Lee v. Southern Home Sites Corporation Brief for Appellant
Public Court Documents
January 1, 1968

Cite this item
-
Brief Collection, LDF Court Filings. Lee v. Southern Home Sites Corporation Brief for Appellant, 1968. 9dc0dd42-bb9a-ee11-be36-6045bdeb8873. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/9db39dc1-dd33-4f3d-8951-528969656d20/lee-v-southern-home-sites-corporation-brief-for-appellant. Accessed May 17, 2025.
Copied!
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 30738 I JOHNNIE RAY LEE, Appellant, v. SOUTHERN HOME SITES CORP., a corporation, Appellee. On Appeal from the United States District Court For the Southern District of Mississippi BRIEF FOR APPELLANT * 10 JACK GREENBERG JEFFRY A. MINTZ 10 Columbus Circle New York, New York 10019 REUBEN V. ANDERSON FRED L. BANKS, JR. 538 1/2 North Parish Street Jackson, Mississippi WILLIAM BENNETT TURNER 1095 Market Street San Francisco, California 94103 Attorneys for Appellant TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES iii ISSUE PRESENTED 1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE 2 STATEMENT OF FACTS 5 ARGUMENT I. The History and the Purpose of Section 1982 Demonstrate that Attorneys' Fees Should Be Awarded to Plaintiffs Who Successfully Invoke Its Provisions. 8 II. The Explicit Provision for Attorneys' Fees in the 1968 Fair Housing Act, A Procedural Aspect of the Statute, Should Be Applied to This Case. 22. CONCLUSIONS 28 ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES ?-a9e Bradley v. School Board of the City of Richmond, 345 F.2d 310 (4th Cir. 1965) 17 Dolgow v. Anderson, 43 F.R.D. 472, (E.D. N.Y. 1968) 22 Eisen v. Carlisle S Jacquelin, 391 F.2d 555 (2d Cir. 1968) 22 Gilbert v. Hoisting & Portable Engineers, 237 Or. 139, 390 P.2d 320 (1964) 21 Hamm v. City of Rock Hill, 379 U.S. 306 (1964) 25 Hunter v. Erickson, 393 U.S. 385 (1969) 26 Jenkins v. United Gas Corp., 400 F.2d 28 (5th; Cir. 1968) • 16 Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., 392 U.S. 409 (1968) 4,7,8,9,10,11, 12,13,17,18,23 Kemp v. Beasley, 352 F.2d 14 (8th Cir. 1965) 17 Lee v. Southern Home Sites Corp., • 429 F.2d 290 (5th Cir. 1970) 2,4,11 Miller v. Amusement Enterprises, Inc. 426 F .2d 534 (5th Cir. 1970) 14,15,22,26 Mills v. Electric Autolite Co., 396 U.S. 375 (1970) 20,22 Newbern v. Lake Lorelei, Inc., 308 F .Supp. 407; 1 Race Rel. L. Survey 185 (S.D. Ohio, 1968, 1969) 19 n r Page Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc., 390 U.S. 400 (1968) 11,15,16,18, 20,24,25 Oatis v. Crown Zellerbach Corp., 398 F .2d 496 (5th Cir. 1968) 16 Pettway v. American Cast Iron Pipe Co., 411 F .2d 998 (5th Cir. 1969) 16 Pina v. Homsi, 1 Race Rel. L. Survey 18 (D. Mass. July 10, 1969) 19 Rolax v. Atlantic Coast Line-R.R., 186 F.2d 473 (4th Cir. 1951) 21 Sanders v. Russell, 5th Cir. 1968, 401 F .2d 241 11 Smoot v. Fox, 353 F.2d 830 (6th Cir. 1965) 17 Sprague v. Ticonic National Bank, 307 U.S. 161 (1939) 20 Sullivan v. Little Hunting Park, Inc., 396 U.S. 229, 239 (1969) 20,27 Terry v. Elmwood Cemetery, 307 F.Supp. 369 (1969) 18,19 Thorpe v. Housing Authority of the City of Durham, 393 U.S. 268 (1969) 26 United States v. Price, 383 U.S. 787 (1966) 11 United States v. Schooner Peggy, 1 Cranch 103 (1801) 26 Vandenbark v. Owens Illinois Co., 311 U.S. 538 (1941) • 26 i . v Page Vaughn v. Atkinson, 369 U.S. 567 (1962) 20 Williams v. Kimbrough, 295 F.Supp. 578, aff'd, 415 F.2d 875 (5th Cir. 1969), cert, denied, 396 U.S. 1061 (1970) 17 Ziffrin, Inc. v. United States, 318 U.S. 73 (1943) 26 Brown v. City of Meridian, 356 F.2d 602 (5th Cir. 1966) 27 STATUTES, RULES AND REGULATIONS Civil Right_s Act of 1866 , Act of April 7, 1866, c. 31, Section 1, 14 Stat. 27, re-enacted by Section 18 of the Enforcement Act of 1870, Act of May 31, 1870, c. 114, Section 18, 16 Stat. 140, 144 codified in Sections 1977 and 1978 of the Revised Statutes of 1874. 9,10,11 18 U . S . c. Section 241 11 18 U.S.C. Section 242 11 42 u. s. c. Section 1981 2 42 u.s,c. Section 1982 1,2,7,8,9,11, ' 12,15,16,20,21,23 42 U.S.C. Section 1988 27 42 U.S.C. Section 2000a-2 25 42 U.S.C. Section 2 0 0 0 a - 3 (b) 8,14,25 42 U.S.C. Section 2000a.-5 (a) 15 42 U.S.C. Section 2000b et seq. 18 I v ~~~ Page 42 U.S.C. Section 2000c et seq. 18 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e-5(k) 8,25 42 U.S.C. Sections 3601 et seq. 26 4 2 U.S.-C. Section 3603 23 42 .U.S.C. Section 3604 (a) , (b) , (c) & (d) 22 42 U.S.C. Section 3612(b) 8 42 U.S.C. Section 3612 (c) 18,24,25 Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 (b) (2) 2 Fed. R. Civ r Pi" 30(g), 37(a), 37(c) , 54 (d) and 56 (g) 25 Fair Housing Act of 1968 Pub. L. 90-284; 82 Stat. 82 18, 23,24 OTHER•AUTHORITIES Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 474 10 114 Cong. Rec. S2308 ' 24 Davidson & Turner, Fair Housing and Federal Law, 1 ABA Human Rights 36 (1970) ’ 15,23 Gulfport-Biloxi Daily Herald, June 18, 1968, p. 1 12 Jackson Clarion-Ledger, June 18, 1968, p. 1 12 Mobile Press, June 18, 1968, p. 3 12 Mobile Press Register, June 23, 1958, p. 1 12 vi IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT __________________________ V. NO. 30738 JOHNNIE RAY LEE, Appellant, v. SOUTHERN HOME STTESCORP., a corporation, Appellee. On Appeal from the United States District Court For the .'Southern District of Mississippi ___ -BRIEF F.OR APPELLANT ISSUE PRESENTED Whether, in a class action under 42 U.S.C. Section 1982 brought by an individual acting as a "private attorney general" to eliminate systematic racial discrimination practiced by a real estate developer, the court should award reasonable attorneys’ fees to the prevailing plaintiff. STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is the second appeal to this Court in the instant case. On the prior appeal (No. 28167), this Court remanded for findings of fact to justify the District Court's denial of attorneys' fees. Lee v. Southern Home Sites Corp., 429 F .2d 290 (5th Cir. 1970). This case was brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sections 1981 and 1982 and the Thirteenth Amendment to challenge systematic racial discrimination practiced by appellee Southern Home Sites Corp., a real estate developer. The action was brought by appellant Johnnie Ray Lee on his own behalf and, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b) (2), as a class action on behalf of similarly situated black citizens who were discriminated against by Southern Home Sites. The complaint 1/(1.4-9) alleged that appellant had been excluded from buying a lot in the Southern Home Sites resort development because of his race, and that appellee's refusal to deal with appellant was pursuant to a widespread policy and practice of discrimination against black citizens. Plaintiff-appellant 1/ Nuiribered references preceded by "I" are to pages of the printed Appendix on the prior appeal, No. 28,167. References preceded by "II" are to pages of the printed Appendix on the present appeal, No. 30,738. On Nov. 4, 1970 , this Court granted appellant's motion to limit the reproduction of the record on this appeal to documents filed since the printing of the Appendix on the prior appeal. Additional copies of the prior Appendix have been filed with the Court together with copies of the preseiiL Appendix. -2- sought injunctive relief, a declaratory judgment, compensatory and punitive damages and counsel fees.