Belk v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education Brief of Plaintiffs-Appellants (Corrected)

    No. 83-1623

I k  t h e

(Slourt rtf %  Inttpfi #tatra
October T eem , 1984

P hyllis A. A nderson,

v.
Petitioner,

City oe B essemer City, etc.

ON W RIT OE OEETIORARI TO T H E  U N ITED  STATES 

COURT OE APPEALS EOR TH E  EOURTH CIRCUIT

REPLY BRIEF FOR PETITIONER

J onathan W allas 
J ohn T. Nockleby

Ferguson, Watt, Wallas 
& Adkins, P.A.

Suite 730
951 S. Independence Boulevard 
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202 
(704) 375-8461

J .  L eV onne Chambers 
R onald L . E llis 
E ric S chnapper*

16th Floor 
99 Hudson Street 
New York, New York 10013 
(212) 219-1900

Counsel for Petitioner

^Counsel of Record



1

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page

C a r o le n e  P r o d u c t s  Co. v . U n i te d
S t a t e s ,  304 U .S .  144 (1 9 3 8 )  . .  13

Cooper v .  F e d e r a l  R e s e r v e  B o a r d ,
No. 83-1 85 ..............................................  17

Lanpher v .  P ro ko p ,  703 F . 2d 1311
( D . D . C i r .  1983) ...............................  10

S c h e l l e r - G l o b e  C orp .  v .  M i l s c o  Mfq.
C o . ,  636 F .2d  177 (7 th  C i r .
( 1980) ........................................................  17

Schwerman T r u c k in g  Co. v .  G a r t l a n d  
S t e a m s h i p  C o . ,  496 F .2 d  466 
(8 t h  C i r .  1974) ....................   17

T exas  D e p t ,  o f  Community A f f a i r s  
v .  B u r d i n e ,  450 U .S .  248 
(1 981 )  ........................................................  9



No. 83-1623

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

O c to b e r  Term, 1984

PHYLLIS A. ANDERSON,

P e t i t i o n e r , 

v .

CITY OF BESSEMER CITY, e t c .

On Writ o f  C e r t i o r a r i  t o  t h e  U nited  S t a t e s  
Court  o f  A p p e a l s  f o r  th e  F o u r th  C i r c u i t

REPLY BRIEF FOR PETITIONER

(1)  The im p o r ta n c e  o f  th e  Rule  52 

l i m i t a t i o n  on a p p e l l a t e  r e v i e w  o f  f a c t u a l  

f i n d i n g s  i s  d e m o n s t r a t e d  w ith  e x c e p t i o n a l  

c l a r i t y  by th e  B r i e f  f o r  R e sp o n d e n t .  

R e s p o n d e n t ' s  d i s a g r e e m e n t  w ith  the  t r i a l  

c o u r t ’ s  f i n d i n g s  o f  f a c t  i s  n ot  l i m i t e d  t o  

the  u l t i m a t e  i s s u e  o f  whether  o r  not  t h e r e  

was 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 e s p o n d e n t



2

i n s i s t s  t h a t  e s s e n t i a l l y  a l l  t h e  d i s t r i c t  

c o u r t ' s  f i n d i n g s  with r e g a r d  t o  c o n t r o ­

v e r t e d  f a c t u a l  i s s u e s  were m i s t a k e n .  

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

a t t a c k  f i n d i n g s  by th e  d i s t r i c t  c o u r t  

r e g a r d i n g  s e x u a l l y  s t e r e o t y p e d  q u e s t i o n s  

(R .  B r .  7 - 1 0 ,  3 1 -3 2 )  , t h e  b i a s e s  o f  t h e

m a l e  c o m m i t t e e  members ( R. B r .  1 4 - 1 8 ) ,  

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

(R .  B r . 3 3-3 7) and th e  c o m p a r a t i v e

q u a l i f i c a t i o n s  o f  p e t i t i o n e r  and K in c a i d

(R .  B r . 1 0 - 1 4 ,  3 2 - 3 3 , 5 a 7 a ) .  These

a r g u m e n t s p e r v a s i v e l y  d e m o n s t r a t e t h e

c o m p l e x and c o n f l i c t i n g n a t u r e  o f th e

e v i d e n c e w hose  d i f f e r i n g i n f e r e n c e s th e

t r i a l  c o u r t  was r e q u i r e d  t o  r e s o l v e . 

R e s p o n d e n t  ap p en d s  t o  i t s  b r i e f  an 

A p p e n d i x  r e f e r r i n g  t o  24 o t h e r  s u b s i d i a r y  

f a c t u a l  d i s p u t e s  (R. B r .  l a - 4 a ) , most o f  

w h ich  w e r e  a l s o  r e s o l v e d  by t h e  t r i a l  

c o u r t  in  a manner t o  which r e s p o n d e n t  h e r e  

o b j e c t s .  The t w e n t y - f i v e  p r i n t e d  p a g e s  o f



3

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

q u e s t i o n s  i s  more than t w i c e  th e  l e n g t h  o f

th e  p o s t - t r i a l  memorandum on the  same

i s s u e s  f i l e d  by r e s p o n d e n t s  in  the  
1

d i s t r i c t  c o u r t .

