The b e l i e v a b l e e v i d e n c e b e a r s o u t
P l a i n t f f ' s t h e o r y t h a t D e f e n d a n t ' s f a i l u r e
t o h i r e her was on a c c o u n t o f her r a c e and
s p e c i f i c a l l y b e c a u s e she had made com
p l a i n t s o f r a c i a l d i s c r i m i n a t i o n when she
was w o r k i n g a t P r e s b y t e r i a n H o s p i t a l .
1 0 . On N o v e m b e r 2 6 , 1 9 7 6 , a f t e r
P l a i n t i f f had r e c e i v e d f r o m t h e E q u a l
Employment O p p o r t u n i t y Commission a D e t e r
m i n a t i o n h o l d i n g t h a t P r e s b y t e r i a n H o s p i t a l
had d i s c r i m i n a t e d a g a i n s t her on a cc ou n t o f
her r a c e in d i s c h a r g i n g h e r , she went back
t o see Mrs. W i n c h e s t e r at Mercy H o s p i t a l
and t o l d her t h a t t h i s EEOC D e t e r m i n a t i o n
c l e a r e d up the problem wi t h P r e s b y t e r i a n
H o s p i t a l and made her e l i g i b l e f o r employ
ment by M e r c y . Mer c y a g a i n d e c l i n e d t o
h i r e P l a i n t i f f .
15a
11. The b u r d e n o f p r o o f t o s a t i s f y
t h e c o u r t o f e v e r y f a c t n e c e s s a r y t o
s up p o r t the d e c i s i o n in her f a v o r remained
upon P l a i n t i f f t h r o u g h o u t , and was e n t i r e l y
s a t i s f i e d by the P l a i n t i f f . The Defendant
" a r t i t u l a t e d " a r e a so n f o r no t employing
her ( t h a t they thought P l a i n t i f f a p p l i e d
f o r o n l y an LPN [ l i c e n s e d p r a c t i c a l nurse]
j o b ) ; but t h a t r e a s o n was p r e t e x t u a l . The
P l a i n t i f f was d e n ie d employment b e ca u s e o f
her r a c e , and b e ca us e o f her " r a c i a l p r o b
l ems a t P r e s b y t e r i a n H o s p i t a l . She was
u n j u s t l y t r e a t e d as a b l a c k " t r o u b l e
m a k e r . "
12 . A f t e r b e i n g r e j e c t e d by D e f e n
d a n t , P l a i n t i f f sought a p p r o p r i a t e s u b s t i
t u t e e m p l o y m e n t r e g u l a r l y f r o m A u g u s t
14, 1974 u n i t l she was f i n a l l y reemployed
by P r e s b y t e r i a n H o s p i t a l on May 26, 1980,
as p a r t o f t h e s e t t l m e n t o f h e r T i t l e
V I I s u i t a g a i n s t them. She a p p l i e d at
16a
B e l k ' s Department S t o r e t o work as a f i l e
c l e r k , a p p l i e d at Mercy H o s p i t a l a second
t i m e , r e g i s t e r e d wi th the A s s o c i a t e d Job
Agency , r e p l i e d t o newspaper ads r e q u e s t i n g
f i l e c l e r k s , r e g i s t e r e d wi t h the Employment
S e c u r i t y Commission, and had 10 t o 15 j o b
i n t e r v i e w s d u r i n g t he p e r i o d she was out o f
work. She r e c e i v e d $ 6 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 back pay as
p a r t o f her s e t t l e m e n t wi th P r e s b y t e r i a n
H o s p i t a l . He pay would have been as f o l l o w s
d u r i n g t h e p e r i o d f r o m A u g u s t 1 4 ,
1974 t o May 26, 1980, had she been employed
b y M e r c y H o s p i t a l as a N u r s e ' s A i d e :
Hourly
From To Rate Pay
8 - 1 4 - 7 4 8 - 3 1 - 7 4 $ 2 .32 $ 185.00
9 - 1 - 7 4 8 - 3 1 - 7 5 2.32 4 , 8 2 5 . 6 0
9 - 1 - 7 5 8 - 3 1 - 7 6 2.44 5 , 0 7 5 . 2 0
9 - 1 - 7 6 8 - 3 1 - 7 7 2 .56 5 , 3 2 4 . 8 0
9 - 1 - 7 7 8 - 3 1 - 7 8 2 .90 6 , 0 3 2 . 0 0
9 - 1 - 7 8 8 - 3 1 - 7 9 3 .12 6 , 4 8 9 . 6 0
9 - 1 - 7 9 5 - 2 6 - 8 0 3.36 5 , 2 4 1 . 6 0
$33,1 74 .40
17a
Based upon the f o r e g o i n g F i n d i n g s o f
F a c t , t h e C o u r t m a k e s t h e f o l l o w i n g -
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The c o u r t has j u r i s d i c t i o n o f the
s u b j e c t m a t t e r o f t h i s a c t i o n . 42 U . s . C .
§ 2 0 0 0 e - 5 ( f ) .
2. The Court has j u r i s d i c t i o n o f the
p e r so n o f the Def endant .
3 . The D e f e n d a n t i s an e m p l o y e r
w i t h i n the meaning o f 42 U.S.C § 2 0 0 0 e ( b ) .
4. P l a i n t i f f has c omp l i ed with the
p r o c e d u r a l r e q u i r e m e n t s o f 42 U . S . C .
§ 2 0 0 0 e - 5 ( e ) , ( f ) .
5. P l a i n t i f f has c l e a r l y c a r r i e d her
burden o f p r o v i n g t h a t Defendant d i s c r i m i
nated a g a i n s t P l a i n t i f f on a c co un t o f her
r a c e (and s p e c i f i c a l l y be cause P l a i n t i f f
made c o m p l a i n t s o f r a c i a l d i s c r i m i n a t i o n
when s h e was w o r k i n g a t P r e s b y t e r i a n
H o s p i t a l ) in f a i l i n g t o employ P l a i n t i f f as
18a
a N u r s e ' s A ide on o r s h o r t l y a f t e r August
14, 1974.
6. The D e f e n d a n t ' s v a r i o u s e x p l a n a
t i o n s f o r f a i l u r e t o employ P l a i n t i f f on o r
s h o r t l y a f t e r A u g u s t 14, 1 9 7 4 , a r e p r e -
t e x t u a l .
7 . P l a i n t i f f i s e n t i t l e d t o a
j u d g m e n t t h a t D e f e n d a n t ' s f a i l u r e t o
h i r e h e r was u n l a w f u l , and i s e n t i t l e d
t o b a c k p a y , c o s t s and c o u n s e l f e e s .
Done a t C h a r l o t t e , N o r t h C a r o l i n a ,
t h i s 22 day o f Fe b ru ar y , 1982.
/ s / _______________________________
James B. McMil lan
Uni ted S t a t e s D i s t r i c t Court
Judge
19a
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 82-1323
Argued Jan. 12, 1983
Dec ided O c t . 31, 1983
Rehear ing Denied Dec . 7 , 1983
LULA B. MILLER,
A p p e l l e e ,
v .
MERCY HOSPITAL, INCORPORATED,
d / b / a , MERCY HOSPITAL,
A p p e l l a n t .
Richard F'. Kane, C h a r l o t t e , N.C. ( W i l l i a m
L. Auten, B l a k e n e y , A l ex an de r & Machen,
C h a r l o t t e , N.C. on b r i e f ) , f o r a p p e l l a n t .
George D a l y , C h a r l o t t e , N . C . , f o r a p p e l l e e s .
B e f o r e PHILLIPS and ERVIN, C i r c u i t J ud g e s ,
HAYNSWORTH, S e n i o r C i r c u i t Judge.
JAMES DICKSON PHILLIPS, C i r c u i t Judge:
20a
T hi s i s a T i t l e VII c a s e in which Ms.
L u l a B. M i l l e r , a b l a c k woman, s u e d
Merc y H o s p i t a l , I n c . ( M e r c y ) , c l a i m i n g
d i s c r i m i n a t i o n on a cc o u n t o f her r a c e in
M e r c y ' s f a i l u r e t o h i r e her as a n u r s e ' s
a i d e . F o l l o w i n g bench t r i a l , t he d i s t r i c t
c o u r t f o u n d Mer c y l i a b l e as M i l l e r had
a l l e g e d and awarded M i l l e r s u b s t a n t i a l
m o n e t a r y r e l i e f , c o s t s , and a t t o r n e y
f e e s .
On M e r c y ' s a p p e a l , we c o n c l u d e t h a t
t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s u l t i m a t e f a c t u a l
d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t Me rc y i n t e n t i o n a l l y
d i s c r i m i n a t e d a g a i n s t M i l l e r was, on the
whole r e c o r d , c l e a r l y e r r o n e o u s . We t h e r e
f o r e r e v e r s e .
I
L u l a B. M i l l e r i s a b l a c k women who
f o r a number o f y e a r s p r i o r t o t h i s l i t i g a
t i o n had been employed in the g e n e r a l f i e l d
2 1 a
o f n u r s i n g in C h a r l o t t e , North C a r o l i n a ,
where Mercy i s l o c a t e d . The e v e n t s l e a d i n g
t o t h i s l i t i g a t i o n ca n be t r a c e d t o h e r
employment in 1968 by P r e s b y t e r i a n H o s p i t a l
( P r e s b y t e r i a n ) , a n o t he r C h a r l o t t e h o s p i t a l ,
as a n u r s e ' s a i d e ( NA) . In 1972, having
b e e n p r o m o t e d b y P r e s b y t e r i n a i n t h e
i n t e r i m t o Nurse T e c h n i c i a n , she g ra du at e d
from C e n t r a l Piedmont Nursing S c h o o l , and
s t o o d f o r l i c e n s u r e as a p r a c t i c a l nurse by
t a k i n g t h e s t a t e ' s e x a m i n a t i o n . At t h i s
p o i n t P r e s b y t e r n i a n — a p p a r e n t l y in k ee p
i n g w i t h g e n e r a l c u s t o m among h o s p i t a l s
in the area — a l lo we d M i l l e r t o per f orm
the f u n c t i o n s o f a l i c e n s e d p r a c t i c a l nurse
( LPN) pending r e c e i p t o f the r e s u l t s o f her
l i c e n s i n g e x a m i n a t i o n . U n f o r t u n a t e l y ,
M i l l e r d i d no t pass t h i s e x a m i n a t i o n ; nor
d id she pas s i t on t h r e e subsequent t a k i n g s
p r i o r t o the l i t i g a t i o n . M i l l e r ' s employ
m ent i n t h i s c a p a c i t y b y P r e s b y t e r i a n
22a
n e v e r t h e l e s s c o n t i n u e d u n t i l J u l y o f 1973
when she v o l u n t a r i l y r e s i g n e d under c i r c u m
s t a n c e s d i s c u s s e d l a t e r in t h i s o p i n i o n .
Wi t hi n a month, a c c o r d i n g t o her l a t e r
t e s t i m o n y , M i l l e r u n s u c c e s s f u l l y a p p l i e d t o
M e r c y f o r e m p l o y m e n t i n s om e n u r s i n g
c a p a c i t y . Around a y e a r l a t e r , on August
14, 1974, M i l l e r again a p p l i e d f o r employ
ment at Mercy in r e s p o n s e t o newspaper ads
s o l i c i t i n g a p p l i c a t i o n s f o r LPNs and NAs.
M i l l e r ' s a p p l i c a t i o n was p r o c e s s e d in a
p e r s o n a l i n t e r v i e w w i t h a Ms. D i l l i e
W i n c h e s t e r whose r o u t i n e f u n c t i o n t h i s was.
A t y p i c a l w r i t t e n employment a p p l i c a t i o n
form was used t o r e c o r d M i l l e r ' s background
and q u a l i f i c a t i o n s . I t c o n t a i n e d no formal
e n t r y f o r i d e n t i f y i n g t h e a p p l i c a n t ' s
r a c e , n o r d i d M i l l e r ' s c o m p l e t e d f o r m
i n d i c a t e her r a c e by any s p e c i a l e n t r y or
by o t h e r m a n i f e s t i n d i c i a . In a box marked
" T y p e o f w o r k P r e f e r r e d , " M i l l e r was
23a
i n v i t e d t o i n d i c a t e h e r p r e f e r e n c e , and
in r e s p o n s e she h e r s e l f e n t e r e d "LPN." In
a n o t h e r b o x m a r k e d " C l a s s i f i c a t i o n , "
W i n c h e s t e r then e n t e r e d " N . A . " r e f l e c t i n g ,
a c c o r d i n g t o W i n c h e s t e r ' s l a t e r t e s t i m o n y ,
her judgment as a p p l i c a n t i n t e r v i e w e r t ha t
t h i s was the p o s i t i o n f o r which M i l l e r ' s
a p p l i c a t i o n d a t a r e v e a l e d her t o be q u a l i
f i e d . A c c o r d i n g t o M i l l e r ' s t e s t i m o n y , she
had i n d i c a t e d t o W i n c h e s t e r t h a t s h e ,
M i l l e r , would be i n t e r e s t e d in a n u r s e ' s
a i d e p o s i t i o n as an a l t e r n a t i v e t o h e r
r e c o r d e d p r e f e r e n c e f o r an LPN p o s i t i o n .
F o l l o w i n g n o r ma l p r o c e d u r e s , Win
c h e s t e r t h e n f o r w a r d e d t h e c o m p l e t e d
a p p l i c a t i o n f orm t o Ms. C a s m i r a M a r c i n -
i s z y n , t he D i r e c t o r o f Nursing at Mercy,
whose a u t h o r i t y i t then was t o make t h i s
t ype o f h i r i n g d e c i s i o n f o r Mercy. Again
i n k e e p i n g w i t h u s u a l p r o c e d u r e s , Win
c h e s t e r made a t e l e p h o n e d r e q u e s t o f
24a
P r e s b y t e r i a n f o r a r e f e r e n c e on M i l l e r .
