Allied Chemical Corporation v. White Brief for Respondents in Opposition to Petition for Writ of Certiorari

    IN  T IIE
B nptm ?  (Enurt nf %  United StatesO cto b e r T e r m , 1977

No. 77-97
A L L I E D  C H E M IC A L  C O R P O R A T IO N ,P e titio n e r ,

vs.A N T H O N Y  W H IT E  and H E N R Y  C L A R K , S R . ,R esp ondents.B R IE F  F O R  R E S P O N D E N T S  IN O P P O S IT IO N  T O  P E T IT IO N  F O R  W R IT  O F  C E R T IO R A R I T O  T H E  U N IT 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  F IF T H  C IR C U IT .
D ated :Sep tem b er 8,

Donald Ju n eau 9IQ-17th S tre e t, N . W„ Suite 501W ashington, D . C . 20006C ou n sel fo r  R esp ondents.



I N  T H ESiipmite (Emtrl nf tljp Hmtrfc StatesO c to b e r  T e r m , 1977
N o . 77-97

A L L I E D  C H E M I C A L  C O R P O R A T I O N ,P e t it io n e r ,v s .A N T H O N Y  W H IT E  and H E N R Y  C L A R K , S R . ,R e sp o n d e n ts .B R I E F  F O R  R E S P O N D E N T S  IN O P P O S I T I O N  T O  P E T I T I O N  F O R  W R IT  O F  C E R T I O R A R I  T O  T H E  U N IT 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  F I F T H  C I R C U I T ,
Q U E S T IO N  P R E S E N T E D .W hether an em p loyee a g g rie v e d  by d is c r im i­n atory  em ploym ent p r a c tic e s  m ade unlaw ful by T it le  V II  of the C iv i l  R ig h ts  A c t o f 1964 has a r ig h t to a h earin g  to set a s id e  his asse n t to an E q u a l E m p loym en t O p p ortu n ity  C o m m is s io n  C o n ­c ilia t io n  A g re e m e n t on the grounds that the a sse n t was not m ade v o lu n ta r ily .■ A R G U M E N TA . T he D e c is io n  o f the C o u rt o f A p p ea ls  Is C le a r ly  C o r r e c t .

1



In its  d e c is io n , the C o u r t  o f  A p p e a ls  held that the D is t r ic t  C o u rt should have conducted a h e a rin g  into w hether the p ro s p e c tiv e  in te rv e n o rs  had know ingly w aived th e ir  r ig h t to sue under T it le  V II , re ly in g  upon th is  C o u r t ’ s d e c is io n  In A lexan d er v . G a r d n e r -D e n v e r  C o . , 415 U . S . 36 (19741, w here it w as held that in the fa c e  of a c la im  of w a iv e r o f the r ig h t to sue under T itleV II , "a  co u rt would have t o  d e te rm in e  at the outset that the e m p lo y e e ’ s co n sen t to the s e t t le ­m ent w as v o lu n ta ry  and know ing. "  A le x a n d e r  v . G a r d n e r -D e n v e r  C o . ,  s u p r a , 415 U . S . at 52 n. 15. T h at statem en t is a r e f le c t io n  o f th is  C o u r t 's  co n siste n t p ositio n  down th rou gh  the y e a r s  on the qu estion  o f w a iv e r , i . e . , th at a v a lid  w a iv e r  m ust be "an in tention al re lin q u ish m e n t o r  aband­onm ent of a known rig h t o r  p r iv ile g e . " Jo h n so n  v . Z e r b s t , 304 U , S . 458, 464 (1938); s e e  a ls o  G a rd n e r  v . F lo r id a , 97 S . C t . 1197, 1206-07 (1977); B a r k e r  v . W ingo, 412 U . S . 218, 235-37 (1973); F a y  v . N o ia , 372 U . S . 391, 439 (1963). T h e in ­te rv e n o rs  should be g iv e n  a ch a n ce  to show  that th e ir  a sse n t to the co n cilia tio n  a g re e m e n t was not m ade know ingly o r  in te n tio n a lly . C f .  G lu s  v . B ro o k ly n  E a s te r n  D is t r ic t  T e r m in a l , 359 U . S . - 231 (1959).B . T h is  C a s e  Is Not R ip e  fo r  C e r t io r a r i .T he p resen t p o stu re  o f th is  c a s e  is  a c la s s ic  exam p le  of an in te r lo c u to r y  ap p e a l.T h e only is su e  re s o lv e d  by  the C o u rt o f A p p e a ls  is  w hether th e in te rv e n o rs  a r e  e n ­tit le d  to a h e arin g  on the v o lu n ta r in e s s  of th e ir  a sse n t to the c o n c ilia tio n  a g re e m e n t.
2