The f a c t u a l  a r gu m e n ts  advanced  by 

r e s p o n d e n t  a r e  in  most i n s t a n c e s  not  new; 

s i m i l a r  c o n t e n t i o n s  were advanced  u n s u c ­

c e s s f u l l y  i n  the  d i s t r i c t  c o u r t .  Many o f  

r e s p o n d e n t ' s  a r gu m e n ts  a r e  n ot  f r i v o l o u s .  

The r e c o r d  in  t h i s  c a s e  i s  r e p l e t e  with  

d i r e c t  c o n f l i c t s  between t h e  w i t n e s s e s  

c a l l e d  by p e t i t i o n e r  and r e s p o n d e n t ,  a s  

w e l l  a s  with t e s t i m o n y  which ,  a l t h o u g h  not  

c o n t r a d i c t e d ,  c o u l d  be i n t e r p r e t e d  in  a 

number o f  d i f f e r e n t  ways .  I f  th e  " c l e a r  

e r r o r "  r u l e  r e q u i r e d  r e v e r s a l  m e re ly  

b e c a u s e  t h e r e  was some e v i d e n c e  t o  s u p p o r t  

t h e  c l  a ims o f  the  p a r t y  which l o s t  a t

R e s p o n d e n t  t o  P e t i t i o n  f o r  Writ o f  
C e r t i o r a r i , p p .  2 9 a - 4 1 a .

T



4

t r i a l , r e v e r s a l  would be  a p p r o p r i a t e  h e r e , 

and i n  v i r t u a l l y  e v e r y  o t h e r  c a s e .  But 

t h a t  i s  n o t  the  s t a n d a r d  o f  r e v i e w  

e s t a b l i s h e d  by R u le  52 and th e  d e c i s i o n s  

o f  t h i s  C o u r t .  Once a t r i a l  c o u r t  h a s  

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

t h e  p a r t i e s ,  i t s  f i n d i n g s  must  be uphe ld  

so  lonq a s  t h e  r e c o r d  c o n t a i n s  s u b s t a n t i a l  

e v i d e n c e  t o  s u p p o r t  t h o s e  f i n d i n g s .  The 

e x i s t e n c e  o f  " c l e a r  e r r o r "  c a n n o t  be 

e s t a b l i s h e d  m e r e ly  by r e c i t i n g  o n l y  t h e  

e v i d e n c e  ad d u ced  a t  t r i a l  by t h e  u n su c ­

c e s s f u l  p a r t y ,  e v id e n c e  w hich ,  i f  b e l i e v e d  

and c o n s i d e r e d  in i s o l a t i o n  from th e  r e s t  

o f  t h e  r e c o r d ,  m ight  have  p e r s u a d e d  th e  

t r i a l  c o u r t  t o  r e a c h  a d i f f e r e n t  co n ­

c l u s i o n .

The i n a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s  o f  a p p e l l a t e  

f a c t  f i n d i n g  in t h i s  c a s e  i s  d e m o n s t r a t e d  

w i t h  p a r t i c u l a r  c l a r i t y  by t h e  d i s p u t e  

c o n c e r n i n g  w hether  K i n c a i d  was a s k e d  a 

q u e s t i o n  a b o u t  h i s  w i l l i n g n e s s  t o  work a t



5

n i g h t . F o u r  w i t n e s s e s  t e s t i f i e d  ab o u t  

t h i s  i s s u e ,  Boone t e s t i f i e d  t h a t  no such 

q u e s t i o n  was a s k e d ,  bu t  n o ted  t h a t  she  had 

made a s t a t e m e n t  t o  K i n c a i d  on the  

s u b j e c t .  ( J . A. 1 2 1 a ) .  B u t l e r  r e c a l l e d  

t h e  s u b j e c t  a r i s i n g ,  b u t  c o u l d  not  r e c a l l  

w h e th e r  Boone had made a s t a t e m e n t  o r  

a s k e d  a q u e s t i o n .  ( J . A .  145,  1 5 1 ) .

M c C l e l l a n  i n s i s t e d  t h e r e  had been a 

q u e s t i o n  ( J . A .  1 5 8 a ) .  K i n c a i d  c o u ld  not

r e c a l l ,  a n y t h i n g  o t h e r  than  what he h i m s e l f  

had s a i d  ( J . A .  129a) Thus t h e  i s s u e  o f

whether K i n c a i d  had been a s k e d  a q u e s t i o n ,  

o r  w h e t h e r  a l l  t h a t  had o c c u r r e d  was a 

s t a t e m e n t  by Boone,  t u r n e d  on whether  t h e  

t r i a l  j u d g e  c h o s e  t o  b e l i e v e  Boone o r  

M c C l e l l a n .  The t r i a l  j u d g e  b e l i e v e d  

Boone .