The r e s u l t s o f t h i s r e f e r e n c e c a l l are a
m a t t e r o f c r i t i c a l import in t h i s l i t i g a
t i o n . The o n l y d i r e c t e v i d e n c e on t h e
p o i n t was p r o v i d e d by W i n c h e s t e r ' s t e s t i
mony. A c c o r d i n g t o t ha t t e s t i m o n y , Win
c h e s t e r e n t e r e d t he r e s u l t s o f her r e p o r t ,
i m m e d i a t e l y f o l l o w i n g i t s r e c e i p t , upon
a s t and ar d r e f e r e n c e form. The f orm, d at ed
A u g u s t 14 , 1 9 74 , was i n t r o d u c e d in e v i
d e n c e . As c o m p l e t e d by W i n c h e s t e r , t h e
f o r m b e g a n " L u l a W. ( s i c ) M i l l e r h a s
a p p l i e d t o us f o r a p o s i t i o n as ' NA............."
In a r a t i n g g r i d on t h e f o rm W i n c h e s t e r
i n d i c a t e d t h a t P r e s b y t e r i a n e v a l u a t e d
M i l l e r " v e r y g o o d " "as N . A . " but " U n s a t i s
f a c t o r y " "as PN." In a no t e s e c t i o n on the
r e f e r e n c e form, W i n c he st e r summarized her
c o n v e r s a t i o n wi th the P r e s b y t e r i a n r e f e r e e
as f o l l o w s : " c o u l d not f u n c t i o n as an LPN.
Was unhappy when the h o s p [ i t a l ] r e p o r t e d
25a
t h i s on her 502 [North C a r o l i n a Employment
S e c u r i t y C o m m i s s i o n S e p a r a t i o n N o t i c e ]
had l awyer c o n t a c t h o s p i t a l . " A c c o r d i n g t o
W i n c h e s t e r ' s l a t e r t e s t i m o n y , not d i r e c t l y
c o n t r a d i c t e d , her contemporaneous e n t r i e s
on the r e f e r e n c e form r e f l e c t e d in f u l l the
s u b s t a n c e o f the r e f e r e n c e : she was t o l d no
more about the r e a s o n s f o r M i l l e r ' s unhap
p i n e s s " wi t h P r e s b y t e r i a n than appeared on
the f orm, nor was she t o l d any more about
the nature o f the l a w y e r ' s " c o n t a c t " with
P r e s b y t e r i a n .
M a r c i n i s z y n r e c e i v e d M i l l e r ' s a p p l i c a
t i o n in o r d i n a r y c o u r s e . Wi thin a week,
under d a t e o f August 21 , 1974, M a r c i n i s z y n
made a " No t i n t e r e s t e d " e n t r y upon t h e
a p p l i c a t i o n and r e t u r n e d i t t o W i n c h e s t e r .
This e n t r y c o n s t i t u t e d M e r c y ' s d e c i s i o n not
t o h i r e M i l l e r based upon the August 14,
1974 a p p l i c a t i o n . The r e j e c t e d a p p l i c a t i o n
form was f i l e d by W i n c h e s t e r a lo ng with the
26a
reference form r e f le c t in g the Presbyterian
reference report .
At the time of her d e c i s i o n not to
h ir e M i l l e r , i t was im p o ss ib le fo r Kar-
ciniszyn to have determined M i l l e r ' s race
s o le ly from entries on the form. Whether
she then knew M i l l e r ' s race from any other
source is obviously a matter of c r i t i c a l
import . I t i s d isp u te d by the p a r t i e s .
Marciniszyn t e s t i f i e d in th is l i t i g a t i o n
that she did not then know M i l l e r ' s race.
This testimony is not contradicted by any
d irec t evidence. No s p e c i f ic finding of
fa c t on the point was made by the d i s t r i c t
c o u r t . We return to the point in l a t e r
discussion of th c o u rt 's f indings .
Neither is i t apparent from any direct
evidence of record whether Marciniszyn knew
of the reference from Presbyterian at the
time of her d e c i s i o n not to h i r e . Both
Marciniszyn and Winchester la te r t e s t i f i e d
27a
t h a t t h e y d i d n o t r e c a l l w h e t h e r i t was
e v e r b roug ht t o M a r c i n i s z y n ' s a t t e n t i o n .
No d i r e c t e v i d e n c e c o n t r a d i c t s t h i s t e s t i
mony, e i t h e r as t o the w i t n e s s e s ' s t a t e s o f
r e c a l l at t r i a l o r as t o t he f a c t i t s e l f .
I t i s o n l y c l e a r t ha t the r e f e r e n c e form
was at some p o i n t f i l e d by W i n c h e s t e r wi th
the r e j e c t e d a p p l i c a t i o n form r e t u r n t o her
by M a r c i n i s z y n .
M a r c i n i s z y n 1s re as on — hence M e r c y ' s
- - f o r r e j e c t i n g M i l l e r ' s a p p l i c a t i o n
w a s , a c c o r d i n g t o M a r c i n i s z y n ' s l a t e r
t e s t i m o n y , a s imp le one : she c o n s i d e r e d the
a p p l i c a t i o n t o be one f o r employment as a
LPN, M i l l e r ' s s t a t e d p r e f e r e n c e ; M i l l e r ' s
a p p l i c a t i o n r e v e a l e d her not q u a l i f i e d f o r
t h a t p o s i t i o n b e c a u s e n o t l i n c e n s e a ; - ^
W I t i s not d i s p u t e d t h a t though M e r c y ' s
p o l i c y a t t h e t i m e was t o a l l o w i t s own
e m p l o y e e s t o f u n c t i o n as de f a c t o LPNs
pending t he r e s u l t s o f l i c e n s i n g examina
t i o n , i t d i d not permit the new h i r i n g o f
u n l i c e n s e d p e r s o n s t o per f orm t h o s e f u n c -
28a
hence Marciniszyn, as hiring authority , was
"not interested " in interviewing M il ler as
an a p p l ic a n t fo r employment. No d i r e c t
evidence contradicts th is proffered reason.
Whether other evidence - - in d ir e c t , circum
s t a n t i a l - - s u f f i c i e n t l y disproved i t is
the d is p u te d , d i s p o s i t i v e i s s u e in the
c a s e .
M il ler learned of the decision not to
h ir e her sometime s h o r t ly a f t e r i t was
made. How she learned this and what she
was told are not agreed between the p a r t ie s .
M i l l e r ' s v e r s i o n , accepted by the t r i a l
court , was that she learned of her r e je c
tion by making telephoned inquiry of Win
chester , and that Winchester told her the
J/ continued
t i o n s . I t is therefore not disputed that
M i l l e r was n o t " q u a l i f i e d " f o r an LPN
posit ion under Mercy's general p o l ic e . Her
claim accordingly was treated and decided
s o le ly on the basis of Mercy's fa i lu r e to
her her as a NA.
29a
r e a s o n was th e n e g a t i v e r e f e r e n c e she
re ce iv e d from P r e s b y t e r i a n . W inchester
t e s t i f i e d that she dia not r e c a l l M i l l e r ' s
having made any inquiry of her and that in
any event she could not then have given
M iller any s p e c i f i c reason because i t was a
matter known only to Marciniszyn to which
Winchester was not then privy.
In November o f 1 9 74 , M i l l e r , r e p r e
se nt e d by p r i v a t e c o u n s e l , f i l e d an EEOC
cha r ge a l l e g i n g r a c i a l d i s c r i m i n a t i o n by
P r e s b y t e r i a n in i t s f o r w a r d i n g o f n e g a t i v e
r e f e r e n c e s t o Mercy and C h a r l o t t e Memorial
H o s p i t a l s a nd , a r g u a b l y , a l s o a l l e g i n g
d i s c r i m i n a t i o n by the l a t t e r two h o s p i t a l s
in a c t i n g upon the r e f e r e n c e s . The cha rg e
a g a i n s t P r e s b y t e r i a n a l l e g e d t h a t t h e
n e g a t i v e r e f e r e n c e s were g i v e n b e ca us e o f
M i l l e r ' s c o m p l a i n t t o P r e s b y t e r i a n o f
r a c i a l l y d i s c r i m i n a t o r y t rea tment by t h a t
h o s p i t a l . Mercy r e c e i v e d no n o t i c e o f t h i s
30a
cha r ge at the t ime o f i t s f i l i n g . In March
o f 1 96 5 t h e E EO C' s d i s t r i c t d i r e c t o r
n o t i f i e d M i l l e r t ha t he had d i s m i s s e d the
c h a rg e as i t might a pp l y t o Mercy, on the
s t a t e d b a s i s t h a t t h e c h a r g e n o w h e r e
a l l e g e d t h a t Mercy had any knowledge t ha t
any n e g a t i v e r e f e r e n c e i t r e c e i v e d f rom
P r e s b y t e r i a n was r a c i a l l y i n s p i r e d . Mercy
r e c e i v e d no n o t i c e at t h a t t i m e o f t h e
d i s m i s s a l o f t h i s c h a r g e . Perhaps s i g n i f i
c a n t l y f o r t h e f u r t h e r c o u r s e o f t h i s
l i t i g a t i o n , the d i s t r i c t d i r e c t o r , in an
o f f i c i a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n e x p l a i n i n g t o
M i l l e r ' s c o u n s e l t h e b a s i s f o r t h e d i s
m i s s a l , d i s t i n g u i s h e d a c a s e i n wh ich a
n e g a t i v e employment r e f e r e n c e had s p e c i f i
c a l l y i d e n t i f i e d a b l a c k c h a r g i n g p a r t y as
" a t r o u b l e m a k e r " who "was n o t a v e r s e t o
f r i v i l o u s l y ( s i c ) a l l e g i n g r a c i a l d i s c r i m i
n a t i o n . " The d i r e c t o r ' s l e t t e r c o n c l u d e d
w i t h t h e comment t h a t " [ w ] e p e r c e i v e no
31a
i m p e d i m e n t t o a m e n di n g " t h e c h a r g e s t o
a l l e g e k n o w l e d g e on t h e p a r t o f t h o s e
r e s p o n d e n t s (Mercy and C h a r l o t t e Memorial )
i f y our c l i e n t b e l i e v e s t h a t such knowledge
d i d e x i s t . " F o l l o w i n g a f ormal r e q u e s t by
M i l l e r ' s c o u n s e l f o r an o p i n i o n from the
EEOC on the s t a t u s o f the c h a r g e s a g a i n s t
Mercy and C h a r l o t t e Memorial , the d i s t r i c t
d i r e c t o r in A p r i l o f 1975 a d v i s e d M i l l e r ' s
c o u n s e l t h a t the c h a r g e s had been reopened
and t h a t " r e s p o n d e n t s " ( presumably Mercy
and C h a r l o t t e Memorial ) would be n o t i f i e d .
On February 6 , 1976, M i l l e r f i l e d wi t h the
EEOC an "amended c h a r g e " a l l e g i n g t h a t
Mercy had d i s c r i m i n a t e d a g a i n s t h e r by
f a i l i n g t o h i r e h e r in A u g u s t o f 1 9 7 4 .
Mercy r e c e i v e d f orma l n o t i c e o f t h i s cha rg e
on February 20 , 1976, some s i x t e e n months
a f t e r i t s August 1974 d e c i s i o n not t o h i r e
M i l l e r . So f a r as the r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s ,
t h i s was t h e f i r s t i n d i c a t i o n Mercy had
32a
t h a t i t was t h e s u b j e c t o f any r a c i a l
2/d i s c r i m i n a t i o n c h ar ge s by M i l l e r .
On November 26, 1976, w h i l e her EEQC
c h ar g e a g a i n s t Mercy was p e n d i n g , M i l l e r
r e t u r n e d t o Mercy t o app ly f o r employment.
A g a i n s h e saw and was i n t e r v i e w e d by
W i n c h e s t e r , and a g a i n , e x c e p t f o r agreement
on the d a t e o f t h i s second i n t e r v i e w , the
e v i d e n c e o f what t r a n s p i r e d i s in c o n f l i c t .
M i l l e r ' s v e r s i o n i s t h a t she ag ai n a p p l i e d
f o r e mpl oy me nt as a NA and t h a t i n t h i s
c o n n e c t i o n she showed W i n c he st e r an EEOC
2 / Though Mer c y r a i s e s i s s u e s on t h i s
a ppea l r e s p e c t i n g the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e s t a g e s
o f M i l l e r ' s p r o c e e d i n g , we d e c i d e t he c as e
on o t h e r g ro u n d s . Our extended r e c i t a t i o n
o f t he c o u r s e o f the p r o t r a c t e d a d m i n i s t r a
t i v e p r o c e s s i s i n c l u d e d o n l y because o f
i t s b e a r i n g u p o n c r i t i c a l c r e d i b i l i t y
a s s e s s m e n t made b y t h e d i s t i r c t c o u r t
p a r t i c u l a r l y as i t s c o n f u s i o n and d u r a t i o n
may s u g g e s t t h e b a s i s f o r c o n f u s i o n and
f a i l u r e s t o r e c a l l by w i t n e s s e s on b o t h
s i d e t e s t i f y i n g much l a t e r t o the c r i t i c a l
e v e n t s in i s s u e .