■ The case was tried without a jury on March 18, 1969. On April 7, 1969, the court below (Nixon, J.) rendered an opinion (1.42-45) finding that Southern Home Sites had engaged in racially discriminatory conduct in violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 1982. On May 14, 1969, the District Court entered judgment (1.54-56) generally enjoining appellee from discriminating against black people seeking to purchase lots in appellee's development, directing Southern Home Sites to offer appellant Lee a lot and defining the class on whose behalf the action was maintained. The judgment denied appellant's claims for money damages and counsel fees. The court below retained jurisdiction until the judgment would be fully complied with. Appellant then sought an order requiring Southern Home Sites to notify members of the class of their rights under the court's judgment and to offer lots to members of the class on the same terms as lots were to be offered to appellant and as lots had been conveyed to white persons (1.60-64). On Augusu 6, 1969, the court below denied this relief. Appellant then appealed to this Court from the judgment of May 14, 1969, and the order of August 6, 1969. / -3- T' On July 13, 1970, this Court (Coleman, Goldberg and Morgan, JJ.) upheld the District Court's denial of money damages but remanded with instructions to require Southern Home Sites to notify class members of their rights under the judgment, including their right to purchase lots on the same terms as appellant. This Court also directed the District Court to make findings of fact "sufficient to enable this court to review the denial of attorneys' fees." Lee v. Southern Home Sites Corp.., 4 29- F. 2d 296 (5th Cir. 19 70). On July 20, 1970, the court below ordered the clerk of the court to publish notices in two Mississippi newspapers informing class members of their rights under the judgment (11.5-6). On August 11, 1970, the court below made findings of fact regarding its denial of attorneys' fees (II.6-9). The court found that appellant had failed to prove that Southern Home Sites had knowledge or notice of the Supreme Court's decision in Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., 392 U.S. 409 (1968) and that, therefore, appellee's discriminatory conduct was not "malicious, oppressive or so 'unreasonable and obdurately obstinate' as to warrant an award for attorneys' fees" (11.8). The District Court thereupon entered a supplemental decree (August 13, 1970) denying an award of attorneys' fees (II.9). This appeal followed. -4- STATEMENT OF FACTS Appellant Johnnie Ray Lee is a black citizen who resides in Columbia, Mississippi. Appellee Southern Home / Sites Corp. is a Mississippi corporation which is in the business of developing resort areas and selling lots or interests in real estate (1.6,17). It owns and operates a development called Ocean Beach Estates, located near Ocean Springs and Pascagoula, Mississippi (Id.). The development at Ocean Beach Estates contains a total of 1,653 lots (1.27,33,43). As of the time of trial, 1,206 of the lots had been sold (Id.). Thus, more than 400 lots remained available (1.96-97). At that time, appellee was holding Jots off- the market, because developments on adjacent property were causing Southern Home Sites lots to increase in value (1.114,43). On July 30, 1968, appellee sent a form letter to appellant offering him a lot stated to be worth $600 for $49.50 in cash (1.6,17,42). In 1968 alone, Southern Home - Sites sent probably more than a thousand such letters to persons throughout the State of Mississippi and outside Mississippi (1.86-8.7). The letters were sent as a promotional venture, with the idea that persons sold lots at bargain prices would tell their friends and thus increase appellee's l -5- sales (1.113,43). At the time of trial, Southern Home Sites had conveyed 119 lots on the $49.50 terms set forth in the letter to appellant (1.93,25,31-32,27,33). Appellee's agents collected names for the promotional mailing list at boat shows, county fairs, etc. (1.87,32). In mailing the letters containing the promotional offers, appellee made no effort whatever to ascertain the race of persons to whom the letters were sent (1.26,32). Thus, thousands of letters were sent, indiscriminately to both black and white persons. The letters sent to citizens throughout the area stated baldly that in order for the recipient to take advantage of the offer, "you must be a member of the white race" (1.42, 6,17). Although Southern Home Site's pretended to justify this condition on the ground that "only the white race" would help appellee advertise its development (1.32), white purchasers of lots pursuant to the promotional scheme were never asked to advertise and no such condition was ever demanded by Southern Home Sites (1.104-105,108). Shortly after receiving his letter from appellee, Johnnie Ray Lee traveled to appellee's office at Ocean Springs (1.42-43,6-7,12,13-14,18). He took with him the letter and $50 in cash and was ready, willing and able to purchase a lot / ’ -6- on the terras set forth in the letter, except for the racial limitation (1.43,74,76). However, at the Southern Home Sites office he was bluntly told by appellee's agent that the development "wasn't for Negroes," and the agent refused to do business with him (1.75,82/43). At Ocean Beach Estates, black people were not permitted to buy lots (1.26,33). Not only was Ocean Beach Estates maintained as a lily-white preserve, but appellee planned a separate, all-black development., and^kept a waiting list of black applicants for that development (1.75,76,82; Plaintiff's Exhs. 2 and 3). On October 15, 1968, appellant Lee brought this class action in the court below. He obtained a broad injunction prohibiting Southern Home Sites from discriminating against black citizens on the ground of race. The action was based primarily on 42 U.S.C. Section 1982, which was interpreted by the Supreme-Court to bar all racial discrimination in the sale of real estate. Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., 392 U.S. 4.09 (1968). The letter to appellant Lee was sent by Southern Home Sites about six weeks after the Jones decision, and appellant was excluded from the resort development about two months after the decision. At trial, appellant made no attempt to show that Southern Home Sites had actual knowledge of the Jones decision at the time of its discriminatory conduct; nor did the developer seek to show its ignorance of the decision. -7- On August 11, 1.970, the District Court found as a fact that because of appellant's failure to prove appellee's knowledge or notice of Jones, appellee's conduct was not "malicious, oppressive or so 'unreasonable and obdurately obstinate' as to warrant an award for attorneys' fees" (II.8). Appellant here maintains that the denial of attorneys' fees was erroneous as a matter of law. ARGUMENT I. The History and the Purpose of Section 1982 Demonstrate That Attorneys' Fees Should Be Awarded to Plaintiffs Who Successfully Invoke Its Provisions. Unlike many of the recent statutes authorizing 2/ private suits to vindicate denials of equal rights, 42 U.S.C. Section 1982 does not expressly authorize the granting of attorneys' fees to successful plaintiffs. An analysis of the history and purpose of Section 1982 readily demonstrates, however, that the allowance of attorneys' fees to successful plaintiffs invoking its provisions is a proper means of 3/ "fashioning an effective equitable remedy" for its enforcement 2/ See 42 U.S.C. Section 2000a-3(b) (public accommodations); 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e-5(k) (equal employment); 42 U.S.C. Section 3612(b) (fair housing). 3/ Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., 392 U.S. 409, 414, n.13 (1968) / -8- Section 1982 is derived from Section 1 of the Civil 4/Rights Act of 1866. The history and meaning of the statute are discussed at length in the opinion of the Supreme Court in Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., 392 U.S. 409, 420-444 (1968). There, the Court held that (1) the statute was intended to bar all racial discrimination, private as well as public, in the sale or rental of property, and (2) as thus construed, it was a valid exercise of the power of Congress to enforce the 5/ Thirteenth Amendment. 6/ As originally enacted, the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was to be enforced primarily through criminal prosecutions brought by federal district attorneys against persons who violated its provisions. The sponsors of the bill feared that permitting only a private right of action would be insufficient to eradicate either the racial wrongs being perpetrated or the 4/ Act of April 7 , 1866 , c. .31, Section 1, 14 Stat. 27, re-enacted by Section 18 of the Enforcement Act of 1870, Act of May 31, 1870, c. 114, Section 18, 16 Stat. 140, 144, codified in Sections 1977 and 1978 of the Revised Statutes of 1874. 5/ It was the Jones decision which led the District Court to hold on the merits that Southern Home Sites' discrimination violated Section 1982 and to issue the injunction barring future discrimination and ordering the sale of a lot to Lee (1.44) . 6/ See n.4, supra. - 9 temper which gave rise to and sustained them. They expressed Partj-cu-J-ar concern about the likelihood that those persons whom the Act sought to protect could not bear the expense of enforcing their rights if they were not assisted by the 8/ federal attorneys. In the intervening reenactments of the Act of 1866, tne penal provisions which originally accompanied it have been 7/ 8/ Introducing the bill on January 5, 1866, Senator Trumbull stated its objective was to give effect to the declaration contained in the Thirteenth Amendment and to secure to all persons within the United States practical freedom. "There is very little importance in the general declaration of abstract truths and principles unless they can be carried into effect, unless the persons who are to be affected by them have some means of availing themselves of their benefits." Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 474, quoted m Jones v. Alfred H, Mayer Co., supra, at 431-32. James Wilson, who introduced the bill into the House, expressed in greater detail the legislative intention as he responded to Ohio Congressman Bingham's motion to recommit and to "strike out all parts of the bill which are penal and authorize criminal proceedings and in lieu thereof to give injured citizens a civil action in the United States Courts..." Id. at 1293. Between the two, Mr. Wilson said, There is no difference in the principle involved... There__is__a difference in regard to the expense of protection. There is also a difference~as~to'"the effectiveness of the two modes...This bill proposes that the humblest citizen shaIJL̂ have fu 11 and ample protection a ~̂ the cost of the Government, whose duty it is to protect him. The Amendment of the gentleman recognizes the principl involved, but it says that the, citizen despoiled of his rights...must press his own way through the courts and pay the .costs attendant thereon. This may do foFthe rich, but to the poor, who need protection, it is mockery .T. " Id. at"" 1295 (emphasis added). ~ — -10- ' separated or eliminated, so that today Section 1982 is "enforceable only by private parties acting on their own initiative." Jones v. Alfred PI. Mayer Co., supra, at 417. However, as the Court noted in Jones, "The fact that 42 U.S.C. Section 1982 is couched in declaratory terms and provides no explicit method of enforcement does not, of course, prevent a federal court from fashioning an effective equitable remedy." Id. at 414, n .13. And as this Court stated in its previous opinion in the instant case: "In the area of civil rights, many cases have either allowed or implicitly recognized the discretionary power of a district judge to award attorneys' fees in a proper case in the absence of express statutory provision Icitations omitted] and especially so when one considers that much of the elimination of unlawful racial discrimination necessarily devolves upon private litigants and their attorneys, cf. Newman v. Piggie Park- Enterprises ,_Inc. , 39 0 U.S; 400, 402 (1968), and the general problems of representation in civil rights cases. See Sanders v. Russell, . 5th Cir. 1968, 401 F.2d 241." Lee v. Southern Home Sites Corp., 429 F.2d 290, 295 (5th Cir. I970T. 9/ 9/ The only remaining criminal statute derived from the Act is 18 U.S.C. Section 242. See United States v. Price, 383 U.S. 787, 801-02 (1966). While Section 242 is limited to actions taken "under color of law," it may well be that 18 U.S.C. Section 241, derived from the Enforcement Act of 1870 (the reenactment of Section 1982, see n.4, supra) would permit criminal prosecutions against persons who conspire to interfere with the rights guaranteed by Section 1982. 