In t h i s  C ourt  r e s p o n d e n t  i n s i s t s  t h a t  

th e  t r i a l  j u d g e ' s  f i n d i n g  was " c l e a r  

e r r o r " . Under t h e s e  c i r c u m s t a n c e s

r e s p o n d e n t  ' s  argument amounts  t o  l i t t l e



6

more t h a n  a c l a i m  t h a t  th e  t r i a l  j u d g e  

b e l i e v e d  th e  wrong w i t n e s s .  Such a c l a i m ,  

u n d e r  c i r c u m s t a n c e s  such  a s  t h i s ,  i s  

s i m p l y  i n s u f f i c i e n t  t o  e s t a b l i s h  c l e a r  

e r r o r .  When a t r i a l  j u d g e  i s  f o r c e d  t o  

r e s o l v e  a s i m p l e  c o n f l i c t  in  th e  t e s t i m o n y  

o f  two w i t n e s s e s  with c o m p a r a b le  p e r s o n a l  

k n o w l e d g e  o f  an e v e n t ,  n e i t h e r  p o s s i b l e  

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

c l e a r  e r r o r .  Had the  t r i a l  j u d g e  in  t h i s  

c a s e  ch osen  t o  b e l i e v e  M c C l e l l a n ,  and h e l d  

t h a t  K i n c a i d  was a sk e d  a b o u t  n i g h t  work, 

we c o u l d  n o t  h av e  s u c c e s s f u l l y  a t t a c k e d  

t h a t  d e c i s i o n  on a p p e a l ;  t h e  j u d g e ’ s  

a c t u a l  d e c i s i o n  t o  b e l i e v e  Boone i n s t e a d  

i s  no l e s s  p r o t e c t e d  by R u le  52.

In o u r  p r i n c i p a l  b r i e f  we a rgu ed  t h a t  

d i s t i c t  t r i a l  c o u r t  f i n d i n g s  w ith  r e g a r d  

t o  d e m e a n o r  a r e  not  s u b j e c t  t o  a p p e l l a t e  

r e v i e w ,  and s u g g e s t e d  t h a t  in  t h i s  c a s e  

t h e  t r i a l  c o u r t ' s  d e c i s i o n  r e g a r d i n g  th e  

a s k i n g  o f  s e x u a l l y  s t e r e o t y p e d  q u e s t i o n s



7 -

was s u c h  a f i n d i n g .  We t h e r e f o r e  urged  

t h a t  t h e  F o u r t h  C i r c u i t  e r r e d  a s  a m a t t e r  

o f  l aw  in  r e c o n s i d e r i n g  th e  t r i a l  j u d g e ' s  

d e c i s i o n  on t h a t  i s s u e .  ( P.  B r .  5 8 - 7 5 ) .  

Respondent  c o n t e n d s ,  h ow ever ,  t h a t  even i f  

t h e  F o u r t h  C i r c u i t  d id  e r r , i t s  e r r o r  

c a n n o t  b e  c o r r e c t e d  by t h i s  Court  b e c a u s e  

the Fou r th  C i r c u i t  compounded th e  e r r o r  o f  

i t s  a c t i o n  by r e f u s i n g  t o  d i s c u s s  th e  

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

o f  c r e d i b i l i t y  i s s u e s .  P e t i t i o n e r  e x ­

p r e s s l y  r e l i e d  on the  t r i a l  c o u r 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  in  h e r  b r i e f  in
2

t h e  c o u r t  o f  a p p e a l s ,  b u t  r e s p o n d e n t  

i n s i s t s  t h a t  t h i s  i s  i n s u f f i c i e n t  t o  

p r e s e r v e  th e  i s s u e ,  s i n c e  th e  Four th  

C i r c u i t  o p i n i o n  " d o e s  n ot  a d d r e s s  o r  

r e s o l v e  i t s  power under  R u le  5 2 ( a )  to  

r e v ie w  c r e d i b i l i t y - b a s e d  o r  d e m e a n o r - b a se d  

f i n d i n g s . . . . "  ( R. B r .  3 8 ) .  On t h i s  v iew

2 B r i e f  o f  A p p e l l e e , p p . 24 ,  2 6 - 2 7 ,  28 
( 4th C i r . ,  No. 8 3 - 1 2 7 8 ) .



8

t h e  e x e r c i s e  o f  a power i n c o n s i s t e n t  with 

th e  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  i s  to 

be  p e r m i t t e d  s o  lo n g  a s  t h e  e r r a n t  c o u r t  

d o e s  n o t  b o t h e r  t o  d e fe n d  th e  l e g a l i t y  o f  

i t s  a c t i o n .  No d e c i s i o n  o f  t h i s  Court 

p r o v i d e s  an y  b a s i s  f o r  t h i s  p r o p o s a l  to 

g i v e  t h e  l o w e r  c o u r t s  t h e  a u t h o r i t y  t o  so 

i n s u l a t e  t h e i r  e r r o r s  from r e v i e w .

