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

Public Court Documents
January 1, 1983

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

Date is approximate.

Cite this item

  • Brief Collection, LDF Court Filings. Cooper v. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond Petitioners' Reply Brief, 1983. 02457f48-ae9a-ee11-be37-00224827e97b. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/4315626a-b880-4ca4-a57e-cd10d897e897/cooper-v-federal-reserve-bank-of-richmond-petitioners-reply-brief. Accessed June 17, 2025.

    Copied!

    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

Copyright notice

© NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.

This collection and the tools to navigate it (the “Collection”) are available to the public for general educational and research purposes, as well as to preserve and contextualize the history of the content and materials it contains (the “Materials”). Like other archival collections, such as those found in libraries, LDF owns the physical source Materials that have been digitized for the Collection; however, LDF does not own the underlying copyright or other rights in all items and there are limits on how you can use the Materials. By accessing and using the Material, you acknowledge your agreement to the Terms. If you do not agree, please do not use the Materials.


Additional info

To the extent that LDF includes information about the Materials’ origins or ownership or provides summaries or transcripts of original source Materials, LDF does not warrant or guarantee the accuracy of such information, transcripts or summaries, and shall not be responsible for any inaccuracies.

Return to top