11 In Jones, the Supreme Court resurrected Section 1982 and held that it operated as a fair housing statute to outlaw 10/ all racial discrimination in the sale of real property. We subrr.it that the effectiveness of Section 1982 as a guarantee of equal housing opportunity would be vastly diminished by limiting the availability -of attorneys' fees under the standard followed by the court below. The District Court here denied fees on the around that appellant failed to prove that Southern Home Sites had actual knowledge or notice of the Supreme Court's decision in Jones and that, accordingly, appellee's discriminatory conduct was not "malicious, oppressive or so 'unreasonable and obdurately obstinate' as to warrant an award 11/for attorneys' fees" (1.8) . The District Court did not 10/ The Court noted and agreed with the statement of the Attorney General at oral argument: "The fact that the statute lay partially dormant for many years 'cannot be held to diminish its force today." 392 U.S. at 437. 11/ The court went further to find that in the absence of such proof, Southern Home Sites did not in fact have notice of the Jones decision (II.7). This inference is without any evidentiary support whatever and is clearly erroneous. It might be noted that the Jones decision made headlines in every newspaper in the South. See, e.g., the Jackson Clarion-Ledger, June 18, 1968, p. 1; the Gulfport--Biloxi Daily Herald, June 18, 1968, p. 1; the Mobile Press, June 18, 1968, p. 3; the Mobile Press Register, June 23, 1968, p. 1. It seems exceedingly unlikely that a large real estate developer like Southern Home Sites would remain wholly ignorant of a landmark decision directly affecting its business; In any event, as will be demonstrated below, an award-of attorneys' fees cannot be conditioned on proof that the defendant actually knew the law condemning its racially discriminatory practices. -12- mention the facts that (1) six weeks after the Jones decision, Southern Home Sites distributed thousands of racially insulting letters, with no attempt whatever to determine the race of addressees and thus with callous disregard for the feelings of black recipients; (2) appellee's policy was not only to keep Ocean Beach Estates a lily-white preserve, but it planned a wholly segregated all-black development; and (3) appellee's defense in the trial court was frivolous— appellee contended that the promotional offers were for a "gift" and that under Mississippi law the donor had complete discretion to select his donees (1.32-34,37; defendant's response to motion for 12/ summary judgment). The reason, for the District Court's denial of counsel fees — that appellee did not "know" of the Jones decision--might be appropriate if the question were whether to impose punitive damages and if some showing of willful or malicious conduct were required. But here we are dealing with whether counsel fees may be awarded, and the District Court s approach seems wholly inappropriate. Indeed, the approach of 12/ Appellant proved at trial that the transactions could in no way be considered "gifts." Recipients of promotional offers were required to pay $49.50 in cash to o.otain a lot (I..93,25,31-32,27,33) . All 119 of these transactions were accounted for on Southern Home Sites' books in exactly the same manner as all cash purchases of lots (1.94-95,118). Appellee introduced no evidence of donative intent. -13- ths court below has already been rejected by this Court in the analogous case of Miller v. Amusement Enterprises, Inc., 426 F .2d 534 (5th Cir. 1970). In Miller, the district court had denied attorneys' fees to a successful plaintiff in a suit challenging racial discrimination under Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The-reason for the denial was that at the time of the discriminatory act (and, indeed, even up to and after the decision of a panel of this Court), the defendant company was not deemed in violation of the law; not until the en banc decision of this Court was the defendant held to be covered by Title II. This Court reversed the denial of fees, stating that the defendant ". . .became subject to the prescribed judicial relief not because the Court said so, but rather because the Court said— even perhaps for the very first time--that the Congress said so." 426 F .2d at 536. The Court also ruled that the defendant's subjective "good faith" was not to be considered as a justification for denying counsel fees. Even though the defendant in Miller, unlike appellee here, advanced no frivolous defenses, and even'though several judges agreed with its position, this Court directed an award of attorneys' fees. To be sure, Miller involved a statute containing an express provision for attorneys' fees. See '42 U.S.C. Section 2000a-3 (b) (fees may be granted in the "discretion" of the court). But this Court's reasoning applies equally to Section 1982: "Congress did not intend that vindication of statutorily guaranteed rights would depend on the rare likelihood of economic resources in the private party (or class members) or the availability of legal assistance from charity--individual, collective or organized. An enactment aimed at legislatively.enhancing human rights and the dignity of man through equality of treatment would hardly be served by compelling victims to seek out charitable help." 426 F.2d at 539. Miller relied on the Supreme.Court1s decision in Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc., 390 U.S. 400 (1968). In Piggie Park, the Court noted that since the statute, like Section 1982, provides no administrative agency or criminal prosecutions to enforce its mandate, its effectiveness depends 13/ on the ability of private litigants to maintain civil suits. Said the Court: "If [the plaintiff]’ obtains an injunction, he does so not fox' himself alone but also as a "private attorney general," vindicating a policy that Congress considered of the highest priority. If successful plaintiffs were l'outinely 'forced to bear their own attorneys' fees, few aggrieved parties would be in a position to advance the public interest by invoking the injunctive powers of the federal courts." 390 U.S. at 402 (footnote omitted). 13/ The Attorney' General of the Uniued States is empowered to bring suit to enforce Title II. See 42 U.S.C. Section 2000a-5 (a) . But Section 1982 has no such provision and its enforcement depends wholly on private civil actions. See generally, on the need for counsel fee awards to enforce fair housing statutes, Davidson and Turner, Fair Ho.usincf and Fedeiol Law, 1 ABA Human Rights 36 , 49-50 (1970) . -15- This Court has subsequently applied the "private attorney general" doctrine not only in Miller but also in cases arising under the fair employment provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. See Pettway v. American Cast Iron Pipe Co., 411 F .2d 998, 1005 (5th Cir. 1969); Jenkins v. United Gas Corp., 400 F .2d 28, 32-33 (5th Cir. 1968); Oatis v. Crown Zellerbach Corp., 398 F .2d 496, 499 (5th Cir. 1968). The teaching of Piggie Park and its progeny is that counsel fees should be awarded to the successful plaintiff unless "special circumstances render such an award unjust." 