(2)  R espo n d ent  a r g u e s  a t  l e n g t h  t h a t  

K i n c a i d  w as  more q u a l i f i e d  than  p e t i ­

t i o n e r ,  ap p e n d in g  t o  i t s  b r i e f  an Appendix 

s e t t i n g  f o r t h  s e v e r a l  dozen  d i f f e r e n c e s  in 

t h e  b a c k g r o u n d s  and e x p e r i e n c e s  o f  t h o s e  

two a p p l i c a n t s .  (R. B r .  1 0 - 1 4 ,  5 a - 7 a ) . At 

t r i a l ,  h o w e v e r ,  th e  o n l y  e x p l a n a t i o n  

o f f e r e d  by t h e  r e s p o n d e n t ' s  w i t n e s s e s  f o r  

t h e i r  d e c i s i o n  t o  h i r e  K in c a i d  was 

K i n c a i d ' s  p o s s e s s i o n  o f  a d e g r e e  in 

p h y s i c a l  e d u c a t i o n .  In t h i s  Court  

r e s p o n d e n t  now s u g g e s t s  a l a r g e  number o f  

o t h e r  p o s s i b l e  e x p l a n a t i o n s , *  i t  a r g u e s ,  

f o r  e x a m p l e ,  t h a t  K in c a i d  e v in c e d  an



9

i n t e r e s t  in  " s i i m n a s t i c s , b a l l e t  [and] t a p  

d a n c i n g "  (R .  B r .  7a) , w h i l e  p e t i t i o n e r  

a l l e g e d l y  d i d  n o t .  However d e s i r a b l e  i t  

m ig h t  be t o  h i r e  a b a l l e t o m a n e  a s  a 

r e c r e a t i o n  d i r e c t o r ,  the  f a c t  r e m a in s  t h a t  

no w i t n e s s  t e s t i f i e d  t h a t  K in c a id  was 

s e l e c t e d  b e c a u s e  o f  h i s  knowledge and 

a p p r e c i a t i o n  o f  b a l l e t .  As t h i s  Court  

e m p h a s i z e d  in  T e x a s  D ep t ,  o f  Community 

A f f a i r s  v .  B u r d i n e , 450 U. S . 248-255  n .9  

( 1 9 8 1 ) ,  " [ a ] n a r t i c u l a t i o n  not  a d m i t t e d

i n t o  e v i d e n c e  w i l l  not  s u f f i c e .  T hu s ,  th e  

d e f e n d a n t  c a n n o t  meet i t s  burden  m e r e ly  

throuqh  . . .  argum ent  o f  c o u n s e l . "  B u r d in e  

r e q u i r e s  an em ployer  t o  adduce  s p e c i f i c  

e v id e n c e  t o  s u p p o r t  any e x p l a n a t i o n  o f  i t s  

cond u c t  " t o  f o c u s  the  i s s u e s  and p r o v i d e  

p l a i n t i f f  with  ' a f u l l  and f a i r  o p p o r ­

t u n i t y  1 t o  a t t a c k  th e  d e f e n d a n t ' s  p u r ­

p o r t e d  i  u s t  i f i c a t i o n .  That  p u r p o s e  i s



10

d e f e a t e d  i f  d e f e n d a n t  i s  a l lo w e d  t o  

p r e s e n t  a m oving  t a r g e t . . . . "  Lanpher  v .  

P rokop ,  703 F .2 d  1311 ( D .C .C .  1982)

( 3 )  The working  w i f e  d e f e n s e ,  once  

embraced with  e n t h u s i a s m  by r e s p o n d e n t ,  i s  

now s p u r n e d  by i t  with  e a u a l  f e r v o r .  We 

noted  in  o u r  p r i n c i p a l  b r i e f  t h a t ,  bo th  a t  

t r i a l  and in  th e  c o u r t  o f  a p p e a l s ,  c o u n s e l  

f o r  r e s p o n d e n t  e x p r e s s l y  r e l i e d  on th e  

w o r k i n g  w i f e  d e f e n s e .  (P .  B r .  7 7 ) .  In

i t s  R e s p o n s e  t o  P e t i t i o n  f o r  Writ  o f  

C e r t i o r a r i ,  r e s p o n d e n t  r e p e a t e d l y  c l a im e d  

c r e d i t  f o r  h a v i n g  c r e a t e d  and p r e s e n t e d  

t h i s  argum ent  be lo w :

[TJhe  "w ork in g  w i f e "  i s s u e  was 
a p o r t i o n  . . .  o f  r e s p o n d e n t ’ s  
r e b u t t a l  to  the  p r im a  f a c i e  
c a s e  . . . .  [ T ] h e  " w o r k i n g
w i f e "  i s s u e  was  p a r t  and 
p a r c e l  a£  the  e n t i r e  r e b u t t a l  
o v e r l a y .

R e sp o n se  t o  P e t i t i o n e r  f o r  Writ o f  
C e r t i o r a r i ,  p .  16.

3



R e s p o n d e n t  a l s o  acknow ledged  t h a t  " t h e

w o r k in g  w i f e  t e s t i m o n y  was . . .  t r e a t e d  by

th e  C i r c u i t , a s  . . .  c u m u l a t i v e  r e b u t t a l

e v i d e n c e  w h ic h ,  when viewed in l i g h t  o f

the e n t i r e  r e c o r d ,  d i s p e l l e d  the  i n f e r e n c e

o f  d i s c r i m i n a t i o n  c r e a t e d  by p e t i t i o n e r ' s
4

e s t a b l i s h m e n t  o f  a p r im a  f a c i e  c a s e . "  In 

the  B r i e f  f o r  Respondent  in  t h i s  Court  t h e  

employment h i s t o r i e s  o f  t h e  f o u r  w iv e s  a r e  

p r o m i n e n t l y  f e a t u r e d  in t h e  S t a t e m e n t  o f  

t h e  C a s e  (R .  Br„ 2 - 4 ) ,  j u s t  a s  th e y  were 

in r e s p o n d e n t ' s  b r i e f  in  t h e  c o u r t  b e lo w .