33a
p r o b a b l e cause d e t e r m i n a t i o n l e t t e r f i n d i n g
that P r e s b y t e r i a n had i nd e e o made a f a l s e
e n t r y , f o r r a c i a l l y d i s c r i m i n a t o r y r e a s o n s ,
on M i l l e r ' s s t a t e E m p l o y m e n t S e c u r i t y
Commission s e p a r a t i o n form. By M i l l e r ' s
l a t e r t e s t i m o n i a l a c c o u n t , s h e had t h e n
p o i n t e d o ut t o W i n c he st e r t ha t t h i s e f f e c
t i v e l y removed any b a s i s f o r P r e s b y t e r i a n ' s
n e g a t i v e r e f e r e n c e and e s t a b l i s h e d M i l l e r ' s
q u a l i f i c a t i o n f o r employment. Ne v er t he
l e s s , she was again not h i r e d . Winches
t e r ' s v e r s i o n o f t h e November 2 6 , 1 9 76 ,
i n t e r v i e w , based upon a c on t e m p o r a n e o u s l y
prepared memorandum t h a t was i n t r o d u c e d in
e v i d e n c e , was at f l a t odds wi th the e s s e n c e
o f M i l l e r ' s . A c c o r d i n g t o W i n c h e s t e r ,
M i l l e r f l a t l y r e f u s e d t o a p p l y f o r a
p o s i t i o n as NA — on the b a s i s t ha t she was
q u a l i f i e d f o r a b e t t e r p o s i t i o n - - ana
submit ted no a p p l i c a t i o n . W i n c h e s t e r a l s o
t e s t i f i e d t h a t she had no r e c o l l e c t i o n o f
34a
M i l l e r ' s having shown her o r spoken t o her
o f an EEOC d e t e r m i n a t i o n l e t t e r r e s p e c t i n g
M i l l e r ' s cha rg e a g a i n s t P r e s b y t e r i a n . The
d i s t r i c t j u d g e a c c e p t e d M i l l e r ' s v e r i s i o n
i n a s p e c i f i c f a c t f i n d i n g t o w h i ch we
r e t u r n in l a t e r d i s c u s s i o n .
F o l l o w i n g e x h a u s t i o n o f t h e EEOC
a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p r o c e d u r e s i n v o l v i n g h e r
cha r ge a g a i n s t Mercy, M i l l e r commenced t h i s
a c t i o n on February 22, 1979 . When com
menced, the a c t i o n i n c l u d e d both M i l l e r ' s
i n d i v i d u a l c l a i m o f r a c i a l d i s c r i m i n a t i o n
b y M e r c y i n f a i l u r e t o h i r e h e r when
she a p p l i e d on August 14, 1974, and a c l a s s
a c t i o n c l a i m in b e h a l f o f a p u t a t i v e c l a s s
o f b l a c k a p p l i c a n t s f o r nu rs in g p o s i t i o n s
s i m i l a r l y d en i ed employment by Mercy from
and a f t e r May 14, 1974. The c l a s s p r opos ed
was at f i r s t " c o n d i t i o n a l l y c e r t i f i e d " by
t he d i s t r i c t c o u r t , but the c l a s s c l a i m was
l a t e r d i s m i s s e d b e f o r e t r i a l when M i l l e r
35a
f a i l e d as c l a s s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e t o demon
s t r a t e t he e x i s t e n c e o f a c l a s s . F o l l o w i n g
a p e r i o d o f d i s c o v e r y , M i l l e r ' s i n d i v i d u a l
c l a i m was t r i e d t o the d i s t r i c t c o u r t in a
one - da y bench t r i a l on January 4, 1982. In
a d d i t i o n t o a number o f d o c u m e n t a r y e x
h i b i t s the e v i d e n c e c o n s i s t e d s o l e l y o f the
l i v e t e s t i m o n y o f M i l l e r , Wi n c h e s t e r and
M e r c i n i s z y n .
On January 7 , 1982, the d i s t r i c t c o u r t
e n t e r e d a b r i e f w r i t t e n memorandum o f
d e c i s i o n which announced i t s r u l i n g t h a t
Mercy had r a c i a l l y d i s c r i m i n a t e d a g a i n s t
M i l l e r as a l l e g e d and t h a t a p p r o p r i a t e
r e l i e f should be g r a n t e d . In the memoran
dum, p l a i n t i f f was r e q u e s t e d t o p r e p a r e
a p p r o p r i a t e f i n d i n g s o f f a c t and c o n c l u
s i o n s o f law ano a pro po se d judgment . The
g i s t o f c e r t a i n f i n d i n g s t o be i n c l u d e d was
s e t out in the o r d e r . The o r d e r c on c l u d e d
w i t h a d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t " M i l l e r was
36a -
d e n i e d employment b e ca use o f her r a c e , and
s p e c i f i c a l l y b e ca u s e she made c o m p l a i n t s o f
r a c i a l d i s c r i m i n a t i o n when she was working
at P r e s b y t e r i a n H o s p i t a l . "
Counsel f o r M i l l e r s ubmit ted p r o po s e d
f i n d i n g s , c o n c l u s i o n s and judgment . So f a r
as the r e c o r d r e v e a l s , c o u n s e l f o r Mercy
was not i n v i t e d t o comment upon nor o b j e c t
t o t h e p r o p o s a l s e i t h e r b e f o r e o r a f t e r
t h e i r s ub mi ss i on t o t he c o u r t nor t o submit
i t s own p r o p o s a l s , and d i d none o f t h e s e .
The p ro po s ed f i n d i n g s o f f a c t i n c l u d e d the
s u b s t a n c e o f t he se s ug g e s t e d by the c o u r t
and o t h e r s o r i g i n a t e d b y p l a i n t i f f ' s
c o u n s e l . S u b j e c t t o a few n o n - s u b s t a n t i v e
e d i t o r i a l and grammatical r e v i s i o n s and the
i n c l u s i o n o f two a d d d i t i o n a l f i n d i n g s o f
f a c t , o n e r e l a t e d t o M e r c y ' s p r o f f e r e d
e x p l a n a t i o n o f i t s f a i l u r e t o h i r e M i l l e r
and the o t h e r t o M i l l e r ' s q u a l i f i c a t i o n s
f o r t he p o s i t i o n s s o u g h t , t he c o u r t adopted
37a
the f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s as d r a f t e d by
p l a i n t i f f ' s c o u n s e l and e n t e r e d judgment
upon them f o r M i l l e r . The judgment awarded
M i l l e r $ 2 7 , 1 7 4 . 4 0 in back pay; p r e - j u d g m e n t
i n t e r e s t o f $ 9 , 5 0 0 0 . 0 0 and c o s t s . T h i s
appeal f o l l o w e d .
I I
Mercy has r a i s e d a number o f i s s u e s on
t h i s a p p e a l , - ^ b u t b e c a u s e we f i n d r e
v e r s i b l e e r r o r i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s
d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f l i a b i l i t y v e l n o n , we
a i s c u s s o n l y t ha t c o m p l e t e l y d i s p o s i t i v e
i s s u e .
As t r i e d t o the d i s t r i c t c o u r t f o l l o w
ing d i s m i s s a l o f t h e c l a s s c l a i m , t h i s
a c t i o n had been reduced t o a c l a s s i c T i t l e
VII i n d i v i G u a l c la im o f d i s p a r a t e t re atme nt
3 / 1) F a i l u r e t o f i l e a t i m e l y EEOC
c h a r g e ; 2) c l e a r l y e r r o n e o u s f a c t u a l
f i n d i n g o f d i s c r i m i n a t i o n ; 3) e r r o r in
a w r d i n g b a c k p a y ; 4) e x c e s s i v e awara o f
a t t o r n e y f e e s .
38a
in an i s o l a t e d employment d e c i s i o n . As in
such c a s e s g e n e r a l l y , the d i s p o s i t i v e i s s u e
as o r i g i n a l l y j o i n e d was the narrow m o t i v a
t i o n a l o n e o f w h e t h e r t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s
f a i l u r e t o h i r e p l a i n t i f f on an i d e n t i f i e d ,
s i n g l e o c c a s i o n was, in whole or p a r t , on
a c c o u n t o f - h e r r a c e . 42 U . S . C § 2 0 0 0 e -
2 ( a ) . As the d i s t r i c t c o u r t c o r r e c t l y saw,
t h e c o u r s e o f p r o o f a t t r i a l f u r t h e r
n a r r o w e d t h e u l t i m a t e i s s u e o f w h e t h e r
r a c i a l l y d i s c r i m i n a t o r y a n i m u s o r t h e
p r o f e r r e d n o n d i s c r i m i n a t o r y r e a s o n o f
p l a i n t f f ' s l a c k o f q u a l i f i c a t i o n f o r the
p o s i t i o n p e r c e i v e d t o be the one sought was
the a c t u a l reason f o r the f a i l u r e t o h i r e .
Uni ted S t a t e s P o s t a l S e r v i c e v . A i k e n s , ____
U. S . ____ , ____ , 103 S . C t . 1 4 7 8 , 1 4 82 , 75
L . E a . 2 d 408 ( 1 9 8 3 ) ; T e x a s D e p a r t m e n t o f
Community A f f a i r s v . B u r d i n e , 450 U.S. 248,
256, 101 S . C t . 1089, 1095, 67 L.Ed.2d 207
( 1 9 8 1 ) . This u l t i m a t e m o t i v a t i o n a l i s s u e
39a
was o n e o f f a c t . P u l l m a n - S t a n d a r d v .
S w i n t , 456 U . S . 2 7 3 , 2 8 5 - 9 0 , 102 S . C t .
1 7 8 1 , 1 7 88 - 9 1 ( 1 9 8 2 ) . Upon t h a t n a r r o w
f a c t u a l i s s u e , M i l l e r as p l a i n t i f f b o re the
burden o f p e r s u a s i o n - - now merged wi t h her
c o n t i n u i n g o r i g i n a l burden t o pe rsua de the
t r i e r o f f a c t t h a t on the o c c a s i o n in i s s u e
she had b e en t h e v i c t i m o f i n t e n t i o n a l
d i s c r i m i n a t i o n . B u r d i n e , 450 U.S. at 256,
101 S . C t . a t 1 0 9 5 . U n d e r c o n t r o l l i n g
a u t h o r i t y , t h i s burden might be c a r r i e d by
p r o o f by a p r e p on d er an c e o f the e v i d e n c e
t h a t the " d i s c r i m i n a t o r y r e as on more l i k e l y
m o t i v a t e d " Mercy, o r t h a t M e r c y ' s " p r o f
f e r e d e x p l a n a t i o n [was] unworthy o f c r e
d e n c e , " b e i n g i n s t e a d a p r e t e x t . Î d .
The d i s t r i c t c o u r t p l a i n l y saw t h i s as
the c r i t i c a l , d i s p o s i t i v e i s s u e o f f a c t in
4 /
t h e c a s e - and d e c i d e d i t in c l a i m a n t ' s
4 / i t was o b v i o u s l y t o s h a r p e n and t o
f o c u s upon t h i s as the u l t i m a t e l y d i s p o s i -
40a
f a v o r in i t s f a c t u a l f i n d i n g on the u l t i m
a te l i a b i l i t y i s s u e .
11. The D e f e n d a n t " a r t i c u l a t e d " a
r e a s o n f o r n o t e m p l o y i n g h e r ( t h a t
t h e y t h o u g h t P l a i n i t f f a p p l i e d f o r
o n l y an LPN [ l i c e n s e d p r a c t i c a l nurse]
j o b ) ; b u t t h e r e a s o n was p r e t e x t a l .
The p l a i n t i f f was d e n i e d e m pl oy m en t
b e c u s e o f her r a c e , and b e ca u s e o f her
" r a c i a l p r o b l e m s a t P r e s b y t e r i a n
H o s p i t a l . She was u n j u s t l y t r e a t e d as
a b l a c k " t r o u b l e m a k e r . "
I l l
This u l t i m a t e m o t i v a t i o n a l f i n d i n g i s
c h a l l e n g e d on a p p e a l . We r e v i e w i t , a long
4 / c o n t i n u e d
t i v e i s s u e t h a t t h e c o u r t added t o t he
f i n d i n g s p r opos ed by p l a i n t i f f ' s c ou n s e l
the s p e c i f i c one quoted in t e x t as Finding
No. 11. W h e t h e r , as t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t
f o u n d , p l a i n i t f f had i n i t i a l y made out a
prima f a c i e c as e i s not b e f o r e us , g i v e n
the c o u r s e o f t r i a l . See A i k e n s , ____ U.S.
___ , 103 S . C t . a t 1 4 80 . We t h i n k i t an
e x c e e d i n g l y c l o s e q u e s t i o n .
41a
with any s u b s i d i a r y f i n d i n g s o f f a c t upon
w h i c h i t i s b a s e d , u n d e r t h e c l e a r l y
e r r o n e o u s s t a n d a r d o f F e d . R. C i v . P.
5 2 ( a ) . S w i nt , 456 U.S. at 290, 102 S . C t .
at 1791. For r e a s o n s t h a t f o l l o w , we pause
b r i e f l y t o c o n s i d e r the s p e c i a l a p p l i c a t i o n
o f t h a t s tandard t o m o t i v a t i o n a l i s s u e s in
T i t l e VII l i t i g a t i o n .
In t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t ' s o f t - c i t e d
e 1 a b o r a t i o n o f t h e " c l e a r l y e r r o n e o u s "
s tandard , we have been i n s t r u c t e d t h a t " [ a ]
f i n d i n g i s ' c l e a r l y e r r o n e o u s ' when a l -
though t h e r e i s e v i d c e n c e t o s up p o r t i t ,
the r e v i e w i n g c o u r t on the e n t i r e e v i d e n c e
i s l e f t wi t h the d e f i n i t e and f i rm c o n v i c
t i o n t h a t a m i s t a k e has b e e n c o m m i t t e . "
U n i t e d S t a t e s v . Uni ted S t a t e s Gypsum C o . ,
338 U.S. 364 , 396, 68 S . C t . 525, 541 , 92
L . E d . 746 ( 1 9 4 8 ) . E f f o r t s a t f u r t h e r
r e f i n e m e n t o f t h i s judgmental s tandard are
not l i k e l y t o g i v e i t much g r e a t e r p r e c i
42a
s i o n than d oe s the Gypsum C o . f o r m u l a t i o n .