390 U.S. at 402. It is irrelevant whether the defenses advanced by the discriminating party were frivolous or plausible. And it is perfectly clear under Miller that the test cannot be whether the defendant had actual knowledge of the law. The fact that Section 1982, unlike more recently 14/ enacted civil rights statutes, does not explicitly provide for attorneys' fees should not justify deviation from the Piggie Park standard. First, as demonstrated above, Congress originally provided that the enforcement of the rights guaranteed by Section 1982 should be undertaken by government attorneys for the very reason that the persons aggrieved could 14/ See n.2, supra. not bear the cost of litigation. Nothing in the subsequent revisions which have made those rights "enforceable only by 16/ private parties acting on their own initiative" indicates that Congress intended to limit their availability to those few who could bear the cost of litigation. The allowance of attorneys' fees under the Piggie Park standard clearly would serve to fulfill the legislative intent and to effectuate the Congressional policy expressed in Section 1982. Second, the cases relied on by the District Court to support its standard of requiring "unreasonable, obdurate 17/ obstinacy" by a defendant before attorneys’ fees can be allowed were all in the context of school desegregation suits, where the plaintiffs sought to enforce rights which were judicially declared and which were not an explicit .statutory 15/ 15/ See nn. 6 and 7 and accompanying text, supra. 16/ Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., supra, at 417. 17/ Bradley v. School Board of the City of Richmond, 345 F .2d 310, 321 (4th Cir. 1965); cf. Id. at 324-5 (Sobeloff and Bell, JJ. dissenting); Kemp v. Beasley, 352 F .2d 14 (8th Cir. 1965); Williams v. Kimbrough, 295 F.Supp. 578, 587, aff'd, 415 F.2d 875 (5th Cir. 1969), cert, denied, 396 U~S. 106) (1970). Smoot v. Fox, 353 F .2d 830 J6th Cir. 1965), also cited by the District Court, was a common law libel, ciction and is in no way relevant to this case. -17- » i "policy that Congress considered of the highest priority." Moreover, the defendant here is a profit-making corporation engaged in racial discrimination as part of its business, not a school board composed of unpaid public servants. Whatever may be the policy for denying counsel fees in school cases, the policy does not apply here. Indeed, the explicit I V provision for counsel fees in the Fair Housing Act of 1968 establishes a Congressional policy strongly favoring counsel fee awards in housing discrimination cases. Other district courts granting injunctive relief in suits under Section 1982 have awarded attorneys' fees. In Terry v. Elmwood Cemetery, 307 F.Supp. 369 (1969), suit was brought to compel the defendant cemetery to sell a burial plot to a black mother for the grave of her son, who was killed in action in Viet Nam. The cemetery refused to sell the plot 18/ Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, supra, at 402. See Cong/ Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 474, quoted in Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., supra, at 431-32. Also, Congress has now authorized the Attorney General to file suits on behalf of the United States to desegregate schools. See Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000c et seq. See also Title III, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000b et seq., authorizing the Attorney General to sue to challenge discriminatory practices in state owned or operated facilities. Much of the cost of litigation to desegregate schools is thus borne by the federal government. 19/ 42 U.S.C. Section 3612(c). I -18- solely because of the race of the deceased. Chief Judge Lynne carefully analyzed the Jones decision and the lower court cases which followed it and held that the refusal to sell the burial plot was a violation of Section 1982. In the final iudqnient (which followed the reported opinion) , attorneys 20/ fees in the amount of $2500 were awarded. Newbern v. Lake Lorelei, Inc., 308 F .Supp. 407; 1 Race Rel. L. Survey 185'Ts ."d . Ohio, 1968 , 1969), which was relied upon in Terry, is very similar to the instant case in that it involved a large real estate development from which blacks were excluded. The case was brought as a class action by an individual who had been refused a lot in the development. The court defined the class as "members of the Negro race" who had been similarly excluded, Id. at 417, the same delimitation of the class made by the lower court in this case (1.49) . By a supplemental order, the court in Newbern awarded attorneys 21/ fees in the amount of $1000. Also, in Pina v. Homsi, 1 Race Rel. L. Survey 18 (D. Mass. July 10, 1969), the plaintiffs were 20/ Terry v. Elmwood Cemetery, N.D. Ala. Civ. No. 69-493, order of January 29, 1970. Terry is a particularly significant case in this regard as the property there involved is not covered by the provisions of the 1968 Fair Housing Act and suit, even today, could be maintained only under the provisions of Section 1982. 21/ Newbern v. Lake Lorelei, Inc., 1-Race Rel. L. Survey 185 (S.D. Ohio, March 12, 1969). -19- refused an apartment because the husband was black. Under Section 1982, the court awarded compensatory damages and attorneys' fees. These cases under Section 1982 follow the well established principle that federal courts have equitable power to award counsel fees in appropriate cases even in the absence of statutory authorization. See Mills v. Electric Autolite Co., 396 U.S. 375 (1970); Vaughn v. Atkinson, 369 U.S. 567 (1962); Sprague v. Ticonic Nationa.l-.Bank, 307 U.S. 161 (1939); Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc., supra, 390 U.S. at 402, n.4. The instant case presents special reasons supporting an award of counsel fees: (1) Section 1982 expresses a national policy of the highest priority — the eradication of racial discrimination in housing. Therefore, appellant acts here as a "private attorney general" in vindicating the statutory right to equal housing opportunity. Cf. Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc., supra, 390 U.S. ah’ 402. And as the Supreme Court said of Section 1982, ".The existence of a statutory right implies the existence of all necessary and appropriate remedies." Sullivan v. Little Hunting Park, Inc., 396 U.S. 229, 239 (1969). (2) The discrimination involved here was systematic and deliberate; it was not isolated or accidental. Appellant Lee challenged not only the refusal to sell him a lot but also -20- the policy of (a) distributing offers addressed to the general public but acceptable only by "a member of the white race," and (b) creating a wholly segregated all-black development. This kind of action ought to be encouraged by an award of counsel fees under Section 1982, so that neither aggrieved parties nor their attorneys need subsidize from their own • pockets the essentially public activity of correcting 22/ systematic racial discrimination. (3) This is a class action on behalf of all blacks discriminated against by Southern Home Sites. If the action had not been brought, the rights of class members would never . have been vindicated, because their claims are too small to ■ 22/ Awarding counsel fees to encourage "public" litigation by private parties is an accepted device. For example, in Oregon, union members who succeed in suing union officers guilty of wrongdoing are entitled to counsel fees both at the trial level and on appeal, because they are protecting an interest of the general public: If those who wish to preserve the internal democracy of the union are required to pay out of their own pockets the cost of employing counsel, they are not apt to take legal action to correct the abuse. . . . The allowance of attorneys1 fees both in the trial court and on appeal will tend to encourage union members to bring into court their complaints of union mis-management and thus the public interest as well as the interest of the union will be served. Gilbert v. Hoisting & Portable Engineers, 237 Or. 139, 390 P.2d 320 (1964). See also Rolax v. Atlantic Coast Line R.R., 186 F .2d 473 (4th Cir. 1951). 21- the policy of (a) distributing offers addressed to the general public but acceptable only by "a member of the white race," and (b) creating a wholly segregated all-black development. This kind of action ought to be encouraged by an award of counsel fees under Section 1982, so that neither aggrieved parties nor their attorneys need subsidize from their own pockets the essentially public activity of correcting 22/ systematic racial discrimination. (3) This is a class action on behalf of all blacks discriminated against by Southern Home Sites. If the action had not been brought, the rights of class members would never have been vindicated, because their claims are too small to "22/ Awarding counsel fees to encourage "public" litigation by private parties is.an accepted device. For example, in Oregon, union members who succeed in suing union officers guilty of wrongdoing are entitled to counsel fees both at the trial level and on appeal, because they are protecting an interest of the general public: If those who wish to preserve the internal democracy of the union are required to pay out of their own pockets the cost of employing counsel, they are not apt to take legal action to correct the abuse. . . . The allowance of attorneys' fees both in the trial court and on appeal will tend to encourage union members to bring into court their complaints of union mis-management and thus the public interest as well as the interest of the union will be served. Gilbert v. Hoisting & Portable Engineers, 237 Or. 139, 390 P.2d 320 (1964). See’also Rolax v. Atlantic Coast Line P.R., 186 F.2d 473 (4th Cir. 1951) . -21- justify individual litigation. Cf. Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 391 F.2d 555, 560 (2d Cir. 1968); Dolgow v. Anderson, 43 F.R.D. 472, 484-87 (E.D. N.Y. 1968). And since individual suits would not have been brought, the statute outlawing appellee's conduct would have gone unenforced. As the Supreme Court said in granting fees in Mills v. Electric Autolite Co., supra, "private. . .actions of this sort. . . furnish a benefit to all. . .by providing an important means of enforcement of the. . .statute." 396 U.S. at 396. Therefore, it was error for the court below to withhold counsel fees on the ground that appellee was not on notice of the Jones decision and did not act maliciously or obstinately. The case should be remanded with instructions to award reasonable attorneys' fees covering all proceedings in the District Court and on both appeals. See Miller v. Amusement Enterprises, Inc., 426 F.2d 534, 539 (5th Cir. 1970). 11. The Explicit Provision For Attorneys' Fees In- The 1968 Fair housing Act, A Procedural Aspect of the Statute, Should Be Applied to This Case. The discriminatory acts of Southern Home Sites would clearly have been covered by specific provisions of the Fair Housing Act of 1968 had they taken place after December 31 , 1968 . See 42 U.S.'C. Section 3604 (a) , (b) , (c) and (d). Because they occurred during 1968 and related to housing -22- substantive prohibitions of the Act did not cover them. Appellant Lee was thus compelled, in this action filed October 15, 1968, to base his substantive claim that the acts were illegal on Section 1982. But invoking the procedural and remedial provisions of the 1968 Act would not run counter to Congressional intention. Indeed, the legislative history of the Act indicates that Congress had in mind as one of its purposes the effectuation of Section 1982: [T]he Senate Subcommittee on Housing and Urban Affairs was informed in hearings held after the Court of Appeals had rendered its decision in the case that Section 1982 might well be "a presently valid federal statutory ban against discrimination by private persons in the sale or lease of real property." The Subcommittee was told, however, that even if this Court should so construe Section 1982, the existence of that statute would not "eliminate the need for congressional action" to spell out "responsibility on the part of the federal government to enforce the rights it protects." The point was made that, in light of the many diff:icuIties confronted by private litigants seeking to. enforce such rights on~their own, "legislation is needed to establish federal machinery for enforcement of the rights guaranteed under- Section 1982...." quoted in Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., 392 U.S. at 415-16 (emphasis'added; footnotes omitted). not owned or financed by the federal government, the 23/ 23/ 42 U.S.C. Section 3603. The substantive prohibitions covered only housing owned or financed by the federal government during 1968. Id_. It might be noted that the 1968 Act even now covers only "dwellings" and does not cover personal, commercial, or industrial property. Of course, Section 1982 covers all property. Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., 392 U.S. 409, 413 (1968); see generally, on the coverage of the respective statutes,. Davidson find Turner, Fair Housing and'Federal Law, 1 ABA Human Rights 36 (1970). Thus, it seems entirely appropriate to apply the "machinery" of the Fair Housing Act--in this context, its provision for attorneys' fees--to assist in the enforcement of the Section 1982 rights which were violated here. / The 1968 Fair Housing Act explicitly provides for the allowance of "reasonable attorney fees in the case of a prevailing plaintiff" suing under its provisions. 