At p a g e s  41-46  o f  i t s  b r i e f  in  t h i s  

C o u r t ,  h o w e v e r ,  r e s p o n d e n t  now b o l d l y  

d i s a v o w s  th e  e n t i r e  working  w i f e  a rgum ent .  

I t  i n s i s t s

[ T ] he t e s t i m o n y  a b o u t  th e  male  
C o m m it te e  members '  w iv e s  was n ot  
p r o f e r r e d  by th e  r e s p o n d e n t  C i t y  a s  a 
d e f e n s e  t o  th e  c h a r g e  o f  b i a s .  (R. 
B r . 4 4 ) .

4 Id . p p . 15-16 ( e m p h a s i s  o m i t t e d ) .



12 -

T h i s  i s  p r e c i s e l y  th e  o p p o s i t e  o f  the
5

p o s i t i o n  t a k e n  by r e s p o n d e n t  a t  t r i a l  and 

i n  o p p o s i t i o n  t o  c e r t i o r a r i .  C ounse l  fo r  

r e s p o n d e n t  now o f f e r s  no a l t e r n a t i v e  

e x p l a n a t i o n  o f  why i t s  own t r i a l  c o u n s e l  

s y s t e m a t i c a l l y  p r e f e r r e d  such  t e s t im o n y  

f ro m  a l l  f o u r  m ale  co m m it te e  members and 

n on e  c a n  r e a d i l y  be  i m a g i n e d .  S i m i l a r l y ,  

r e s p o n d e n t  now i n s i s t s  th e  working  w ife  

argument  was n e v e r  " c o n s i d e r e d  o r  approved 

by t h e  F o u r th  C i r c u i t . "  (R. B r .  2 4 ) .  T h is  

i s  p r e c i s e l y  th e  o p p o s i t e  o f  t h e  p o s i t i o n  

t a k e n  by r e s p o n d e n t  l e s s  th a n  s i x  months 

ag o  in o p p o s i n g  th e  g r a n t  o f  c e r t i o r a r i  in 

t h i s  c a s e .

J . A .  146a (employment h i s t o r y  o f  
committee member's  w i f e  was r e l e v a n t  " [ t ] o  
show the w i t n e s s  i s  not  p r e j u d i c e d  a g a i n s t  
a wife  working a t  n i g h t . " )  Compare R. B r .  
24 ("NO such  d e f e n s e  was e v e r  o f f e r e d  by 
the C i t y " )  , 45 ( "The  C i t y  had made no such 
d e f e n s e  a t  t r i a l . . . . " )



13

We b e l i e v e  t h a t  r e s p o n d e n t '8  e a r l i e r

c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n  o f  i t s  p r e v i o u s  c o n t e n ­

t i o n s  , and o f  th e  F ou r th  C i r c u i t ’ s  

opin ion,,  were  more a c c u r a t e .  The r e l e v a n t  

p o r t i o n  o f  t h e  o p i n i o n  be low  makes c l e a r  

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

em ploym ent  h i s t o r i e s  o f  th e  f o u r  w iv es  a s

h a v i n g  " d i s p e l l e d  th e  e v i d e n c e  o f  d i s -
6

c r i m i n a t i o n .  ( P e t . App. 6 1 a ) .

T h i s  p o r t i o n  o f  th e  F o u r th  C i r c u i t ' s  
o p i n i o n  i s  f u l l y  b i n d i n g  on the  lo w er  
c o u r t s  in t h a t  c i r c u i t y  and o f  p r e c e d e n t a l  
importance in  o t h e r  c i r c u i t s ,  d e s p i t e  th e  
f a c t  t h a t  th e  p a s s a g e  o c c u r s  in  a f o o t ­
n o t e .  A number o f  t h e  most  im p o r ta n t  
l e g a l  p r i n c i p l e s  a p p l i e d  by t h i s  Court  
w ere  t h e m s e l v e s  f i r s t  announced in 
f o o t n o t e s .  S e e ,  e . g . , C a r o l e n e  P r o d u c t s  
Co. v . U n i te d  S t a t e s ,  Tf)4 U.s". 144 ,  152 
n .4  (1938] .' In T i t l e  V II  c a s e s  a r i s i n g  in  
Maryland, V i r g i n i a ,  West V i r g i n i a ,  North 
C a r o l i n a  and South C a r o l i n a ,  f e d e r a l  
j u d g e s  a r e  t o d a y  r e q u i r e d  t o  p e r m i t  a 
d e f e n d a n t  t o  " d i s p e l "  d i r e c t  p r o o f  o f  
u n la w fu l  d i s c r i m i n a t i o n  on th e  b a s i s  o f  
s e x  by  a d d u c in g  e v id e n c e  t h a t  th e  r e ­
s p o n s i b l e  o f f i c i a l  was m a r r i e d  t o  a woman 
who works  o r  worked f o r  a l i v i n g .  A 
f e d e r a l  d i s t r i c t  j u d g e  in  t h o s e  s t a t e s  
w ould  h av e  l i t t l e  c h o i c e  bu t  t o  r e g a r d  
such e x c u l p a t o r y  e v i d e n c e  a s  c o n c l u s i v e ,  
s in c e  in t h i s  c a s e  t h e  F ou r th  C i r c u i t  h e ld  
i t  s u f f i c i e n t  to  d i s p e l  th e  e f f e c t  o f  a 
c a n d i d  a d m i s s i o n  by com m ittee  member



