Cooper v. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond Petitioners' Reply Brief

    No. 83-185

I n the

i&ttprem? (Enurt of tfi? Imtrd ^tatm
October Term, 1983

Sylvia Cooper, et al.,
Petitioners,

v.

Federal, Reserve Bank op R ichmond

ON PETITION POR A WRIT OP CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES 
COURT OP APPEALS POR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

PETITIONERS’ REPLY BRIEF

J. LeV onne Chambers 
John Nockleby

Chambers, Ferguson, W att, 
W allas, Adkins & F uller, P.A. 
Suite 730

951 S. Independence Boulevard 
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202 

(704) 375-8461

Jack Greenberg 
O. Peter Sherwood 
Charles Stephen Ralston 
Eric Schnapper*

Suite 2030 
10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York 10019 
(212) 586-8397

Counsel for Petitioners

*  Counsel of Record



No. 83-185

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

October  Term, 1983

SYLVIA COOPER, e t  a l  . ,

Petitioners, 

v .

FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF RICHMOND

On P e t i t i o n  f o r  a Writ o f  C e r t i o r a r i  t o  the 
United S ta tes  Court o f  Appeals 

For the Fourth C i r c u i t

PETITIONER'S REPLY BRIEF 

1 . R e s po nd e nt s  ac k n ow le d ge  t h a t  the  

c o u r t  o f  a p p e a l s  d i s m i s s e d  as a f i n d i n g  

o f  " u l t i m a t e  f a c t "  t h e  d i s t r i c t  c o u r t ' s  

c o n c l u s i o n  that  p e t i t i o n e r s  were the v i c t im s  

Gf 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 .  They 

do not  o f  c ourse  c ha l l en g e  the c o r r e c t n e s s  o f  

the  d e c i s i o n  in P u l lm a n -S t a n d a r d_____ Swi n t ,

456 U.S.  273 (1982) r e j e c t i n g  the purported



d i s t i n c t i o n  be tween " u l t i m a t e "  and " s u b ­

s i d i a r y "  f a c t s .

Respondents defend the d e c i s i o n  o f  the 

co ur t  o f  appeals  on the bo ld  theory  that  the 

Fourth C i r c u i t  s imply did  not  mean what i t  

s a i d .  But whi le  respondents  both urge t h i s  

Court to  d i s r e g a rd  the l i t e r a l  language o f  

the panel  o p i n i o n ,  they are unable t o  agree 

about what that  op i n io n  does meair. The Bank 

a s s e r t s  that  what the panel  meant t o  say was 

t h a t ,  because  the f i n d i n g  o f  d i s c r i m i n a t i o n  

was contained in a document e n t i t l e d  "Memo­

randum o f  D e c i s i o n " ,  i t  was no t  r e a l l y  a 

" f i n d i n g "  within the meaning o f  Rule 5 2 ( a ) .  

(Bank B r i e f ,  19) .  The United Sta tes  r e j e c t s  

that  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n ,  suggest ing  instead  that  

what the panel  meant was that  the d i s t r i c t  

f i n d i n g  invo lved  a "mixed qu es t i on  o f  law and 

f a c t . "  (U.S.  B r i e f ,  p.  8 ) .

Th i s  Cour t  has not  h e r e t o f o r e  upheld  

lower cour t  op i n io ns  l i t e r a l l y  and e x p r e s s l y  

c on t ra ry  to  d e c i s i o n s  o f  t h i s  Court based on

2



such s p e c u l a t i o n  that  an er roneous  passage 

may have been  a mere s l i p  o f  the  j u d i c i a l  

pen.  Meaningful  a p p e l l a t e  r ev iew would be 

i m p o s s i b l e  i f  the  a c t u a l  l a n g u a g e  o f  the  

o p i n i o n s  under review cou ld  be d i s regarded  

on the  b a s i s  o f  t h i s  s o r t  o f  c o n j e c t u r a l  

e x e g e s i s .  I t  i s  s u f f i c i e n t  t o  r e q u i r e  

summary r e v e r s a l  t h a t  the  Four th  C i r c u i t  

o p i n i o n  as w r i t t e n  i s  i n c o n s i s t e n t  wi th 

Swin t . I f  the c our t  o f  appeal s  intended t o  

say something o th e r  than what appeared in i t s  

o p i n i o n ,  i t  w i l l  have ample o p p o r t u n i t y  to 

make that  c l e a r  on remand.