42 U.S.C. 24/Section 3612(c). Since attorneys' fees are universally 24/ The provision is phrased in stronger language than the analogous provision in Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which authorizes attorneys' fees in the "discretion" of the court. The Title II provision has been interpreted to mean that fees must be awarded in virtually every successful case. Newman v. Piggie Park Hnterprises, Inc., 390 U.S. 400 (1968). Thus the Fair Housing Act should be interpreted to confer a right to recover fees, except where the plaintiff is wealthy enough to afford easily the expense of litigation. Also, the legislative history indicates that successful plaintiffs who are not even obligated to pay their . lawyers--for example, persons represented by legal services offices or private legal associ ati.ons--are entitled to recover fees, on the Piggie Park theory that "private attorneys general" play an important role in vindicating constitutional rights. See remarks of Senator Hart (floor manager of the bill), 114 Cong. Rec. S2308 (daily ed. March 6, 1968). -24- we submit that this '---- 25/ considered a procedural matter, provision of the Act should be applied to the instant case. This type of application of new Congressional policy to prior conduct in the civil rights field was seen in Hamm v. City of Rock Hill, 379 U.S. 306 (1964), where the Court held 26/ that the statutory prohibition of interference with equal access to public accommodations abated all pending criminal prosecutions of persons who had sought such access prior to the passage of the Act. Here, an appreciably less significant retrospective application is sought, since the Fair Housing 25/ Rules governing the retrospective application of the substantive portions of a statute need not be discussed here. Provisions for attorneys' fees are without a doubt procedural. In the cases and statutes pertinent hereto, counsel fees are awarded as part of the costs. Provisions which govern the^r allowance are found in the procedural sections of the Fair Housing and other Civil Rights Acts. 42 U.S.C. Section 3612(c); 42 U.S.C. Section 2000a-3(b); 42 U.S.C Section 2000e-5 (k) . In Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc., 390 U.S. 400, 403~(1968), the Supreme Court ordered the district court on remand to "include reasonable counsel fees as part of the costs to be assessed against the respondents." This Court in Miller v. Amusement Enterprises, Inc., 426 F.2d 534, 539 (5th Cir. 1970), recognized that "The Newman rule. . .calls for the allowance of attorney fees as part of the costs." (emphasis added) See also Rules 30(g), 37(a), 37(c), 54(d) and 56(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. All refer to attorneys' fees as an element of costs or expenses. 26/ Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,_42 U.S.C. Section 2000a-2. -25- Act was enacted well before Southern Home Sites engaged in 27/ its discriminatory conduct and the conduct was in any event illegal under Section 1982. Also relevant is the principle of Thorpe v. Housing Authority of the City of Durham, 393 U.S. 268 (1969), that when there is a change in the law while a case is pending in the courts, the court should generally apply the law in effect 28/ at the time of its decision. Here, the 1968 law was fully applicable prior to the first judicial opinion in this case (the District Court's opinion of April 7, 1969), and it seems quite proper to apply its procedural devices here. Finally, the Supreme Court has recently said of Section 1982 and the Fair Housing Act that "the 1866 Civil Rights Act considered in Jones should be read together with the later statute on the same subject. . . . " Hunter v. 29/ Erickson, 393 U.S. 385, 388 (1969). Moreover, there is 27/ The law was enacted on April 11, 1968, Pub. L. 90-284; 82 Stat. 82; 42 U.S.C. Sections 3601 et seq. 28/ See also, United States v. Schooner Peggy, 1 Cranch 103, 110 (1801); Vandenbark v. Owens Illinois Co., 311 U.S. 538 (1941); zTffrln, Inc. v. United States, 318 U.S. 73 (1943). 29/ The Court was there discussing whether the earlier law should be read so as to incorporate the provision of the 1968 statute preserving local fair housing laws, and held that it should. / -26- the mandate of 42 U.S.C. Section 1988, requiring that the federal courts, in proceedings to protect and enforce civil rights, be guided not only by the particular statute in question; the courts are directed also to draw from other laws to assure effective remedies for the wrongs involved. The Supreme Court has invoked this provision specifically to supply appropriate remedies under Section 1982. See Sullivan v. Little Hunting Park, Inc., 396 U.S. 229, 239 (1969). And this Court has said of Section 1988 that "In civil rights cases, federal courts should use that combination of federal law, common law and state law as will be best adapted to the object of the civil rights laws. . ." Brown v. City of Meridian, 356 F.2d 602, 605 (5th Cir. 1966). Therefore, the 1968 Fair Housing Act should be read harmoniously with Section 1982 to provide a single set of effective remedies under these statutes, and the attorneys' fees provision of the 1968 Act should be applied in this case. / -27- CONCLUSION For the reasons stated, the case should be remanded to the District Court with instructions to award reasonable attorneys' fees covering all proceedings in that court and on both appeals of this case. Respectfully submitted, — <_Jj2c___i gtn-Z, ___ JACK GREENBERG JEFFRY A. MINTZ 10 Columbus Circle New York, New York 10019 REUBEN V. ANDERSON FRED L. BANKS, JR. 538 1/2 North Farish Street Jackson, Mississippi WILLIAM BENNETT TURNER 1095 Market Street __San Francisco, California 94103 Attorneys for Appellant -28- Ihtpremp (Exmrt of tty luiteft BUUb October T erm , 1985 L ibrary op Congress, el ni.. Petitioners, v. T o m m y S h a w . OH WRIT OP CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OE APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT BRIEF FOR RESPONDENT J u liu s L eV ohhe Cham bers Charles S teph en R alston (Counsel of Record) 99 Hudson Street 16th Floor New York, New York 10013 (212) 219-1900 Attorneys for Respondent QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. whether pre-judgment adjustments to compensate for delay in payment may be part of the calculation of a reasonable attorney’s fee and other relief in a Title VII case brought against the federal Government under 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-16(c) and (d). 