N e v e r t h e l e s s , b e ca us e in t h i s c a s e we are
" l e f t wi th a d e f i n i t e and f i rm c o n v i c t i o n
t h a t a mis t ake has been commit ted" and b e
cause o f the p a r t i c u l a r s e n s i t i v i t y o f the
s t a n d a r d ' s a p p l i c a t i o n t o u l t i m a t e m o t i v a
t i o n a l i s s u e s i n T i t l e V I I l i t i g a t i o n ,
s e e , e . g . , S w i n t , 456 U.S. at 2 7 5 - 7 7 , 102
S . C t . at 1 783 -8 4 , we e l a b o r a t e b r i e f l y upon
our un der s ta nd i ng o f the ways in which an
a p p e l l a t e c o u r t may p r o p e r l y be " c o n v i n c e d "
t h a t a " mi s t a k e " in f a c t - f i n d i n g has been
made.
We s t a r t w i t h t h e p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t
such a c o n v i c t i o n raay not be based s imply
upon a p e r c e p t i o n d e r i v e d f rom de no v o
r e v i e w o f t h e r e c o r d t h a t t h e " a c t u a l "
f a c t s are o t h e r than t h o s e f o u nd , s e e , i d .
a t 2 9 0 - 9 8 , 102 S . C t . a t 1 7 9 1 - 9 2 ; Z e n i t h
R a d i o C o r p . v . H a z e l t i n e R e s e a r c h , I n c . ,
395 U.S. 100, 123, 89 S . C t . 1562, 1576, 28
43a
L.Ed. 2d
o b v e r s e
mis t ake
by the
f a c t s
" f o u n d "
such a
129 ( 1 9 6 9 ) . C l o s e l y r e l a t e d i s the
p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t the c o n v i c t i o n o f
neea not r e s t upon any p e r c e p t i o n
r e v i e w i n g c o u r t t h a t the " a c t u a l "
a r e i n d e e d d i f f e r e n t f r o m t h o s e
( though i t may o b v i o u s l y i n c l u d e
5 /subjective perception) . Thus, the
5 / Though i n t e c h n i c a l c o n t e m p l a t i o n
c l e a r l y e r r o n e o u s r e v i e w may r i g h t l y
p r o c e e d wi t h a c o m p l e t e l y n e u t r a l a t t i t u d e
toward what the " a c t u a l " f a c t s may be i t i s
o f c o u r s e i n e v i t a b l e t h a t a r e v i e w i n g
c o u r t ' s c o n v i c t i o n o f mi s t a ke may somet imes
i n c l u d e a c o n v i c t i o n t h a t the a c t u a l f a c t s
are o t h e r than t h os e " f o u n d " . S e e , e . g . ,
Sanders v . L e e c h , 158 F.2d 486, 487 ( 5th
C i r . 1946) ( " t e s t i m o n y c o n s i d e r e d as a
w h o l e c o n v i n c e s t h a t t h e f i n d i n g i s s o
a g a i n s t t h e g r e a t p r e p o n d e r a n c e o f t h e
c r e d i b l e t e s t i m o n y t h a t i t does not r e f l e c t
o r r e p r e s e n t the t r u t h and the r i g h t o f the
c a s e " ) (emphasis a d d ed ) . Though o c c a s i o n
a l l y t h e y must e x i s t , s u c h c o n v i c t i o n s
about the " t r u t h " o r " r i g h t " o f a c a s e are
m e r e l y i n c i d e n t a l t o , no t n e c e s s a r y p r e d i
c a t e s f o r , a r e v i e w i n g c o u r t ' s c o n c l u s i o n
t h a t a f i n d i n g i s c l e a r l y e r r o n e o u s . I t i s
e n o u g h t h a t t h e f i n d i n g i s " a g a i n s t t h e
g r e a t p re po n de ra n ce o f the e v i d e n c e " in the
r e c o r d p r e s e n t e d f o r r e v i e w . A r e v i e w i n g
c o u r t ' s a b i l i t y t o d i s c e r n the " t r u t h " and
" r i g h t " o f a c a s e p r e s u p p o s e s t h a t t h e
44a
c o n v i c t i o n o f m i s t a k e may p r o p e r l y be
b a s e d u p o n a c o n c l u s i o n t h a t , w i t h o u t
r e g a r d t o what the " a c t u a l " f a c t s may b e ,
t he f i n d i n g s under r e v i e w were induced by
an e r r o n e o u s v iew o f the c o n t r o l l i n g l e g a l
s t a n d a r d , s e e , . , U n i t e d S t a t e s v .
S i n g e r Ma nufac t ur ing C o . , 374 U.S . 174, 194
n . 9 , 83 S . C t . 1773, 1784 n . 9 , 10 L.Ed.2d
823 ( 1 9 6 3 ) ; Ma cMu l l en v . S o u t h C a r o l i n a
E l e c t r i c & Gas Co . , 312 F.2d 662, 670 (4th
C i r . 1 9 6 3 ) ; o r a r e n o t s u p p o r t e d by t h e
s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e , Hodgson v . Fairmont
S u p p l y C o . , 454 F . 2 d 4 9 0 , 495 ( 4 t h C i r .
1 97 2) ; o r were made w i t h o u t p r o p e r l y taking
i n t o a c co u n t s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e t o the
c o n t r a r y o r are a g a i n s t the c l e a r we i gh t o f
the e v i d e n c e c o n s i d e r e d as a w h o l e , Jones
5 / c o n t i n u e d
r e c o r d i s a l s o " t r u e " and " r i g h t " (and
c o m p l e t e ) and t h i s o f c o u r s e i s beyond the
c o u r t ' s a b i l i t y and need.
45a
v . P i t t County Board o f E d u c a t i o n , 528 F.2d
414, 418 ( 4 th C i r . 1975) ; Sanders v . L e e c h ,
158 F.2d 486, 487 ( 5th C i r . 1 9 46 ) . In sum,
t h e s e e s t a b l i s h t h a t " c l e a r l y e r r o n e o u s "
r e v i e w i s p r o p e r l y f o c u s e d upon f a c t - f i n d
i n g p r o c e s s e s r a t h e r t h a n d i r e c t l y upon
f a c t - f i n d i n g r e s u l t s . The a p p e l l a t e
f u n c t i o n i s t o i n s u r e t h a t t h e p r o c e s s
s h a l l have been p r i n c i p l e d ; the f u n c t i o n i s
not a u t h o r i t a t i v e l y t o f i n d the " f a c t s " in
the f i r s t i n s t a n c e ,—7 o r t o a f f i r m o r deny
t h a t the f a c t s " f o u n d " by the t r i a l c o u r t
are the " a c t u a l " f a c t s o f the c a s e .
On t h i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g , we a r e c o n
v i n c e d t h a t s e v e r a l m i s t a k e s in i t s f a c t
f i n d i n g p r o c e s s rend er the d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s
6 / Except perhaps in reviewing "c o n s t i tu
t i o n a l " f a c t - f i n d in g , in taking ju d ic ia l
n o t ic e and, very o c c a s i o n a l l y and cau
t i o u s l y , when " f a c t s " not found are mani
f e s t on the record.
46a
c r i t i c a l findings of fa c t c le a r ly errone
ous. Primarily, we are convinced that the
c o u r t ' s f in d in g on the u l t im a t e m otiva
t ion a l issue as r e f le c t in g in finding No.
1 1 , i s not s u p p o r t e d by the r e q u i s i t e
7 /
preponderance of e v id e n c e . This i s so
whether in conceptual terms the c o u r t ' s
finding was that as between the two prof
f e r e d r e a s o n s the d i s c r i m i n a t o r y one
7 / Th i s put s somewhat o b v e r s e l y the more
common way o f s t a t i n g t h i s p a r t i c u l a r
b a s i s f o r h o l d i n g t h a t a f i n d i n g i s c l e a r l y
e r r o n e o u s : t h a t t he f i n d i n g i s a g a i n s t the
c l e a r w e i gh t o f the e v i d e n c e . S e e , e . g . ,
J a c k s o n v . H a r t f o r d A c c i d e n t & I n d e m n i t y
C o . , 4 22 F . 2 d 1 2 7 2 , 1 2 7 5 - 7 8 ( 8 t h C i r .
1 9 7 0 ) ( L a y , J . , c o n c u r r i n g ) . Wh e r e , as
h e r e , the f i n d i n g was in f a v o r o f a p a r t y
ha ving t h e burden o f p e r s u a s i o n upon the
i s s u e , we b e l i e v e t h e s t a t e m e n t in t e x t
m o r e a c c u r a t e l y i d e n t i f i e s — and i n
a p p r o p r i a t e l y minimal terms — the p r e c i s e
m i s t a ke in the f a c t - f i n d i n g p r o c e s s t h a t i s
i n v o l v e d . To f i n d mi st ake in t h i s r e s p e c t
c o n t e m p l a t e s t h a t t h e r e may h a v e b e e n
s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e - - i f c r e d i b l e — t o
s u p p o r t t h e f i n d i n g . Whe t he r t h e r e was
s u c h e v i d e n c e i n t h i s c a s e i s a c l o s e
q u e s t i o n t h a t we need not a d d re ss in view
o f o u r h o l d i n g s t a t e d in t e x t . See i d .
47a
was the "more l i k e l y , " o r t h a t t he d e f e n
d a n t ' s p r o f f e r e d re as on was "unworthy o f
c r e d e n c e , " i . e . , " p r e t e x t u a l , " o r — as i s
p r o b a b l e — b o t h . See B u r d i n e , 450 U.S. at
256, 101 S . C t . at 1095. Our r e a s o n s are as
f o l l o w s .
I t i s important at the o u t s e t o f our
r e v i e w t o i d e n t i f y t he two o p po s i n g r e a s o n s
f o r t he c h a l l e n g e d employment d e c i s i o n t ha t
were f i n a l l y l a i d b e f o r e the d i s t r i c t c o u r t ,
hence the re as on i t a c c e p t e d and t he one i t
r e j e c t e d i n t h e e n d . The d e f e n d a n t ' s
p r o f f e r e d r e a s o n was i d e n t i f i e d by t h e
c o u r t as b e ing M a r c i n i s z y n ' s un de rs t an d in g
t h a t M i l l e r was i n t e r e s t e d o n l y in an LPNi
p o s i t i o n and her p e r c e p t i o n t h a t f o r t h i s
p o s i t i o n M i l l e r was n o t q u a l i f i e d . For
p u rp o s e s o f t h i s appeal we can a c c e p t t h i s
as an a c c u r a t e a n a l y s i s o f the n o n d i s c r i m i
48a
n a t o r y r e a so n advanced by the d e f e n d a n t .
More c r i t i c a l i s t he c o u r t ' s i d e n t i f i
c a t i o n o f t h e s p e c i f i c d i s c r i m i n a t o r y
r e a s o n t h a t i t found e s t a b l i s h e d in c on
j u n c t i o n wi th i t s r e j e c t i o n o f the d e f e n
d a n t ' s p r o f f e r e d r e a s o n . The d i s c r i m i n a
t o r y r e a so n was i d e n t i f i e d in the c o u r t ' s
c r i t i c a l f i n d i n g No. 11: " P l a i n t i f f was
d e n i e d employment b e ca us e o f her r a c e , and
b e c a u s e o f her ' r a c i a l ' p rob lems at P r e s b y
t e r i a n H o s p i t a l . She was u n j u s t l y t r e a t e d
as a b l a c k ' t r o u b l e m a k e r . ' "
8/
8 / The d i s t r i c t c o u r t e x p r e s s l y f o un d
t h a t M i l l e r was " q u a l i f i e d and e x p e r i e n c e d "
f o r b ot h the LPN and NA p o s i t i o n s , and had
a p p l i e d f o r b o t h . T h i s i s no q u e s t i o n ,
h o w e v e r , t h a t M i l l e r was n o t q u a l i f i e d ,
under M e r c y ' s g e n e r a l p o l i c y , t o be h i r e d
as a LPN. This i s borne out by the c o u r t ' s
d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t M e r c y ' s v i o l a t i o n was
i t s r e f u s a l t o h i r e M i l l e r f o r the l o w e r -
paying NA p o s i t i o n . M a r c i n i s z y n ' s p r o f
f e r e d r e a s o n f o r f a i l i n g t o h i r e w a s ,
t h e r e f o r e , a v a l i d one i f , as i s d i s p u t e d ,
s h e p e r c e i v e d t h e a p p l i c a t i o n t o be one
o n l y f o r a LPN p o s i t i o n .
49a
Though t h e " f o u n d " r e a s o n i s s t a t e d
c o n j u n c t i v e l y , f i r s t in g e n e r a l terms o f
" r a c e " and t h e n i n s p e c i f i c t e r m s o f
" r a c i a l t r o u b l e s at P r e s b y t e r i a n H o s p i t a l , "
t he r e c o r d i s c o m p e l l i n g t h a t the r e a so n
a c t u a l l y found was the more s p e c i f i c one
- - t h a t M i l l e r was p e r c e i v e d by M a r c i n -
i s z y n , the d e c i s i o n - m a k e r , t o be a " b l a c k
t r o u b l e m a k e r . " N e i t h e r the r a c e - a l o n e nor
the " r a c e - p l u s " rea so n c o u l d p r o p e r l y be
f o u n d o n t h e r e c o r d i n t h e c a s e . The
r e c o r d c l e a r l y r e v e a l s why t h e d i s t r i c t
c o u r t sought t o r e s t d e c i s i o n on the more
narrow ground i d e n t i f i e d in i t s c o n c l u d i n g
" b l a c k t r ou b l e m a k e r " e l a b o r a t i o n .