14

R e a s o n a b l e  r e a d e r s  m ight  d i s a g r e e  a s  t o  

t h e  p r e c i s e  w e ig h t  the  F o u r th  C i r c u i t  h a s  

d i r e c t e d  t h e  low er  c o u r t s  t o  g i v e  t o  a 

w o r k i n g  w i f e  d e f e n s e .  R e sp o n d e n t ,  

h ow ever ,  d o e s  not  u n d e r t a k e  t o  d e fe n d  t h a t  

d o c t r i n e  in  e i t h e r  i t s  l i t e r a l  v i r u l e n t  

form o r  some m i l d e r  v e r s i o n ,  bu t  d i s a v o w s  

i t  e n t i r e l y .  The p r o f f e r  o f  t h e  r e l e v a n t  

e v i d e n c e  a t  t r i a l ,  th e  r e p e a t e d  r e f e r e n c e s  

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

b r i e f s ,  t h e  F o u r th  C i r c u i t ' s  a p p a r e n t l y  

a p p r o v in g  d i s c u s s i o n  o f  t h i s  d e f e n s e ,  a l l ,  

r e s p o n d e n t  now i n s i s t s ,  were d e v e lo p m e n t s  

w hich  n e v e r  had o r  were in t e n d e d  t o  have 

any p u r p o s e  o r  m eaning .  T h i s  a c c o u n t  o f  

t h e  p r o c e e d i n g s  and d e c i s i o n  b e lo w ,  an 

a c c o u n t  e n t i r e l y  a t  odds  w ith  r e s p o n d e n t ' s  

i n i t i a l  p o s i t i o n  in  t h i s  C o u r t ,  i s  

m a n i f e s t l y  i n a c c u r a t e .  A p a r t y  r e s p o n s i ­

b l e  f o r  s u c h  an i l l - c o n c e i v e d  i d e a  sh o u ld



15

not  be  p e r m i t t e d  t o  s h i e l d  i t  from 

s c r u t i n y  s i m p l y  by b r a z e n l y  d e n y in g  the  

e x i s t e n c e  and p a t e r n i t y  o f  t h a t  d o c t r i n e .

( 4 )  R espon dent  s u g g e s t s , ,  f i n a l l y ,  

t h a t  t h e  s t a n d a r d  o f  a p p e l l a t e  re v ie w  in  

t h i s  c a s e  s h o u l d  in some way be a f f e c t e d  

by the  f a c t  t h a t  the  d i s t r i c t  c o u r t ,  p r i o r  

t o  a d o p t i n g  i t s  F e b r u a r y  1983 f i n d i n g s  o f  

F ac t  and C o n c l u s i o n s  o f  Law, had s o l i c i t e d  

p r o p o s e d  f i n d i n g s  and comments from the  

p a r t i e s  (R. B r .  4 6 - 4 3 ) .  In t h i s  c a s e ,  

h o w e v e r ,  t h e  t r i a l  c o u r t  d i d  not  ad opt  

v e r b a t i m  f i n d i n g s  p r o p o s e d  by a p a r t y ;  

w ha tever  p r o b le m s  m ight  be p o sed  by such  a 

p r o c e d u r e  a r e  not  p r e s e n t e d  by t h i s  

a p p e a l .

I t  i s  u n c l e a r  how r e s p o n d e n t  c o n t e n d s  

t h i s  C o u r t  s h o u l d  t r e a t  th e  f i n d i n g s  o f  

t h e  t r i a l  j u d g e  in t h i s  c a s e .  In a

number o f  p a s s a g e s  r e s p o n d e n t  a p p e a r s  t o  

u r g e  t h i s  C ourt  to  t o t a l l y  d i s r e g a r d  

p a r t  i c u l a r  f i n d i n g s  b e c a u s e  th ey  were



16

c o n t a i n e d  in  t h e  F e b r u a r y  1983 F i n d i n g s  o f  

F a c t ,  r a t h e r  than  th e  S ep tem ber  1982, 

Memorandum o f  D e c i s i o n  (R. B r . 2 0 ,  3 3 ) .

E l s e w h e r e  r e s p o n d e n t  d i s a v o w s  any i m p l i ­

c a t i o n  t h a t  a s p e c i a l  s t a n d a r d  o f  r ev iew
7

i s  w a r r a n t e d .  (R. B r .  4 8 ) .  A d d i t i o n a l l y ,  

o r  p e r h a p s  i n  th e  a l t e r n a t i v e ,  r e s p o n d e n t  

u r g e s  t h a t  th e  F e b r u a r y  1983 F i n d i n g s  

s h o u l d  be  s u b j e c t e d  t o  " c l o s e  s c r u t i n y "  

(R .  B r . 4 8 - 4  9 ) ;  w hether  c l o s e  s c r u t i n y  i s  

a s t a n d a r d  d i f f e r e n t  than  th e  Rule  52 

c l e a r  e r r o r  r u l e ,  o r  m e r e ly  c a l l s  upon the 

c o u r t s  t o  work h a r d e r  and more d i l i g e n t l y  

in  a p p l y i n g  t h e  u s u a l  s t a n d a r d ,  i s  i t s e l f  

u n c l e a r .