T h e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls  did not la y  down any g u id e lin e s  as to the a p p lic a b le  le g a l stan d ard  to be fo llo w e d  or what w ould be the co n to u rs of the b u rden o f p ro o f; it m e r e ly  d ecid ed  that resp o n d en ts should be g iv en  a h e a rin g  on the v o ’ u n ta rin e ss  q u estio n . T h e c a s e  has been r e ­m anded fo r  fu rth e r  p ro ce e d in g s  a lo n g  that lin e , and in s im ila r  in s ta n c e s , th is  C o u rt has d e c l i ­ned to g ran t c e r t io r a r i  b e c a u se  o f u n reso lved  fa c tu a l is s u e s . S e e , e . g . , B ro th erh o o d  o f L o c o - m o tive  F ir e m e n  v . B a n g o r & A r o stook R , R . ,'389 U . S . 327, 328 (1967); A m e r ic a n  C o n s tru ctio n  C o . v . Ja c k s o n v il le , T a m p a  &- K e y  W est R y . ,148 U . S . 372, 384 (1893).T he p o s s ib ility  fo r  th e s e  p o te n tia l is s u e s  to d evelop  a s  th is  c a s e  g o e s  a lo n g  does not m ake it p ro p e r  fo r  p e tit io n e r  to s e e k  an a d v is o r y  o p in ion  fr o m  th is  C o u r t  a s  to what its  p o sitio n  w ould be on th e s e  q u e s tio n s .S e e , e . g . ,  K r e m e n s  v . B a r t le y , 97 S . C t .  1709, 1717-19 (1977), D e s p ite  p e t it io n e r 's  h yp erb ole a s  to th e co n s e q u e n c e s  o f  th e d e cis io n  o f  the C o u r t o f A p p e a ls , i f  upon re m a n d  th e  D is t r ic t  C o u r t fin d s  th at th e r e  has not in  fa c t  b een  a w a iv e r  o f T it le  V I I  r ig h t s , p e tit io n e r  would have no in ju r y  to  c o m p la in  ab o u t, and it would be the tu rn  o f re sp o n d e n ts  to have r e c o u r s e  to the ap pellate c o u r ts  a s  to th e c o r r e c t n e s s  o f the le g a l sta n d a rd  a p p lie d . In the p re se n t p o stu re  o f the c a s e , h o w ev er, th e re  is  o n ly  the fa ilu r e  o f the D is t r ic t  C o u r t  to hold a h e a rin g  on th e w a iv e r , and alth o u g h  p e tit io n e r  s tr e n u o u s ly  a r ­gues in its  p e titio n  th at the C o u r t  o f  A p p e a ls  did not in d u lge  In th e  p re su m p tio n  o f a d m in i­s tr a t iv e  r e g u la r it y , n o r did it ta k e  adequate no­t ic e  o f  the c o m p le x  n a tu re  o f m o st c o n c ilia tio n
3



a g r e e m e n ts . P e titio n  fo r  C e r t i o r a r i ,  pp. 8, l l ,  p a s s im , none o f th e se  is s u e s  w e re  the su b je ct o f independent co n sid e ra tio n  b y  the co u rts  below , and thus cannot be ra is e d  h e re . C o n ce rn e d  C i t i -  zen s o f Sou th ern  O h io , In c . v . P in e  C r e e k  C o n ­s e r v a n c y  D is t r ic t , 429 U . S . 651, 652-53 (1977); E le c t r ic a l  W o rk e rs  L o c a l  790 v . R ob b in s & M y e r s , I n c . , 429 U. S . 229, 235 n. 7 (1976). P e titio n e r cannot fr a m e  any q u estio n s in its p e titio n  w h ich  w e re  not in fa c t  p re se n ted  in the r e c o r d  below . S e e , e . g . , B e lc h e r  v . S te n g e l, 429 U . S . 118, 119-20 (1976).T h e sa m e  holds tru e  fo r  p e tit io n e r 's  c o n ­ten tio n  that no r ig h t - t o - s u e  n o tice  w as issu ed  to the p ro s p e c tiv e  in te r v e n o r s , W hite and C la r k . T h e re  is  nothing in the r e c o r d  below  to support su ch  an a s s e v e r a t io n , and p e titio n e r cannot be allow ed to b rin g  it up at th is  tate sta g e  in the g a m e . S e ^  e , g . , Y o u ak im  v . M ille r , 425 U. S . - 231, 235-36 (1976); Sh adw ick v . C ity  of T a m p a , 407 U . S . 345, 352 (1972). E v e n  a ssu m in g , argu en d o, that notice of the rig h t to sue had been is su e d , the in te rv en o rs a lso  sue under 42 U. S . C . §1981, w hich c e r ta in ly  is  not co vered  under the te rm s  of the w a iv e r set out in the c o n c ilia tio n  agreem ent, 5ee P e titio n  fo r  C e r t i­o r a r i , p. 3, s in ce  the w a iv e r co v e rs  only r ig h ts  su ab le under T it le  V II , w hose re m e d ie s  and p ro ce d u re s  a re  d is c r e te  fro m  § 1981.Jo h n so n  v . R a ilw a y  E x p r e s s  A g e n c y , Inc. , 421 U . S . ”454 (1975). 4



C O N C L U S IO NF o r  the above and fo re g o in g  r e a s o n s , resp on d en ts r e s p e c tfu lly  req u est th is  C o u rt to deny p e tit io n e r ’ s p etition  fo r  a w rit of c e r t io r a r i  to the United States C o u rt o f A p p eals fo r  the F if th  C ir c u it . R e s p e c tfu lly  subm itted,
Sep tem b er 8, 1977 Donald Ju n eauC o u n se l fo r  R esp ondents.910-17th S tre e t , N . W . , Suite 501W ashington, D . C . 20006.

5