M o s t c r i t i c a l l y , t h e e v i d e n c e o f
r e c o r d f l a t l y negated any f i n d i n g t ha t ra c e
a l o n e was t h e r e a s o n f o r t h e f a i l u r e t o
h i r e M i l l e r as a nu rse s a i d e . In s t a t i s t i
c a l e v i d e n c e i n t e n d e d t o show a g e n e r a l
c l i m a t e o f r a c i a l d i s c r i m i n a t i o n in M e r c y ' s
50a
employment p r a c t i c e s , p l a i n t i f f s uc c e e d e d
in showing t h a t b l a c k s were f r e e l y employed
by Merc y as n u r s e s a i d e s d u r i n g M a r c i n -
i s z y n ' s t e n u r e , and p a r t i c u l a r l y around the
t ime in i s s u e . In 1974, a l mo st s i x t y p e r
c e n t o f t h e n u r s e s a i d e s a t Merc y were
b l a c k . Other b l a c k s were f r e e l y h i r e d as
NAs a r oun d t h e c r i t i c a l d a t e . P e r h a p s
i r o n i c a l l y , but n e v e r t h e l e s s i m p o r t a n t l y ,
t h i s e v i d e n c e — a v o w e d l y o f f e r e d by
M i l l e r ' s c o u n s e l t o d e mo n st r at e t h a t Mercy
e m p l o y e d b l a c k s m a i n l y in l o w e r - p a y i n g
p o s i t i o n s — e f f e c t i v e l y u n d e r c u t s any
c l a i m by M i l l e r t h a t she was d e n i e d employ
m e n t i n s u c h a p o s i t i o n on a c c o u n t o f
her r a c e a l o n e .
Obviously aware of th is development at
the conclusion of the evidence, p l a i n t f f ' s
c o u n s e l then d e l i b e r a t e l y s t a k e d out
M i l l e r ' s narrow claim for the f i r s t time in
these terms: "Judge, I'm now ready to t e l l
51a
you my t h e o r y o f the c as e which I h a d n ' t
t o l d you b e f o r e . My t h e o r y o f the c a s e i s
t h a t Merc y H o s p i t a l r e f u s e d t o h i r e Ms.
M i l l e r b e c a u s e she was a b l a c k t r o u b l e
m ake r . " The c o u r t ' s ensuing f i n d i n g s o f
f a c t , c u l m i n a t i n g in u l t i m a t e F i nd ing No.
1 1 , make i t p l a i n t h a t t h i s was t h e
s p e c i f i c f a c t u a l t h e o r y o f d i s c r i m i n a t o r y
m o t i v e a c c e p t e d by the c o u r t .
I n s u m m a r y , t h e c o u r t ' s c r i t i c a l
f i n d i n g s ( e x p r e s s and i m p l i c i t ) o f i n t e n
t i o n a l d i s c r i m i n a t i o n r a n as f o l l o w s :
M i l l e r ' s August 14, 1974, a p p l i c a t i o n f o r
e m pl o y m e n t was f o r e i t h e r an LPN o r NA
p o s t i i o n ; t h i s was known both t o Wi n c h e s t e r
ana t o M a r c i n i s z y n ; M a r c i n i s z y n a l s o knew
when she r e j e c t e d M i l l e r ' s a p p l i c a t i o n t ha t
M i l l e r was a b l a c k who had e x p e r i e n c e d
" r a c i a l t r o u b l e s " in her p r i o r employment;
t h i s l e d M a r c i n i s z y n t o c o n c l u d e t h a t
M i l l e r was a " b l a c k t r o ub l em ak er " and on
5 2 a
t h a t s p e c i f i c b a s i s t o deny her employment;
t h i s a c t u a l r e a s o n was then d e l i b e r a t e l y
c o n c e a l e d f r o m M i l l e r b y W i n c h e s t e r ' s
m i s l e a d i n g r e s p o n s e t h a t the r e j e c t i o n was
b e ca u s e o f a n e g a t i v e r e f e r e n c e o f u n d i s
c l o s e d na t ur e from her f ormer e mp l o y e r ; the
a c t u a l r e a s o n was f u r t h e r d e l i b e r a t e l y
m i s r e p r e s e n t e d by M a r c i n i s z y n t h a t i t was
b e ca u s e o f her p e r c e p t i o n t h a t t he a p p l i c a
t i o n was o n l y f o r a LPN p o s i t i o n f o r which
M i l l e r was not q u a l i f i e d ; M e r c y ' s p r o f f e r e d
r e a s o n , t hrough M a r c i n i s z y n , was t h e r e f o r e
" p r e t e x t u a l " i n l e g a l c o n t e m p l a t i o n .
The d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s u l t i m a t e mo
t i v a t i o n a l f i n d i n g must t h e r e f o r e be as
s e s s e d on the b a s i s o f the " b l a c k t r o u b l e
maker" t h e o r y . So a s s e s s e d , i t i s c l e a r l y
e r r o n e o u s ana cannot s t a n d . To f i n d that
M er c y r e f u s e d t o h i r e M i l l e r n o t s i m p l y
b e c a u s e she was b l a c k but b e ca use she was
p e r c e i v e d t o be a " b l a c k t r o u b l e m a k e r
53a
r e q u i r e d l e a p s o f i n f e r e n c e t h a t c o u l d
n o t be made u n d e r t h e l e g a l c o n s t r a i n t s
imposed by a p p l i c a b l e p r o o f burdens and the
r e q u i r e m e n t s o f d e mo n st r ab le r a t i o n a l i t y in
9 /the f a c t - f i n d i n g p r o c e s s . —
Tne s p e c i f i c m o t i v a t i o n i n i s s u e i s
i n d i s p u t a b l y t ha t o f M a r c i n i s z y n , a c t i n g
w i t h M e r c y ' s a u t h o r i t y u p o n M i l l e r ' s
a p p l i c a t i o n o f August 14, 1974. I t i s t o
9 / We a c c e p t , f o r p u r p o s e s o f t h i s
a p p e a l , t h e t h e o r e t i c a l p o s s i b i l i t y
o f p r o v i n g i n t e n t i o n a l r a c i a l d i s c r i m i n a
t i o n on t h i s narrow " r a c e - p l u s " b a s i s under
c i r c u m s t a n c e s c o n c l u s i v e l y shown t o be
f r e e o f any g e n e r a l r a c i a l b i a s in making
comparab le employment d e c i s i o n s . But we
c o n f e s s g ra v e m i s g i v i n g s about the a b i l i t y
o f c o u r t s f a i r l y and r a t i o n a l l y t o a s s e s s
t he e x i s t e n c e o f such an amorphous s p e c i a l
t ype o f r a c i a l b i a s imbedded in a g e n e r a l l y
n o n d i s c r i m i n a t o r y p a t t e r n o f em pl oy me nt
d e c i s i o n s . "Troublemaking" in t he employ
ment c o n t e x t i s o f c o u r s e a m a n y - f a c e t e d ,
p e r f e c t l y j u s t i f i a b l e b a s i s f o r making
n e g a t i v e employment d e c i s i o n s — even bad
o n e s . The at tempt t o d i s c e r n t r oub lemaking
p r o p e n s i t i e s made d i s q u a l i f y i n g o n l y
b e c a us e o f super imposed r a c i a l c o n s i d e r a
t i o n s may w e l l tax j u d i c i a l f a c t - f i n d i n g
p r o c e s s e s beyond t h e i r c a p a c i t y f o r f a i r
and r a t i o n a l a d j u d i c a t i o n .
M a r c i n i s z y n , t h e r e f o r e , t h a t t h e " b l a c k
t r u b l em a ke r" p e r c e p t i o n and m o t i v a t i o n a l
b i a s must be a s c r i b e d in o r d e r t o j u s t i f y
t h i s m o t i v a t i o n a l f i n d i n g . The o n l y
e v i u e n c e a r g u a b l y s u p p o r t i n g s u c h an
a s c r i p t i o n o f k n o w l e d g e and p e r s o n a l
m o t i v a t i o n i s but d i s t a n t l y c i r c u m s t a n t i a l .
M o t i v a t i o n in t h i s o r any c o n t e x t may o f
c o u r s e be proven c i r c u m s t a n t i a l l y , and i s
u s u a l l y o n l y p r o v a b l e in t h i s way in T i t l e
VII l i t i g a t i o n , but here the c i r c u m s t a n t i a l
e v i d e n c e s u p p o r t i n g the i n f e r e n c e i s s imply
t o o a t t e n u a t e d when c o n s i d e r e d in l i g h t o f
t h e e v i d e n c e as a w h o l e t o a l l o w t h e
10/i n f e r e n c e .—
- 54a -
1 0 / The normal p r i n c i p l e s t h a t c o n t r o l the
we ig h in g o f e v i d e n c e by f a c t - f i n d e r s apply
i n T i t l e VII l i t i g a t i o n . That T i t l e VII i s
q u i n t e s s e n t i a l l y r em ed i a l l e g i s l a t i o n , and
t h a t p r o v i n g i n t e n t i o n a l r a c e d i s c r i m i n a
t i o n may be i n c r e a s i n g l y d i f f i c u l t as i t s
more o v e r t forms have been d r i v e n under
ground by the f i r s t wave o f major T i t l e VII
l i t i g a t i o n v i c t o r i e s , d oe s not j u s t i f y ad
55a
T h e r e a r e t y p e m a j o r g a p s t h a t i s
l o g i c had t o be l e a p e d in o r d e r t o make the
u l t i m a t e i n f e r e n c e . The f i r s t had t o do
wi t h M a r c i n i s z y n ' s knowledge in the f i r s t
p l a c d t h a t M i l l e r was b l a c k - - whether or
not a " t r o u b l e m a k e r . " As i n d i c a t e d in our
r e c i t a l o f the f a c t u a l and p r o c e d u r a l b a c k -
10/ c o n t i n u e d
hoc j u d i c i a l r e l a x a t i o n s o f the p r i n c i p l e s
o f r a t i o n a l p r o o f t h a t a p p l y i n c i v i l
l i t i g a t i o n g e n e r a l l y . The " l i b e r a l i n t e r
p r e t a t i o n " t h a t i s a p p r o p r i a t e b e c a u s e
l e g i s l a t i o n i s " r e m e d i a l " in p u r p o s e i s
p r o p e r l y r e f l e c t e d o n l y i n s u b s t a n t i v e
i n t e r p r e t a t i o n and in g e n e r a l r u l e s e a s i n g
n or ma l p r o o f b u r d e n s b o r n e by l i t i g a n t s
f o r w h o s e b e n e f i t t h e l e g i s l a t i o n i s
e n a c t e d . The g e n e r a l p r o o f scheme adopted
by the Supreme Court in McDonnel l Douglas
C o r p . v . G r e e n , 411 U . S . 7 9 3 , 83 S . C t .
1817, 36 L . Ed.2d 668 ( 1 9 7 3 ) , f e a t u r i n g in
i t s f i r s t s t a g e a r e b u t t a b l e presumpt ion
e a s i n g t he normal p r o d u c t i o n burden borne
by T i t l e V I I d i s p a r a t e t r e a t m e n t c l a i m
a n t s , i s o f c o u r s e an e x a m p l e o f t h e
l a t t e r . That g e n e r a l r u l e r e p r e s e n t s the
p r e s e n t l i m i t o f a u t h o r i t a t i v e l y approved
r e l a x a t i o n o f the normal burdens o f p r o d u c
t i o n and p e r s u a s i o n borne by c l a i m a n t s in
t h i s type c a s e .
56a
ground, Marciniszyn denied in sworn t e s t i
mony th a t she knew M i l l e r ' s race at the
time of her d ecis ion . Tending to support
th is is the fact that the application form
did not s p e c i f i c a l l y i d e n t i f y M i l l e r by
race nor give any manifest clues of race to
anyone without special private knowledge
that would allow the deduction from c o l
la t e r a l indicia on the form.
F u r th e r s u p p o r t i n g M a r c i n i s z y n ' s
testimony is the testimony of Winchester,
who dici of course know M i l l e r ' s race , that
she had no occasion to and did not convey
her knowledge to Marciniszyn. The d i s t r i c t
c o u r t made no s p e c i f i c f i n d d i n g t h a t ,
d e s p i t e t h i s te s t im o n y , M arcin iszyn did
know M i l l e r ' s r a c e , but i t i s o f course
n ecessari ly im p lic i t in the ultimate "black
" tro u b le m a k e r " f i n d i n g . This i m p l i c i t
f in d i n g t h e r e f o r e required an in fe ren c e
th a t d e s p i t e the testim ony of these two
57a
M er c y e m p l o y e e s , one o f b o t h was e i t h e r
d e l i b e r a t e l y l y i n g under oat h or had s i mp l y
now f o r g o t t e n t h a t in f a c t M a r c i n i s z y n d id
know. In l o g i c , M a r c i n i s z y n c o u l d o n l y
have known from un re v ea le d p r i v a t e i n q u i r y
o u t s i d e the a p p l i c a t i o n f orm, by d educ ing
M i l l e r ' s r a c e f ro m o t h e r i n d i c i a on t h e
form by r e a s o n o f p r i v a t e knowledge making
t h i s p o s s i b l e , o r f r o m b e i n g t o l d b y
Wi n c h e s t e r o r some o t h e r p e r s o n . No d i r e c t
e v i d e n c e s ug g e s t e d any such s o u r c e .