2. The United S ta tes  c an d id ly  acknow­

l e d g e s  t h e  d i v i s i o n  among t h e  c i r c u i t s  

r e g a r d i n g  t h e  use o f  f i n d i n g s  d r a f t e d  by 

c o u n s e l .  (U.S.  B r i e f ,  p p . 5 - 7 ) .  The govern ­

ment sugges ts  the " b e t t e r  appproach"  in such 

s i t u a t i o n s  i s  f o r  the cour t  o f  appeal s  " t o  

remand the  c a s e  f o r  new f i n d i n g s  by the  

d i s t r i c t  c o u r t " ,  as in f a c t  o c c u r s  in the  

F i r s t  and Tenth C i r c u i t s .  (U.S.  B r i e f ,  p .7 ;

3



see a l s o  Pet i t  i o n , p . 1 8 ) . The government

no te s t h a t  i t i s  " n o t  aware o f any c i r cu nt -

s tan c e s  whic h would j u s t i f y the f a  i l u r e  o f

t h e c o u r t  b e l o w  t o  f o l l o w th a t p r a c t i c e

here (U.S. B r i e f , p . 7 ) .

A l t h o u g h  the  c o u r t  o f  a p p e a l s  i t s e l f  

announced t h a t  i t  was a p p l y i n g  a s p e c i a l  

standard o f  r ev i ew in t h i s  c as e ,  a l t e r n a t i v e ­

l y  phrased as " c l o s e  s c r u t i n y "  and " c a r e f u l  

s c r u t i n y "  ( P e t i t i o n ,  23a) ,  respondents  i n s i s t  

that  the d e c i s i o n  below a c t u a l l y  app l i ed  the 

o r d i n a r y  " n o t  c l e a r l y  e r r o n e o u s "  s t a n d a r d .  

(Bank B r i e f ,  pp .  11, 12,  15;  Un i ted  S t a t e s  

B r i e f ,  p .  5 ) ,  The Uni ted  S t a t e s  t a k e s  the  

p o s i t i o n  t h a t  the  c o u r t  o f  a p p e a l s  a p p l i e d  

the c o r r e c t  s tandard,  yet  somehow reached the 

wrong r e s u l t ,  i n s i s t i n g  t h a t  " t h e  r e c o r d  

f u l l y  supports  the d i s t r i c t  c o u r t ' s  f a c t u a l  

f i n d i n g s . "  (U .S .  B r i e f ,  p .  4 ) .  But w h i l e  

the United Sta tes  c ontends  that  a f f i rmance  i s  

r equ i red  by the not c l e a r l y  erroneous  r u l e ,  

the Bank maintains  that  the same ru le  r e q u i r ­

4



ed r e v e r s a l  o f  the " e r r o n e o u s , unsupported 

and o f t e n  b a s e l e s s  f i n d i n g s  adopted by the 

D i s t r i c t  C o u r t . "  (Bank B r i e f ,  p .  1 7 ) .

In Pullman-Standard v.  Swint , 456 U.S.  

273 ( 1 9 8 2 ) ,  as h e r e ,  the  c o u r t  o f  a p p e a l s

a r t i c u l a t e d  two d i f f e r e n t  s t a n d a r d s  o f  

r e v i e w .  R e s p o n d e n t  in  t h a t  c a s e  u r g e d  

the  Cour t  t o  assume o r  c o n c l u d e  t h a t  the  

c o r r e c t  standard had in f a c t  been a p p l i e d ,  

but t h i s  Court d e c l i n e d  t o  do so .  456 U.S.  

at 290-93.  This case  i l l u s t r a t e s  the c o r ­

r e c t n e s s  o f ,  and i s  c o n t r o l l e d  b y ,  S w i n t . 

I f  mere mention o f  the Rule 52 standard were 

s u f f i c i e n t  t o  g i v e  r i s e  t o  a c o n c l u s i v e  

presumption that  the not c l e a r l y  erroneous  

r u l e  had been a p p l i e d ,  enforcement  o f  Rule 52 

by t h i s  Court would be i m p o s s ib l e ,  and "not  

c l e a r l y  e rroneous "  would degenerate  from a

ru le o f law to  an empty formula r e c i t e d  at

the end o f de novo a p p e l l a t e d e c i s  i o n s .

3. Respondents suggest  that the p r i n -

c i p l e  o f  res  j u d i c a t a  was a p p l i c a b l e  t o  the

5



B a x t e r  p l a i n t i f f s  b e c a u s e  t h e  d i s t r i c t  

c o u r t ' s  d e c i s i o n  on the c l a s s  c la ims  a c t u a l l y  

r e s o l v e d  on the mer i t s  the i n d iv i d u a l  c la ims  

o f  B a x t er , e t  a l . :

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  c o n c l u d e d  t h a t  the  Bank had 
d i s c r i m i n a t e d  . . .  o n l y  in p r o m o t i o n s  
o u t  o f  G r a d e s  4 and 5 ,  b u t _ n o t _ i n  
o t he r  r e s p e c t s . J /