The c o u r t s  o f  a p p e a l s  have  f o r  some 

t i m e  b e e n  c o n c e r n e d  ab o u t  th e  t r i a l  c o u r t  

p r a c t i c e  —  a p r a c t i c e  which r e s p o n d e n t  

a d m i t s  was  n o t  f o l l o w e d  in  t h i s  c a s e  (R.

7 '
"But  t h e  p o i n t  i s  n o t  t h a t  such 

f i n d i n g s  sh o u ld  be t r e a t e d  and e v a l u a t e d  
a s  o th e r  than  t h o s e  o f  t h e  t r i a l  c o u r t  f o r  
p u r p o s e s  o f  Rule  5 2 ( a ) .



17

Br .  4 6) - -  o f  a d o p t i n g  v e r b a t i m  th e
8

f i n d i n q s  o f  f a c t  p r o p o s e d  by a l i t i g a n t .  

The s o l i c i t a t i o n  and u s e  o f  p r o p o s e d  

f i n d i n g s  can  be o f  c o n s i d e r a b l e  a s s i s t a n c e  

to  a b u s y  t r i a l  c o u r t ,  e s p e c i a l l y  when a

c a s e  i n v o l v e s  complex o r  v o lu m in o u s  f a c t s ,
9

many o f  w hich  may not  be in  d i s p u t e .  On 

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

r e v i e w  c o n t e m p l a te d  by R u le  52 i s  a 

s t a n d a r d  a p p l i c a b l e  o n l y  t o  F i n d i n g s  o f  

F a c t  t h a t  a r e  s e t  f o r t h  by " t h e  c o u r t "  and 

t h a t  c o n s t i t u t e  " t h e  g r o u n d s  o f  i t s  

a c t i o n . "  The mere f a c t  t h a t  a t r i a l  j u d g e  

has  p l a c e d  h i s  o r  her  s i g n a t u r e  a t  the  end 

o f  f i n d i n g s  o f  f a c t  d r a f t e d  in whole o r  

p a r t  by c o u n s e l  f o r  an i n t e r e s t e d  p a r t y

See  P e t i t i o n  f o r  Writ  o f  C e r t i o r a r i ,  
C o o p e r  v .  F e d e r a l  R e s e r v e  B o a rd ,  No. 
8 3 - 1 8 5 ,  p p .  19 -3 7 .  ~~

S e e , e . q . ,  S c h e l l e r - G l o b e  C o r o .  v .  
M i l s c o  Mfg. Co. , " 6 3 6  F. 2d 1 7 7 ,  176 ( 7 t h  
e r r . 19 8 0 ) ;  Schwerman T r u c k i n g  Co. v .  
Gart land S t e a m s h ip  Co. , 496! F .  2d 4 6 6 ,  475" 
( &th C i r .  1 9 7 4 ) .



18

d o e s  n o t  g u a r a n t e e  t h a t  t h e  c o n t e n t s  o f  

t h e s e  f i n d i n g s  a c t u a l l y  r e p r e s e n t  " th e  

g r o u n d s  o f  [ t h e  c o u r t ' s ]  a c t i o n . "

The p a r t i c u l a r  p r o c e d u r e  l e a d i n g  to 

t h e  e n t r y  o f  f i n d i n g s  o f  f a c t  can and 

s h o u l d  be  s c r u t i n i z e d  t o  a s s u r e  t h a t  the 

s u b s t a n c e  o f  t h o s e  f i n d i n g s  in d e e d  r e f l e c t  

t h e  t h o u g h t s  and r e a s o n i n g  o f  t h e  t r i a l  

i u d g e . In some c a s e s  no such  c o n c l u s i o n

w i l l  be  p o s s i b l e .  I f  a t r i a l  ju d g e  

s i m p l y  an n o u n ces  t h a t  he h a s  r u l e d  f o r  one 

1 i t  iq  a n t , a s k s  one p a r t y  t o  p r o p o s e  an 

o p i n i o n  o r  f i n d i n g s ,  and then  s i q n s  the  

p r o p o s a l  a s  s u b m i t t e d ,  an a p p e l l a t e  c o u r t  

would  be  j u s t i f i e d  in  c o n c l u d i n g  t h a t  

t h o s e  f i n d i n g s  d id  not  r e p r e s e n t  the 

g r o u n d s  o f  the  t r i a l  j u d g e ' s  o p i n i o n .  

Where a t r i a l  j u d g e  h a s  done no more than 

i n d i c a t e  w hich  p a r t y  i s  t o  p r e v a i l ,  i t  i s  

i n c o n c e i v a b l e  t h a t  c o u n s e l  f o r  a p a r t y  

c o u l d  s u b s e q u e n t l y  c o r r e c t l y  g u e s s  and



19

a r t i c u l a t e  in  d e t a i l  th e  unspoken r e a s o n s  

which had l e d  th e  j u d g e  t o  a r r i v e  a t  t h a t  

d e c i s i o n .