More c r i t i c a l i s t h e g a p r e s p e c t i n g
any p e r c e p t i o n o f M a r c i n i s z y n t ha t M i l l e r
was a b l a c k " t r o u b l e m a k e r . " The m o s t
r e l e v a n t c i r c u m s t a n c i a l e v i d e n c e i s Win
c h e s t e r ' s kno wledge , d e r i v e d from P r e s b y
t e r i a n , t h a t on one o c c a s i o n , b e i ng unhappy
with t h a t e mp lo y er , M i l l e r had " c o n t a c t e d a
lawyer" t o pursue a g r i e v a n c e . That t h i s
g r i e v a n c e i n v o l v e d a l l e g a t i o n s o f r a c i a l
d i s c r i m i n a t i o n was, by W i n c h e s t e r ' s contem
58a
p o r a n e o u s n o t e s , not r e v e a l e d to h e r .
Winchester 's testimony on t r i a l was that i t
was not. Whether Marciniszyn even knew of
t h i s one episode o f M i l l e r ' s pursuing a
g r ie v a n c e with a p r io r employer is not
c le a r . For purposes of the appeal we can
a c c e p t — as the d i s t r i c t c o u r t must
i m p l ic i t ly have found - - that Marciniszyn
did have ac c ess to the r e fe r e n c e report
prepared by Winchester. But i f Marciniszyn
knew more than the report revealed - - i f
she knew that the unspecified grievance was
r a c i a l — she c o u ld o n l y have le a r n e d
th is from a source of whose existence again
there is no d irect evidence. Even i f such
knowledge be nevertheless inferred , there
remained yet a further necessary inference:
that th is knowledge caused Marciniszyn to
perceive M il ler as a "troublemaker" whose
race in conjunction with her troublemaking
59a
p r o p e n s i t y made h e r u n d e s i r a b l e a s an
emplo ye e .
To make the r e q u i r e d i n f e r e n c e s
despite the d ir e c t ly uncontradicted oppos
ing e v i d e n c e , the d i s t r i c t court r e l i e d
e s s e n t i a l l y upon c r e d i b i l i t y assessments in
which i t s i m p l y r e j e c t e d th e c r i t i c a l
portions of Winchester's and Marciniszyn' s
testimony respecting th e ir dealings with
M i l l e r ' s application . This was based upon
th e c o u r t ' s s t a t e d p e r c e p t i o n o f the
uncertainty of their testimonial r e c a l l o f
events , and the perceived internal ambigu
i t y and l o g i c a l i m p l a u s i b i l i t y o f t h e i r
accounts.
In a s s e s s i n g the o p po s i n g v e r s i o n s o f
what was i n t e n d e d , what u n d e r s t o o d , and
what c o m m u n i c a t e d a b o u t t h e r e a s o n s f o r
r e j e c t i o n o f the August 1974 a p p l i c a t i o n ,
t h e c o u r t e x p l i c i t l y a c c e p t e d M i l l e r ' s
v e r s i o n , f i n d i n g t h a t her " t e s t i m o n y was
60a
d i r e c t , straightforward and b e l ie v a b le . "
In c o n t r a s t , the court noted th a t both
Winchester and Marciniszyn had "no re c o l
l e c t i o n " at t r i a l o f the e xact circum
stances of the a p p l ic a t io n 's processing,
and that Winchester had " l i t t l e r e c a l l " of
the follow-up "occasion" when, according to
M i l l e r , Winchester had reported to her that
th e a p p l i c a t i o n was r e j e c t e d b e ca u se
of Presbyterian 's negative reference . To
substantiate i t s re jection of Winchester's
versions of these events the court pointed
to her " v a c i l l a t i o n " in t e s t i f y i n g about
her understanding of the posit ion for which
the application showed M il ler to be apply
in g . To s u b s t a n t i a t e i t s r e j e c t i o n of
M a r c i n is z y n ' s testim ony concerning her
deciion to r e je c t the application - - that
she understood i t to be for an LPN position
f o r which M i l l e r was not q u a l i f i e d by
l ice n se - - the court pointed to evidence of
61a
t h r e e o t h e r h i r i n g e p i s o d e s i n v o l v i n g
Marciniszyn th a t , for the court , tended to
g iv e the l i e to M a r c in is z y n ' s p r o f f e r e d
e x p la n a t i o n . In one e p is o d e , two days
a fte r M i l l e r ' s r e je c t io n , Marciniszyn had
hired a white nurses aide whose application
had no entry in e ither the " C l a s s i f i c a t i o n "
or "Type of Work Preferred" spaces. For
the c o u r t , t h i s undercut M a r c i n is z y n ' s
purported reliance upon the LPN entry in
the "P osit ion Preferred" space on M i l l e r ' s
application . In one of the other episodes
Marciniszyn had a l legedly declined, a year
afte r M i l l e r ' s r e je c t io n , to hire another
b la c k a p p l i c a n t whose fo rm e r e m p lo y e r
had indicated on a reference check: " f i r s t
black hired in o f f i c e , caused some te n
s i o n " ; w hile in the o t h e r , three years
before M i l l e r ' s r e je c t io n , she had hired a
white applicant with known performance and
d i s c i p l i n a r y problems. For the c o u r t ,
62a
t h e s e two e p i s o d e s in c o n j u n c t i o n sug g es t ed
a g e n e r a l b i a s on M a r c i n i s z y n ' s p a r t
a g a i n s t b l a c k as opposed t o w h i te " t r o u b l e
m a k e r s " t h a t s u p p o r t e d i t s u l t i m a t e
f i n d i n g t h a t t h i s was the narrow b a s i s upon
which she r e j e c t e d M i l l e r ' s a p p l i c a t i o n .
With a l l r e s p e c t , and a f t e r a c c o r d i n g
t he d i s t r i c t j u d g e ' s b e t t e r v ant ag e p o i n t
t h e d e f e r e n c e we m u s t , we a r e c o n v i n c e d
t h a t the c r i t i c a l f i n d i n g s o f i n t e n t i o n a l
d i s c r i m i n a t i o n on the " r a c i a l t ro ub l em ake r"
t n e o r y cannot be a l l owe d t o s t a n d . More
s p e c i f i c a l l y , we are c o n v i n c e d t h a t t o f ind
as the d i s t r i c t c o u r t found on t h i s u l t i m
a t e i s s u e o f f a c t — an i s s u e upon which
p l a i n t i f f had the burden o f p e r s u a s i o n —
r e q u i r e d a p r o c e s s o f s p e c u l a t i o n o r i n t u i
t i o n r a t h e r tha n o f l e g a l l y j u s t i f i a b l e
i n f e r e n c e f r o m t h e e v i d e n c e . We a r e
t h e r e f o r e l e f t w i t h a d e f i n i t e and f i r m
c o n v i c t i o n t h a t a m i s t a k e i n t h e f a c t
63a
f i n d i n g p r o c e s s has been made which r e n d e r s
the f i n d i n g c l e a r l y e r r o n e o u s . Because so
t o c o n c l u d e i s s e r i o u s b u s i n e s s , n o t l i g h t l y
t o be d o n e , we e x p l o r e the r e c o r d in some
d e t a i l t o e x p l a i n the b a s i s f o r our c o n v i c
t i o n .
We l o o k f i r s t t o the c o u r t ' s c r e d i b i l
i t y a s s e s s m e n t s . We do so b e ca us e i t i s
e s s e n t i a l l y on t ha t s t a t e d b a s i s t h a t the
c o u r t ' s u l t i m a t e f i n d i n g i s b a s e d . In the
f i n a l a n a l y s i s t h e i n f e r e n t i a l g a p s a r e
l e a p e d by r e j e c t i n g M a r c h i n i s z y n ' s t e s t i
mony as " p r e t e x t u a l " : as e i t h e r d e l i b e r a t e
l i e u n d e r o a t h o r h o n e s t memory somehow
t w i s t e d 180 d e g r e e s f r o m a c t u a l f a c t .
G iv in g "due regard . . . t o the o p p o r t u n i t y
o f the t r i a l c o u r t t o j ud ge o f the c r e d i
b i l i t y o f the w i t n e s s e s , " Fed. R. C i v . P.
5 2 ( a ) , we s i m p l y d o n o t b e l i e v e t h i s
c r e d i b i l i t y a s s e s s m e n t c a n s e r v e as a
r a t i o n a l b a s i s f o r t h e c r i t i c a l f a c t
64a
f i n d i n g s h e r e . The s p e c i a l a d v a n t a g e
had by the t r i a l c o u r t as opposed t o ours
in r e v i e w o f c r e d i b i l i t y a ss es s me n ts i s in
r e l a t i o n t o t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o o b s e r v e
w i t n e s s e s ' d e m e a n o r . B u t , o f c o u r s e ,
" [ c ] r e d i b i l i t y i n v o l v e s more than demeanor
and comprehends an o v e r a l l e v a l u a t i o n o f
t e s t i m o n y in the l i g h t o f i t s r a t i o n a l i t y
o r i n t e r n a l c o n s i s t e n c y and the manner in
w h i c h i t h a n g s t o g e t h e r w i t h o t h e r e v i
d e n c e . " 9 C. Wright & A. M i l l e r , Federa l
P r a c t i c e and P r o c e d u r e : C i v i l § 2586, pp.
7 3 6 - 3 7 ( 1 9 7 1 ) . The d i s t r i c t c o u r t s u g
g e s t e d i t s r e l i a n c e upon d e m e a no r as a
majo r component o f i t s c r e d i b i l i t y a s s e s s
m e n t by c o n t r a s t i n g t h e t e s t i m o n y o f
M a r c i n i s z y n and W i n c h e s t e r u n f a v o r a b l y with
t h a t o f M i l l e r in terms o f t h e i r r e l a t i v e
d e g r e e s o f p r e c i s i o n and a s s u r a n c e .
M i l l e r ' s t e s t i m o n y i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d as
" d i r e c t , s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d and b e l i e v a b l e . "
65a
That of Marciniszyn and Winchester on the
other hand is characterized variously as
" v a c i l l a t i n g , " as indicating "no r e c a l l " or
"no r e c o l le c t i o n " of the c r i t i c a l events in
1 9 7 4 , as i n t e r n a l l y i n c o n s i s t e n t and as
inconsistent with other evidence.
We have c a r e f u l l y rev ie wed the r e c o r d
- - i n c l u d i n g s i g n i f i c a n t p o r t i o n s n o t
i n c l u d e d i n t h e j o i n t a p p e n d i x - - and
are persuaded t h a t a more a c c u r a t e c h a r a c
t e r i z a t i o n o f t h e o p p o s i n g t e s t i m o n y i s
t h a t i t r e v e a l s remarkably s i m i l a r f a i l u r e s
o f r e c a l l and a mb ig u i t y — wi t h the g r e a t e r
d e g r e e o f b o t h on M i l l e r ' s s i d e . To
c h a r a c t e r i z e M i l l e r ' s t e s t i m o n y as " d i r e c t ,
s t r a i g h t f o r w r d and b e l i e v a b l e " (a c h a r a c
t e r i z a t i o n , i n c i d e n t a l l y , t h a t was d r a f t e d
by p l a i n t i f f ' s c o u n s e l f o r i n c l u s i o n in the
c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s ) becomes h i g h l y q u e s t i o n
a b l e when c r i t i c a l p o r t i o n s o f her t e s t i
66a
mony at t r i a l and by d e p o s i t i o n — — p o r
t i o n s not a l l u d e d t o in t he c o u r t ' s f i n d
i n g s — are c o n s i d e r e d .
An e x a m p l e i s M i l l e r ' s h o p e l e s s l y
c o n f u s e d and c o n t r a d i c t o r y t e s t i m o n y about
an e a r l i e r a p p l i c a t i o n f o r employment at
Mercy than the one in i s s u e . At l e n g t h on
h e r d e p o s i t i o n , b u t o n l y i n a p a s s i n g
r e f e r e n c e on t r i a l , M i l l e r t e s t i f i e d that
she had a c t u a l l y a p p l i e d u n c u s s e s s f u l l y at
Mercy a f u l l y e a r b e f o r e the August 1974
a p p l i c a t i o n at i s s u e in t h i s c a s e . I f her
d e p o s i t i o n t e s t i m o n y i s a c c e p t e d , i t was on
t h i s e a r l i e r o c c a s i o n t h a t W in c h e s t e r f i r s t
s u g g e s t e d t h a t P r e s b y t e r i a n had g i v e n a
n e g a t i v e r e f e r e n c e t ha t p r e v e n t e d M i l l e r ' s
e m pl o y m e n t by Mercy and t h a t s h o u l d be
11/ M i l l e r ' s f u l l d e p o s i t i o n was i n t r o
duced in e v i d e n c e by Mercy.
67a
" c l e a r e d u p . " The i m p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t , as
M i l l e r l a t e r t e s t i f i e d , t h i s e x p e r i e n c e
w i t h W i n c h e s t e r was r e p e a t e d in a l l i t s
e s s e n t i a l s l e s s than a y ea r l a t e r , with no
apparent r e c o g n i t i o n by w i n c h e s t e r o f an
e a r l i e r e n c o u n t e r , i s m a n i f e s t . That no
more i s i n v o l v e d than a s i mp l e c o n f u s i o n o f
d a t e s i s b e l i e d by M i l l e r ' s f i r m i n s i s t e n c e
on d e p o s i t i o n t h a t t h e r e were two d i s t i n c t
e n c o u n t e r s o f t h i s k i n d , the second be ing
t h e o b j e c t o f t h i s a c t i o n . N e i t h e r t h e
e a r l i e r e n c o u n t e r n o r t h e a m b i g u i t i e s
i n M i l l e r ' s t e s t i m o n y r e s p e c t i n g i t a r e
n o t e d i n t h e d i r e c t c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s .
