Matthews Company v. Williams Brief in Opposition to Certiorari

    Iisr THE

Qlmtrt of tip States
October Term, 1974 

No. 74-63

Matthews Company, et al.,

v.

Petitioners,

D . C . W i l l i a m s .

ON P E TITIO N  FOE W R IT  OF CERTIORARI TO T H E  U N IT E D  STATES 

COURT OF APPEALS FOB. T H E  E IG H T H  CIRCUIT

BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO CERTIORARI

Jack Greenberg 
James M. Nabrit, III 
Sylvia Drew 
E ric Schnapper

10 Columbus Circle
New York, New York 10019

John W . W alker

Walker, Kaplan & Mays, P.A. 
622 Pyramid Life Building 
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201

Attorneys for Respondent



I n t h e

Supreme QInurt nf tip flairs
October Term, 1974 

No. 74-63

Matthews Company, et al.,
Petitioners,

v .

I). C . W i l l i a m s .

ON PETITION FOB WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES . 

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO CERTIORARI

Opinions Below

The opinion of the Eighth Circuit is reported at 499 
F.2d 819 and is reprinted in Appendix A of the Petition. 
The opinion of the District Court, which is not reported, 
is set forth in Appendix B of the Petition.

Jurisdiction

The jurisdictional requisites are adequately set forth in 
the Petition.



2

Questions Presented

Whether the record supports the determination of the 
Eighth Circuit that the real estate developer of an all 
white subdivision in North Little Rock, Arkansas main­
tained a racially discriminatory sales policy?

Statutes Involved

The pertinent provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 
42 U.S.C. hi 1981, 1982, and the Civil Riqhts Act of 1968, 42 
U.S.C. §§ 3602(b), 3604(a) and (b), are set forth in the 
Petition at pp. 3-4.

Statement o f the Case

Respondent takes issue with petitioners’ statement of 
facts material to the consideration of the question pre­
sented. The Eighth Circuit noted that the facts relating to 
the conduct of the Matthews Company, et al. “ appear with­
out substantial dispute in the record” and proceeded to 
set them forth, see Petition at p. A-4—A-8.

After the events in question, Mr. Williams filed a com­
plaint against the Matthews Company and its principal 
officers on April 29, 1970 in the United States District 
Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. Jurisdiction 
was asserted under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1343(3) & (4) and 42 
U.S.C. § 3612 to enforce § 804 of the Civil Rights Act of 
1968, 42 U.S.C. § 3604, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 
42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1982. Mr. Williams sued individually 
and as class representative for other black persons similarly 
situated pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2), Fed. R. Civ. P. for 
declaratory and injunctive relief, damages and other relief.



3

On September 20, 1973, after a trial on the merits, the 
district court dismissed both the individual and class action. 
The district court opinion did not refer to nor apply the 
evidentiary standards set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. 
v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). On June 20, 1974, the Eighth 
Circuit reversed:

We think that racial discrimination by the defendants 
in their real estate operations is shown as a matter 
of fact and law. The defendant’s policy of selling 
lots only to builders, which, under the circumstances, 
operated to exclude black persons from acquiring 
building lots in the real estate subdivision, does not 
afford any legal justification for defendants’ conduct. 
Petition at pp. A-3—A-4.

Expressly applying the standards set forth in McDonnell 
Douglas Corp. v. Green, supra, the Eighth Circuit first 
determined that “undisputed evidence establishes a prima 
facie case of discrimination,” Petition at A -ll, and then 
examined whether the Company, et al., had carried the 
burden of demonstrating a “ legitimate, nondiscriminatory 
reason for the plaintiff’s rejection,” Petition at A-13. 
Thereupon, the Eighth Circuit concluded that the policy 
of selling lots only to certain approved builders, all of 
them white, was racially discrimination not justified by 
business necessity in this case. Petition at A-13—A-14. 
However, the class action was held appropriately dis­
missed and no injunctive relief directed.

On September 18, 1974, Mr. AVilliams filed a separate 
petition for a writ of certiorari, No. 74-296, from the fail­
ure of the Eighth Circuit to direct that broad injunctive 
relief issue upon the finding of a sales policy of racial 
discrimination. The question presented in No. 74-296 is 
not addressed by the petition in No. 74-63 nor the instant 
brief in opposition.



4

ARGUMENT

The Court of Appeals unquestionably scrutinized the 
record in light of McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 
U.S. 792 (1973) in reaching its decision. The Matthews 
Company, et al. seek review by this Court because the 
Eighth Circuit found compelling evidence of racial dis­
crimination in the record where the district court had con­
cluded there was none. The question presented clearly 
concerns the contents of the record and, therefore, is not 
one for which the writ is ordinarily granted. It is the 
practice of the Court that, “we do not grant a certiorari 
to review evidence and discuss specific facts,” United 
States v. Johnston, 268 U.S. 220, 227 (1925). Second, the 
Matthews Company, et al. are simply mistaken that Mc­
Donnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, supra, bars Courts of 
Appeals from ever examining the underlying record in 
cases of racial discrimination. Third, there is no conflict 
with applicable decisions of this Court or with decisions 
of another Circuit. Indeed, the Seventh Circuit in Clark 
v. Universal Builders, 1 P.H. Inc. EOH H 13,671 at 14,348-52 
(decided July 26, 1974), without citing Williams, applied 
the evidentiary standards of Green in a § 1982 fair housing- 
case. Fourth, the particular issue raised by the petition 
is of no general significance, but important only to the 
immediate parties involved. See Layne & Bowler Corp. 
v. Western Wells Works, 261 U.S. 387, 393 (1922); Rice 
v. Sioux City Memorial Park, 349 U.S. 70, 79 (1954).



5

CONCLUSION

For the above reasons, a writ of certiorari should be 
denied.

Respectfully submitted,

Jack Greenberg 
James M. Nabrit, III 
Sylvia Drew 
E ric Schnapper

10 Columbus Circle
New York, New York 10019

John W . W alker 
Walker, Kaplan & Mays, P.A. 

622 Pyramid Life Building 
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201

Attorneys for Respondent



MEiLEN PRESS INC