In t h i s  c a s e ,  h ow ever ,  t h e r e  i s  no 

r e a s o n  t o  d o u b t  t h a t  t h e  F e b r u a r y  1983 

F in d  i n a s  r e p r e s e n t  the  " g r o u n d s ” o f  th e  

d i s t r i c t  c o u r t ' s  d e c i s i o n ,  and a r e  t h u s  

s u b j e c t  t o  t h e  u s u a l  R u le  52 s t a n d a r d  o f  

r e v i e w .  F o l l o w i n g  th e  c o m p l e t io n  o f  th e  

t r i a l ,  t h e  d i s t r i c t  c o u r t  had i s s u e d  a 

Memorandum o f  D e c i s i o n  c o n c i s e l y  s e t t i n g  

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

t i o n e r s ;  r e s p o n d e n t  d o e s  n ot  q u e s t i o n  t h e  

l e g i t i m a c y  o f  t h a t  o p i n i o n .  The d i s t r i c t  

c o u r t  t h e n  r e q u e s t e d  c o u n s e l  t o  su bm it  " a  

somewhat e n l a r q e d  v e r s i o n  o f  t h i s  memoran­

dum in  t h e  form o f  p r o p o s e d  f i n d i n g s  o f  

f a c t ,  c o n c l u s i o n s  o f  l a w ,  and an a p p r o ­

p r i a t e  j u d g m e n t , "  ( P e t .  App. 5 a ) ,  and 

e x p r e s s l y  a s k e d  the  d e f e n d a n t  t o  comment



20

on t h o s e  p r o p o s a l s  so  t h a t  the  f i n a l

o p i n i o n  "may r e f l e c t  c o n s i d e r a t i o n  o f  the
10

i n p u t  o f  bo th  s i d e s " .

The F i n d i n g s  o f  F a c t  a c t u a l l y  ad opted  

i n  F e b r u a r y  1983 a r e  c o n s i d e r a b l y  d i f ­

f e r e n t  f rom  the  f i n d i n g s  p r o p o s e d  by 

p e t i t i o n e r ,  a n d . in  many i m p o r t a n t  r e s p e c t s  

a r e  more d e t a i l e d .  The t r i a l  j u d g e ' s  

F i n d i n g s  w i t h  r e g a r d  t o  s e x u a l l y  s t e r e o ­

t y p e d  g u e s t i o n s ,  f o r  e x a m p l e ,  i s  f a r  

l o n g e r  than  t h o s e  s u g g e s t e d  by p e t i t i o n e r ,  

and i n c l u d e s  i t s  own d e t a i l e d  a n a l y s i s  o f  

t h e  r e l e v a n t  t e s t i m o n y .  O v e r a l l  o n l y  a 

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

t i o n e r  w e r e  a c t u a l l y  u t i l i z e d  v e r b a t i m  in 

t h e  a c t u a l  o p i n i o n .  The t r i a l  c o u r t ' s  

F i n d i n g s  c o n t a i n  58 c i t a t i o n s  t o  e x h i b i t s  

and v a r i o u s  p o r t i o n s  o f  the  t r i a l  t r a n ­

s c r i p t ;  p e t i t i o n e r ' s  p r o p o s e d  f i n d i n g s  

i n c l u d e d  no s i m i l a r l y  d e t a i l e d  a n a l y s i s  o f

To R e s p o n s e  t o  P e t i t i o n  f o r  Writ  o f  C er­
t i o r a r i ,  3 a .



21

the  r e c o r d .  Whatever t h e  a p p r o p r i a t e  

a p p e l l a t e  d i s p o s i t i o n  o f  an a p p e a l  

i n v o l v i n g  f i n d i n g s  ad o p te d  v e r b a t i m  a s  

p r o p o s e d  by c o u n s e l ,  t h i s  i s  not  such  a 

c a s e .

CONCLUSION

F o r  t h e  above  r e a s o n s , th e  judgment  

and o p i n i o n  o f  th e  Four th  C i r c u i t  sh o u ld  

be r e v e r s e d  and th e  c a s e  remanded with  

i n s t r u c t i o n s  t o  a f f i r m  th e  f i n d i n g s  o f  the  

d i s t r i c t  c o u r t .

R e s p e c t f u l l y  s u b m i t t e d ,

JONATHAN WALLAS 
JOHN T. NOCKLEBY

F e r g u s o n , W a t t , W a l l a s  
& A d k in s ,  P .A .
S u i t e  730
951 S .  Ind ep en d ence  
B o u le v a r d
C h a r l o t t e , North C a r o l i n a  

28202
(704 )  375-8461



22

J .  LeVONNE CHAMBERS 
RONALD L. ELLIS 
ERIC SCHNAPPER 

16th F l o o r  
99 Hudson S t r e e t  
New York ,  New York 10013

Counse l  f o r  P e t i t i o n e r

* C ounse l  o f  Record



Hamilton Graphics, Inc.— 200 Hudson Street, New York, N.Y.— (212) 966-4177