A n o t h e r e x a m p l e a p p e a r s in M i l l e r ' s
t e s t i m o n y r e s p e c t i n g her f i n a l e n c o u n t e r
wi t h W i n c h e s t e r , an o c c a s i o n t h a t , on the
r e c o r d , i n d i s p u t a b l y o c c u r r e d some two
y e a r s f o l l o w i n g the August 1974 r e j e c t i o n
o f her a p p l i c a t i o n , on November 26, 1976.
On t h i s o c c a s i o n , M i l l e r t e s t i f i e d , she
68a
e x h i b i t e d to W in c h e s te r , who re la y e d to
Marciniszyn, an EEOC determination l e t t e r
f in d in g , against Presbyterian, that that
in s t i t u t i o n had indeed made a f a l s e o f f i
c i a l report concerning the circumstances
o f M i l l e r ' s resignation from that i n s t i t u
t i o n and had done so fo r d i s c r im in a t o r y
12/r e a s o n s . — The purp ose o f t h i s t e s t i mo ny
was presumably t o c o n f i r m M i l l e r ' s c o n t e n
t i o n t h a t M e r c y ' s r e s p o n s i b l e e m p l o y e e s
knew a l l a lo ng t h a t her t r o u b l e s at P r e s b y
t e r i a n had been r a c i a l l y i n s p i r e d . What
e v e r the i nt e nd ed p urpose o f t h i s t e s t i
mony, i t was i n t e r n a l l y s u s p e c t : the EEOC
d e t e r m i n a t i o n l e t t e r p u r p o r t e d l y shown
W i n c h e s t e r and M a r c i n i s z y n on November 26,
1976, b o r e a d a t e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t i t s dat e
12/ M i l l e r ' s cha rg e a g a i n s t P r e s b y t e r i a n
was r e s o l v e d by a s e t t l e m e n t i n w h i c h
s h e was r e i n s t a t e d i n 1980 and r e c e i v e d
backpay from t h a t i n s t i t u t i o n .
69a
o f i s s u e was December 29, 1976. .
There are o t h e r examples t h a t tend t o
draw in q u e s t i o n the e s s e n t i a l a c c u r a c y o f
the c o u r t ’ s c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n o f M i l l e r ' s
t e s t i m o n y as " d i r e c t " and " s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d "
by way o f c o n t r a s t t o t h a t o f W i n c h e s t e r
and M a r c i n i s z y n . We ment ion o n l y o n e . I t
d e a l s wi t h a r a t h e r c r i t i c a l i s s u e . M i l l e r
t e s t i f i e d t h a t she t o l d W i n c h e s t e r ( i n both
her 1973 and 1974 e n c o u n t e r s ) o f the nat ure
13/ There may be an e x p l a n a t i o n f o r t h i s
a p p a r e n t t e s t i m o n i a l e r r o r - - e . g . , an
e r r o n e o u s d a t e o r an e a r l i e r f o r m a l o r
i n f o r m a l l e t t e r o r n o t i c e — but i f t h e r e
i s , i t d o e s n o t a p p e a r o f r e c o r d . By
w r i t t e n b r i e f , p l a i n t i f f ' s c o u n s e l s p e c i f i
c a l l y i d e n t i f i e d t h e l e t t e r dat ed December
2 9 , 1 9 7 6 , as t h e one shown by M i l l e r t o
W i n c h e s t e r on November 26, 1976. I f t h e r e
i s an e x p l a n a t i o n , i t s a b s e n c e on t h e
r e c o r d s u g g e s t s , in any e v e n t , a f a i l u r e by
t h e f a c t - f i n d e r t o n o t e o r t o e l i c i t an
e x p l a n a t i o n o f an a p p a r e n t t e s t i m o n i a l
e r r o r o f c o n s i d e r a b l e i m p o r t . P e r h a p s
s i g n i f i c a n t l y , the f i n d i n g on t h i s ma tt er
was no t one o f t h o s e s p e c i f i c a l l y d i r e c t e d
by the d i s t r i c t c o u r t ; i t o r i g i n a t e d with
and was d r a f t e d i n i t s f i n a l f o r m by
p l a i n t i f f ' s c o u n s e l .
70a
of her r a c ia l d i f f i c u l t i e s at Presbyterian
that led to her 1973 resignation . But on
her 1974 application to Mercy, an applica
tion th a t , by M i l l e r ' s account, she com
p le t e d during here in te r v ie w with Win
chester , M il ler entered as the reason for
her l e a v i n g P r e s b y t e r i a n t h a t she was
having a baby, a fact v e r i f ie d in her other
testimony.
We e x p lo re these in s ta n c e s in t h i s
much d e ta i l not to make, de novo, a con
trary c r e d i b i l i t y assessment that re je c ts
a l l of M i l l e r ' s testimony, but simply to
i n d i c a t e our i n a b i l i t y t o a c c e p t the
d i s t r i c t c o u r t 's stated perception that the
inherent c r e d i b i l i t y of M i l l e r ' s testimony
provided a s u f f i c i e n t basis for accepting
a l l of i t s c r i t i c a l content. We think the
only f a i r c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n of M i l l e r ' s
testimony is that i t was rendered at least
as s u s p e c t as t h a t o f w i n c h e s t e r and
7 1 a
M a r c i n i s z y n by v i r t u e o f d e m o n s t r a b l y
f a i l e d r e c a l l , i n t e r n a l i n c o n s i s t e n c y ,
and c o n t e x t u a l a m b i g u i t y . I n de ed , t o the
e x t e n t i t p u r p o r t e d t o be b a s e d u p o n
c o n f i d e n t , d e t a i l e d r e c a l l o f c r i t i c a l
e v e n t s o c c u r r i n g s i x t o e i g h t y e a r s e a l i e r ,
i t s d e m o n st r a b l e i n t e r n a l i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s
and a m b i g u i t i e s rend er i t more s u s p e c t than
W i n c h e s t e r ' s and M a r c i n s z y n ' s f l a t c o n c e s
s i o n s o f i n a b i l i t y t o r e c a l l t h o s e e v e nt s
wi t h p e r f e c t f i d e l i t y .
There i s o f c o u r s e always the p o s s i
b i l i t y t h a t p r o t e s t a t i o n s o f i n a b i l i t y t o
r e c a l l e v e n t s a r e i n f a c t m e r e l y t h e
" s t o n e w a l l i n g " t e c h n i q u e at work. T r i a l
j u d g e s a r e a s s u r e d l y b e t t e r s i t u a t e d t o
d e t e c t t h i s s p e c i a l t e c h n i q u e o f p e r j u r y
t h a n a r e a p p e l l a t e c o u r t s s i t t i n g i n
r e v i e w . But where, as h e r e , the f a i l u r e o f
r e c a l l a s s e r t e d on one s i d e are matched by
u n c o n c e d e d b u t d e m o n s t r a t e d f a i l u r e s o f
72a
e qu a l o r g r e a t e r magnitude on the o t h e r and
where , as h e r e , a l o ng l a p s e o f t ime and
t h e b a n a l i t y o f the e v e n t s as t hey o c c u r r e d
may w e l l e x p l a i n b o t h s e t s o f r e c a l l
f a i l u r e s , i t would seem a most q u e s t i o n a b l e
f a c t - f i n d i n g p r o c e s s t o r e c o n c i d e them by
c o m p l e t e l y f o r g i v i n g one s e t o f f a i l u r e s
and a s c r i b i n g t h e o t h e r t o p e r j u r y by
s t o n e w a l l i n g . To the e x t e n t t h a t t h i s i s
what u n d e r l i e s the d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s c r e d i
b i l i t y a s se ss me n ts h e r e , we are c o n v i n c e d
t h a t a mi s t a ke in the f a c t - f i n d i n g p r o c e s s
has been made.
Nor do we see how the a m b i g u t i e s and
i n t e r n a l i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s in the t e s t i m o n y
o f W i n c h e s t e r and M a r c i n s z y n s p e c i a l l y
r e l i e d upon in t he d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s f i n d
i n g s h av e t h e n e g a t i v e w e i g h t a s c r i b e d
them. R e l i a n c e i s p l a c e d on W i n c h e s t e r ' s
" v a c i l l a t i o n " (we r e p e a t , a c h a r a c t e r i z a
t i o n t h a t o r i g i n a t e d w i t h p l a i n t i f f ' s
73a
c o u n s e l ) in d e s c r i b i n g her u n d er s t a nd i ng o f
the p o s i t i o n t h a t M i l l e r was a p p l y i n g f o r .
We h av e c a r e f u l l y r e v i e w e d W i n c h e s t e r ' s
t e s t i m o n y on t h i s p o i n t and are persuaded
t h a t t h i s i s not a f a i r c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n .
A f a i r e r c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n w o u l d b e o f
u n d e r s t a n d a b l y u n c e r t a i n r e s p o n s e s t o a
p r o t r a c t e d c o u r s e o f c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n by
M i l l e r ' s c o u n s e l l a r g e l y d e v o t e d t o seman
t i c q u i b b l i n g about a p o i n t o f o n l y m ar g i
na l r e l e v a n c e — W i n c h e s t e r ' s p e r c e p t i o n ,
no t M a r c i n i s z y n ' s , o f what p o s i t i o n M i l l e r
had a p p l i e d f o r i n the August 1974 a p p l i c a
t i o n f orm. F a i r l y a s s e s s e d , W i n c h e s t e r ' s
t e s t i m o n y ne ve r evaded c o n c e s s i o n o f the
one r e l e v a n t f a c t f i n a l l y e l i c i t e d : t h a t
she assumed t h a t M a r c i n i s z y n would i n t e r
p r e t t h e a p p l i c a t i o n as s h o w i n g M i l l e r
q u a l i f i e d f o r a nurses a id e p o s i t i o n , and
presuma bly , as i n d i c a t i n g a d e s i r e t o be
c o n s i d e r e d f o r i t . The i m p r e s s i o n i s
74a
inescapable that i t simply took M i l l e r ' s
counsel more q u e s t io n in g th a t i t should
have to e l i c i t the p o in t and that t h i s ,
r a t h e r than W i n c h e s t e r ' s v a c i l l a t i o n ,
e x p l a i n s any d i f f i c u l t y e x p e r i e n c e d .
I t is at th is point that the greatest
contextual ambiguity in the testimony of
Mercy's witnesses occurs. Marciniszyn' s
stated perception that M i l l e r ' s application
should only be considered as one for LPN is
at odds — though not in d irec t c o n f l i c t —
with Winchester 's stated assumption that
Marciniszyn would or might consider i t for
a NA p o s i t io n . No e f f o r t was made by these
w i t n e s s e s t o r e c o n c i l e th e d i f f e r e n c e
betw een th e o n e ' s a s s u m p t io n and the
o t h e r 's perception. The evidence was l e f t
to speak as i t lay — to be accepted as a
simple example of bureaucratic slippage or
as evidence o f M a r c i n is z y n ' s d e l i b e r a t e
75a
f a l s i f i c a t i o n or completely skewed memory
o f her actual state of mind. This shred of
ambiguity is in fact the strongest b i t of
circumstantial evidence available to prove
t h a t M a r c i n i s z y n 1s a c t u a l m o t iv e was
d i f fe r e n t from her professed motive, and,
i n c id e n ta l ly , to es ta b l ish her as a r a c is t
and p e r ju r e r or as a r a c i s t with w holly
fa i le d memory — the necessary implication
of the ultimate finding of " p r e t e x t . " We
are convinced that i t could not r a t i o n
a l l y be given that great probative force .
F i n a l l y , we think the other episode
evidence re l ied upon to es ta b l ish Marcins—
z y n ' s n a rro w , s p e c i a l b i a s — a g a i n s t
"b la c k troublem akers " — i s s imply too
meager to t i p the scales on that motiva
t ion a l issue. In the f i r s t p lace , three
h i r in g e p i s o d e s , over a period o f four
y e a r s , out o f the g re a t number in which
Marciniszyn was demonstrably involved, is a
76a
t r e a c h e r o u s l y smal l sample from which to
d e d u c e a g e n e r a l m i n d - s e t o f r a c i a l
p r e j u d i c e t o be used in turn as i n f e r e n t i a l
p r o o f o f s p e c i f i c d i s c r i m i n a t o r y i n t e n t on
t h e o c c a s i o n i n i s s u e . C_f. F u r n c o Con
s t r u c t i o n Corp . v . W a t e r s , 438 U.S . 567,
580, 98 S . C t . 2943, 2952, 57 L . Ed .2 d 957
( 1 9 78 ) ( e v i d e n c e r e l e v a n t t o e s t a b l i s h
g e n e r a l p a t t e r n o f d i s c r i m i n a t o r y c o n d u c t ) .
P a r t i c u l a r l y t h i s i s t r u e when, as h e r e ,
the u n c o n t r a d i c t e d e v i d e n c e e s t a b l i s h e s a
g e n e r a l p a t t e r n o f h i r i n g by M a r c i n i s z y n
t h a t b e l i e s any g e n e r a l b i a s a g a i n s t h i r i n g
b l a c k s f o r t h e p o s i t i o n i n q u e s t i o n .
Even more c r i t i c a l l y , the in fe r e n t ia l
f o r c e o f the three e p iso d e s o f f e r e d to
e s t a b l i s h the m i n d - s e t here i s , upon
i n s p e c t i o n , so a t t e n u a t e d as to be of
questionable relevance, not to say proba
t i v e f o r c e . M a r c i n is z y n ' s h i r in g o f an
applicant whose application form contained
77a
no e n t r i e s in the " C l a s s i f i c a t i o n " o r "Type
o f work P r e f e r r e d " s p ac e s was e a s i l y and
s p o n t a n e o u s l y e x p l a i n e d d ur ing her c r o s s -
e x a mi n a t i o n on a b a s i s p e r f e c t l y c o n s i s t e n t
w i t h h e r s t a t e d r e a s o n f o r r e j e c t i n g
M i l l e r ' s .