Elsewhere the Bank r e p e a t e d l y  but more s u b t l y  

i m p l i e s  t h a t  t h e  i n d i v i d u a l  c l a i m s  were  

a c t u a l l y  c o n s i d e r e d  and d e c i d e d ,  r e f e r r i n g  

f o r  example t o  " the  c l a s s  a c t i o n  judgment . . .  

a d v e r s e  t o "  t h e  B a x t e r p l a i n t i f f s  (Bank 

B r i e f ,  p.  7;  see a l s o  i_d. at 3, 6, 9 ) .  The

a c t u a l  l a n g u a g e  o f  t h a t  p o r t i o n  o f  t h e  

d i s t r i c t  c o u r t ' s  op i n io n  de a l in g  with promo­

t i o n s  out  o f  the grades  in which the Baxter 

p l a i n t i f f s  were found,  however,  r eads :

1 /  R e s p o n d e n t ' s  B r i e f  in O p p o s i t i o n  t o  
P e t i t i o n  ( h e r e i n a f t e r  c i t e d  as "Bank B r i e f " )  
(Emphasis  a d d e d ) ,  p . 1 ;  s e e  a l s o  Memorandum 
f o r  the Federal  Respondent ( h e r e i n a f t e r  c i t e d  
as "U.S.  B r i e f " ) ,  p.  1 n. ( " t h e  f i n d i n g  o f  no 
d i s c r i m i n a t i o n  a g a i n s t  the  g roup  t o  which 
they b e l o n g " ) .

6



There  do e s  not  app ear  t o  be a p a t t e r n  
and p r a c t i c e  p e r v a s i v e  enough f o r  the  
c ou r t  t o  o rd er  r e l i e f .  194a.

This passage ho lds  o n l y  that  such d i s c r i m i n a ­

t i o n  was n o t  s u f f i c i e n t l y  w i d e s p r e a d  t o  

j u s t i f y  a c l a s s - w i d e  r e m e d y .  Far f r o m 

c onc lud ing  that  no c l a s s  member had ever  been 

t h e  v i c t i m  o f  d i s c r i m i n a t i o n ,  t h e  c l e a r  

im por t  o f  the  o p i n i o n  i s  t o  the  c o n t r a r y .

The Bank fu r t h e r  a s s e r t s  that  the Baxter 

p l a i n t i f f s  have had " t h e i r  day in c o u r t . "  

(Bank B r i e f ,  p.  3 ) .  When that  day supposedly  

was the Bank does  not  say.  I t  c e r t a i n l y  was 

not  in m i d - S e p t e m b e r ,  1 980 , when the  Bank 

s u c c e s s f u l l y  prevented the Baxter p l a i n t i f f s  

f rom even t e s t i f y i n g  at  the  Cooper  t r i a l  

abo ut  t h e i r  i n d i v i d u a l  c l a i m s .  Nor was i t  

J a n u a r y ,  11,  1983,  when the  Fourth C i r c u i t

h e l d ,  at  the  Ban k ' s  b e h e s t ,  t h a t  t h e r e  was 

never  to  be a t r i a l  in Baxter i t s e l f .  Never 

in  t h e  h i s t o r y  o f  t h i s  d i s p u t e ,  d e s p i t e  

r e p e a t e d  e f f o r t s  t o  do  s o ,  ha ve  P h y l l i s  

B a x t e r , Brenda G i l l i a m ,  Glenda Knot t  and

7



S h e r r i  McCorkle  been p e r m i t t e d  t o  t a k e  the  

s tand  and d e s c r i b e  t o  a f e d e r a l  j u d g e  the  

a l l e g e d  v i o l a t i o n  o f  t h e i r  r i g h t s .  The 

p r i n c i p l e s  o f  res  j u d i c a t a  cannot c o n c e i v a b l y  

apply to  c la ims that  were n e i t h e r  ad ju d i ca te d  

nor even heard.

CONCLUSION

For the  above  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 ld  i s s u e  t o  r e v i e w  the  judgment  

and op in io n  o f  the Fourth C i r c u i t .

R e s p e c t f u l l y  submit ted ,

J.  LEVONNE CHAMBERS 
JOHN NOCKLEBY

Chambers, Ferguson,  Watt,
Wal las ,  Adkins & F u l l e r ,  P.A.  
Sui te  730
951 S. Independence Boulevard 
C h a r l o t t e ,  North Caro l ina  28202 
(704) 375-8461

JACK GREENBERG 
0.  PETER SHERWOOD 
CHARLES STEPHEN RALSTON 
ERIC SCHNAPPER*

Suite  2030 
10 Columbus C i r c l e  
New York,  New York 10019 
(212) 586-8397

Counsel f o r  P e t i t i o n e r s

*Counsel o f  Record



MEJIEN PRESS INC. —  N. Y. C. t l 9