T h e t w o p u r p o r t e d l y c o n t r a s t i n g
e p i s o d e s i n v o l v i n g one b l a c k " t r o u b l e m a k e r "
and one wh i t e are o f even more q u e s t i o n a b l e
f o r c e . There i s , in the f i r s t p l a c e , no
e v i d e n c e , d i r e c t o r c i r c u m s t a n t i a l , t hat
M a r c i n i s z y n o r a ny o n e a t Me rc y had e v e r
seen the employment r e f e r e n c e on the o t h e r
1 4 /
s u p p o s e d " b l a c k t r o u b l e m a k e r . " i f i t
were n e v e r t h e l e s s a c c e p t e d t h a t Marc inszyn
had seen i t — perhaps by i n f e r r i n g t h a t in
14/ The e v i d e n c e o f t h i s p a r t i c u l a r r e
f e r e n c e i s o f the most d u b i ou s r e l e v a n c e .
The r e c o r d do e s not i n d i c a t e a nyt hing about
the p r o c e s s i n g by Mercy o f the a p p l i c a t i o n
in q u e s t i o n ; i t does not ne ga te the p o s s i
b i l i t y t h a t e mpl oy me nt was o f f e r e d , n or
i n d i c a t e the o s t e n s i b l e rea so n f o r denying
i t i f t h a t was the outcome.
78a
o r d i n a r y c o u r s e she would have -— t he r e f
e r e n c e was u t t e r l y ambiguous on the p o i n t .
The r e p o r t was me re ly t h a t the h i r i n g o f
t h e b l a c k h ad " c a u s e d some t e n s i o n IIf
wit h no i n k l i n g t h a t t h i s was b e ca use o f
t r o u b l e m a k i n g p r o p e n s i t i e s o f t h e b l a c k
r a t h e r t h a n r a c i a l p r e j u d i c e o f o t h e r
e m p l o y e e s . The e p i s o d e i n v o l v i n g t h e
h i r i n g o f o n e w h i t e w i t h kn o wn p r i o r
employment p rob lems i s o f even more dubious
r e l e v a n c e , p a r t i c u l a r l y i n v i e w o f the
d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s t o t a l d i s r e g a r d o f M er c y ' s
c o u n t e r i n g e v i d e n c e o f the h i r i n g w i t h i n
t h e c r i t i c a l p e r i o d o f t wo b l a c k s w i t h
known p r i o r e m pl o y m e n t p r o b l e m s o f com
p a r a b l e q u a l i t y .
We c o n c l u d e t h i s g e n e r a l l y unwanted
and always somewhat t r e a c h e r o u s r e v i e w o f
t r i a l c o u r t f a c t - f i n d i n g p r o c e s s e s w i t h
a p a r t i c u l a r l y d i s t a s t e f u l , but n e c e s s a r y ,
r e f e r e n c e t o an a s p e c t o f t h e p r o c e s s e s
79a
employed he re t h a t b o l s t e r s our c o n v i c t i o n
o f m i s t a k e . M e r c y , a s a p p e l l a n t h a s
l e g i t i m a t e l y complai ned on appeal o f the
p r a c t i c e f o l l o w e d by the d i s t r i c t c o u r t in
f o r m u l a t i n g i t s f i n d i n g s o f f a c t . We have
e a r l i e r o u t l i n e d t he p r o c e d u r e : t he c o u r t
a n n o u n c e d i t s g e n e r a l d e c i s i o n f i n d i n g
l i a b i l i t y ; r e q u e s t e d p l a i n t i f f ' s c o u n s e l t o
p r e p a r e p r o po s e d f i n d i n g s , c o n c l u s i o n s and
judgment ; then adopted t h o s e p r o po s e d wi t h
minor r e v i s i o n s and two a d d i t i o n s and wi t h
n o f o r m a l o p p o r t u n i t y g i v e n o p p o s i n g
c o u n s e l e i t h e r t o submit p r o po s e d a l t e r n a
t i v e s o r s p e c i f i c a l l y t o o b j e c t t o t h o s e
p r o p o s e d b e f o r e t h e i r a d o p t i o n .
In a s e r i e s o f d e c i s i o n , most r e c e n t l y
in Anderson v . C i t y o f Bessemer C i t y , 717
F . 2 d 149 ( 4 t h C i r . 1983) and L i l l y v .
H a r r i s - T e e t e r S u p e r m a r k e t , 720 F . 2 d 326
( 4 th C i r . 1 9 83 ) , we have e x p r e s s e d v a r y i n g
d e g r e e s o f d i s s a f f e c t i o n wi t h and d i s a p -
80a
p r o v a l o f the g e n e r a l p r a c t i c e . See a l s o
EEOC v . F e d e r a l R e s e r v e Bank o f Richmond,
698 F . 2d 6 3 9 - 4 1 ( 4 t h C i r . 1 983 ) ( c i t i n g
c a s e s ) . W h e t h e r , i n l i g h t o f o u r most
r e c e n t pronouncement in L i l l y , 720 F . 2d at
331, we would be j u s t i f i e d on t h i s b a s i s
a l o n e i n r e j e c t i n g t h e f i n d i n g s h e r e as
c l e a r l y e r r o n e o u s , we need not d e c i d e . As
i n d i c a t e d , we t h i nk t h e r e are more funda
mental r e a s o n s f o r d o i n g s o h e r e . Never
t h e l e s s , we are bound t o n o t e the s t r o n g
p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t the p r a c t i c e as f o l l o w e d
h er e may have c o n t r i b u t e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y t o
t he m i s t a k e s in t he f a c t - f i n d i n g p r o c e s s we
have i d e n t i f i e d .
The s p e c i a l v ic e o f t h i s p r a c t i c e
i s not so much that i t may a c tu a l ly induce
a w holly b l i n d , unreviewed adoption of
proposed f i n d i n g s by t r i a l ju d g e s . We
doubt that t h i s f r e q u e n t ly occurs - - i f
ever i t does. Certainly i t did not occur
81a
h e r e , a s i s e v i d e n c e d b y t h e d i s t r i c t
c o u r t ' s o b v i o u s c a r e i n e d i t o r i a l r e v i
s i o n s t o t h e p r o p o s e d f i n d i n g s , and in
adding a c r i t i c a l f i n d i n g on the u l t i m a t e
m o t i v a t i o n a l i s s u e . The more r e a l i s t i c
d anger - - which we t h i n k f u l l y e x e m p l i f i e d
h e r e - - i s t h a t t h e p r a c t i c e t e n d s t o
d e f l e c t t h e c o u r t ' s a t t e n t i o n f r o m , o r
a c t u a l l y t o o b s c u r e , t h e more d i f f i c u l t
f a c t u a l i s s u e s and c r e d i b i l i t y p r o b l e m s
p r e s e n t e d by t h e e v i d e n c e . The n a t u r a l
t e n d e n c y o f c o u n s e l g i v e n an o p p o r t u n i t y
f r e e o f a d v e r s a r y c o n s t r a i n t s t o s ho r e up
weak p o i n t s , t o g l o s s o v e r e v i d e n c e o r
c r e d i b i l i t y prob lems at odds wi t h n e c e s s a r y
f i n d i n g s , and t o argue i n f e r e n c e s in the
g u i s e o f " f i n d i n g s , " i s o b v i o u s . I n
e f f e c t , t h e p r a c t i c e g i v e s t o one s i d e but
n o t t he o t h e r a f i n a l , second o p p o r u n i t y t o
argue the c a se t o the f a c t - f i n d e r , f r e e o f
r e b u t t a l , and e s s e n t i a l l y ex p a r t e . Though
82a
t e n t a t i v e d e c i s i o n may by then have been
r e a c h e d , and may at the t ime r e f l e c t a f i rm
j u d i c i a l c o n v i c t i o n , i t i s s t i l l at t h i s
p o i n t t e n t a t i v e — t he d e c i s i o n a l p r o c e s s
i s s t i l l in p r o g r e s s . Though i t s t i l l l i e s
w i t h d i s f a v o r e d c o u n s e l t o n o t e f o r m a l
o b j e c t i o n s t o f i n d i n g s a f t e r t h e i r adop
t i o n , Fed. R. C i v . P. 5 2 ( a ) , t h i s , as every
l i t i g a t o r knows, i s but a p o o r s u b s t i t u t e .
At t h i s p o i n t the j u d g e ' s d e c i s i o n , n o t the
a d v e r s a r y ' s p r o po s e d f i n d i n g s and c o n c u -
s i o n s , must be c h a l l e n g e d , and any f a i r
o p p o r t u n i t y t o i n f l u e n c e t h e d e c i s i o n a l
p r o c e s s in t h e t r i a l c o u r t has in p r a c t i c a l
± 5 /
terms been l o s t .
Here we are s a t i s f i e d that th is poten
t i a l vice of the practice almost certain ly
15/ Though p o s t - f i n d i n g o b j e c t i o n s o r
m o t i o n s t o amend may be made , t h e y are
n o t r e q u i r e d in o r d e r t o c h a l l e n g e f i n d i n g s
on a p p e a l . Fed. R. C i v . P. 5 2 ( b ) . This
presumably r e f l e c t s a c o n c e s s i o n o f t h e i r
usua l f u t i l i t y .
83a -
skewed the f a c t - f i n d i n g p r o c e s s . As our
d i s c u s s i o n has i n d i c a t e d , t h e f i n d i n g s
a s d r a f t e d by p l a i n t i f f ' s c o u n s e l and
a dopted by the d i s t r i c t c o u r t were h i g h l y
a rg u m en ta t iv e in form and n o t a b l y s e l e c t i v e
in o v erem p h a s iz in g the p r o b a t i v e f o r c e o f
some e v id e n c e w h i le g l o s s i n g o v e r o r w h o l ly
d i s r e g a r d i n g u n fa v o r a b le e v id e n c e o f ob
v i o u s l y s e r i o u s i m p o r t . Of c o u r s e we
c a n n o t know b u t what t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t
would in d e p e n d e n t ly have come t o the same
f i n d i n g s by the same e s s e n t i a l p r o c e s s e s
c h a r t e d in the p rop os ed f i n d i n g s , a c c e p t i n g
e x a c t l y the e v id e n c e emphasized in coun
s e l ' s d r a f t p r o p o s a l s and r e j e c t i n g a l l
t h a t d i s r e g a r d e d in t h o s e p r o p o s a l s . We
c a n o n l y s a y w i t h a s s u r a n c e t h a t had
d e f e n d a n t ' s c o u n s e l b e e n g i v e n an e q u a l
o p p o r t u n i t y b e f o r e f i n a l d e c i s i o n was
reached t o f o r c e c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f e v id e n c e
o p p o s in g th e f i n d i n g s adopted o r t o demon
84a
s t r a t e the r a t i o n a l i t y o f c o n t r a r y f i n d
i n g s , we are s a t i s f i e d t h a t the d i s t r i c t
c o u r t would have been f o r c e d t o c r i t i c a l
r e e x a m in a t i o n o f p o r t i o n s o f the f i n d i n g s
a c t u a l l y made.
We c l o s e as we began with the o b s e r v a
t i o n t h a t the p u rp ose o f ou r r e v ie w o f the
d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s d i s p o s i t i v e f i n d i n g s o f
f a c t in t h i s o r any c a s e i s no t t o a f f i r m
o r t o d e n y t h a t t h e " a c t u a l " f a c t s o f
t h i s c o n t r o v e r s y are as t h a t c o u r t " f ou n d "
them t o b e . Even as we a d ju dg e the f i n d
in g s here t o be c l e a r l y e r r o n e o u s , we must
be p repa red t o co n c e d e — and do — t h a t by
some p r o c e s s t h i s e x p e r i e n c e d , s e n s i t i v e ,
j u s t l y r e s p e c t e d t r i a l j u d g e may i n d e e d
h a v e " f o u n d " t h e " t r u e " f a c t s . We o n l y
have the pow er , and the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , t o
say t h a t on the e v id e n c e o f r e c o r d he co u ld
have done s o o n l y on the b a s i s o f an i n t u i
t i o n o r i n s i g h t w hose p r o b a b l e a c c u r a c y
85a-
l i e s beyond the c a p a c i t y o f an a p p e l l a t e
c o u r t t o re v ie w on any p r i n c i p l e d b a s i s .
A ss e s s e d a c c o r d in g t o l e g a l s ta n d a r d s o f
r a t i o n a l i t y i n d r a w i n g i n f e r e n c e s o f
m o t i v a t i o n f rom raw h i s t o r i c a l f a c t s in
e v i d e n c e and under c o n t r o l l i n g burdens o f
p r o o f , the u l t im a t e f i n d i n g o f d i s c r i m i n a
t o r y m o t i v a t i o n in t h i s c a s e must be r e
j e c t e d as c l e a r l y e r r o n e o u s .
REVERSED.
86a
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 82-1323
LULA B. MILLER,
A p p e l l e e ,
v .
MERCY HOSPITAL, INCORPORATED,
ETC. ,
A p p e l l a n t .
ORDER
Upon c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f the a p p e l l e e ' s
p e t i t i o n f o r r e h e a r i n g , by c o u n s e l ,
IT IS ORDERED t h a t t h e p e t i t i o n f o r
r e h e a r in g i s DENIED.
87a
E n t e r e d at t h e d i r e c t i o n o f J u d g e
P h i l l i p s f o r a pane l c o n s i s t i n g o f Judge
P h i l l i p s , Judge E r v in , and Judge Haynsworth.
For the C o u r t ,
/a/_________________________
W il l ia m K. S l a t e , I I
CLERK
Hamilton Graphics, Inc.— 200 Hudson Street, New York N.Y.— (212) 966-4177