2. Whether 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16 constitutes a complete abrogation of sovereign immunity so that the same full relief available in a Title VII action against private and state and local government employers is also available against federal government agencies. i TABLE OF CONTENTS Questions Presented ................ i Table of Authorities.............. iv STATUTES INVOLVED .................. 1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE.............. 2 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT................ 10 ARGUMENT I. THERE IS NO BAR TO A DELAY IN PAYMENT ADJUSTMENT TO AN ATTORNEYS' FEE AWARD AGAINST THE UNITED STATES . 12 A ._______ Ad j ustments___ for Pre-Judgment Delays In Payment May Be Included In Awards Pi: Equitable Relief Against The 'Federal Government In The Absence Of Specific Statutory Authorization.. . . . . . 14 B ._____ The Inclusion of A Factor To Compensate For Pre-judgment Delays In Payment Is A Necessary Component In "Calculating A Reasonable Attorney's Fee. . 24 II. SECTION 717 OF THE EQUAL EMPLOY MENT OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1972 IS A COMPLETE ABROGATION OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY IN EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMI NATION CASES................. 39 A, Congressional Intent Is Determinative~~0f The Extent SovereTgn .TmmunTty'.. " ~Is Waived By A Particular Statutory Scheme. . . . . . 39 B. Congress Intended To Waive All Sovereign limn unity Bars ~To~ The Award of Complete ReTTef in TitTe VII Cases............. . 43 Conclusion .................. .. 61 APPENDICES I. Statutes Involved II. Calculation of Loss of Value Through Inflation III. Memorandum of Attorney General Griffin B. Bell for United States Attorneys and Agency General Counsel (Aug. 31, 1977) iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page Cases: Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405 (1975)........ 37 Albrecht v. United States, 329 U.S. 599 (1947)............... 17 Alyeska Pipeline Service v. Wilderness Soc., 421 U.S. 240 ( 1975)............. 36 Blake v. Califano, 626 F.2d 891 (D.C. Cir. 1980)....... 8 Blum v. Stenson, ___ U.S. ___, 79 L.Ed.2d 891 (1984) . . . . 25, 32 Boston Sand Co. v. United States, 278 U.S. 41 (1928) . . . . . 40 Brooks-Scanlon Corp. v. United States, 265 U.S. 106 (1924) . 17 Brown v. General Services Administration, 425 U.S. 820 ( 1976).............. 46, 50, 51 Chambers v. United States, 451 F.2d 1045 (Ct. Cl. 1971) . . 49 Chandler v. Roudebush, 425 U.S. 840 ( 1976).............. 44, 46 Chisholm v. United States Postal Service, 665 F.2d 482 (4th Cir. 1981 ) ....... 33 iv Copeland v. Marshall, 641 F.2d 880 (1980) . . . . . . 3,4,6,7,24 Franchise Tax Board of California v. United States Postal Service, U.S. , 81 L.Ed. 2d 446 ( 1984).......... . 39 Franks v. Bowman Transportation Company, 424 U.S. 747 (1976) . . . . . . .......... 54 Gautreaux v. Chicago Housing Authority, 690 F.2d 601 • (7th Cir. 1982)......... 24 General Motors Corp. v. Devex Corp., 461 U.S. 648 (1983). 15, 16, 17, 34, 35, 36, 37 Gnotta v. United States, 415 F. 2d 1271 (8th Cir. 1969) 50 Graves v. Barnes, 700 F.2d 220 (5th Cir. 1983)......... 24 Griffin v. Carlin, 755 F.2d 1516 (11th Cir. 1985)....... 33 Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 ( 1983)............ 25 Holly v. Chasen, 639 F.2d 795 (D.C. Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 822 (1981) ........ . . . . . 8 Institutionalized Juveniles v. Secretary of Public Welfare, 758 F.2d 897 (3rd Cir. 1985).................. 24 v 34 James v. Stockham Valves & Fitting Co., 559 F.2d 310 (5th Cir. 1977) . . . . . Johnson v. University College of the University of Alabama, 706 F.2d 1205 (11th Cir. 1983)....................6, Jorstad v. IDS Realty Trust, 643 F.2d 1305 (8th Cir. 1981) . Laycock v. Parker, 103 Wis. 161, 79 N.W. 327 (1899) . . . . . Liggett & M. Tobacco v. United States, 274 U.S. 215 (1927) Nagy v. United States Postal Service, 773 F.2d 1190 (11th Cir. 1985) ................ Nedd v. United Mine Workers of America, 488 F. Supp. 1208 (M.D. Pa. 1980)........ 19, Newman v. Pigoie Park Enterprises, 390 U.S. 490 (1968) . . . . 26, Parker v. Califano, 561 F.2d 320 (D.C. Cir. 1977) . . . . . . Parker v. Lewis, 670 F.2d 249 (D.C. Cir. 1982) . . . . . . Phelps v. United States, 274 U.S. 341 (1927) ................ Ramos v. Lamm, 713 F.2d 546 (10th Cir. 1983) . . . . . • • • • 24 24 20 1 7 40 20 38 26 5 17 24 vi Saunders v. Claytor, 629 F.2d 596 (9th Cir. 1980), cert, denied, 450 U.S. 980 (1981) . . . . 9, 33 Seabord Air Line R. Co. v. United States, 261 U.S. 299 (1923) . . . . . . . . . . 17, 18 Shultz v. Palmer, (No. 85-50) 33 Smith v. Califano, 446 F. Supp. 530 (D.D.C. 1978) . . . . . 53 Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209 ( 1982)........... 10 Standard Oil Co. v. United States, 267 U.S. 76 (1925) . . . . . 41 Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324 ( 1977).......... 36 United States v. New York Tele phone Co., 434 U.S. 159 (1977) 10 United States v. North American Transportation and Trading Co., 253 U.S. 330 (1920) 18 United States v. Sherman , 98 U.S. 565 (1878) • • 21, 22 United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392 (1976) 49 Waite v. United States, 282 U.S. 508 (1931 ) 16, 17, 36 vi i Statutes, orders, and regulations: Equal Access to Justice Act . . . . 56 5 U.S.C. § 5596(b)............ 49 5 U.S.C. 7701 ( g ) ( 2 ) . . . . . 53 28 U.S.C. § 2516 . . . . 1, 10, 14, 23 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(q) . . . . . 54, 55 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5 (k) ..... 44, 57 42 U.S.C. § 200Oe-1 6 .. passim P.L. 88-352, § 701(b) . . . . . . 48 P.L. 96-481 , § 206 ............ 56 42 Stat. 1590, ch. 192 (5-15-22) . 40 Executive Order 11246 . ........ 48 Executive Order 11478 .......... 48 President's Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1978, 43 F.R. 28 71 ( 1978).................... 52 5 C.F.R. Part 713 ( 1967)........ 48 5 C.F.R. S 1201.37 .............. 53 29 C.F.R. Part 1613............ 48 29 C.F.R. § 1613.271(c) . . . . . 53 viii Other Authorities: "Counsel Fees in Public Interest Litigation", Report By the Committee on Legal Assistance, 39 The Record of the Associa tion of the Bar of the City of New York 300 (1984) . . . . 25, 29 The Effect of Legal Fees on the Adeouacv of Representation, Hearings Before the Sub committee on Representation of Citizen Interests of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, 93rd Cong., 1st Sess. (1973) . . 27 Hearings Before the General Subcommittee on Labor of the House Committee on Education And Labor on H.R. 1746, March 3, 4, and 18, 1971 . . . . . . . . . 48, 51 Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Labor of the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, on S. 2515, S.2617, and H.R. 1746, Oct. 4, 6, and 7, 1971 .............. 50, 51 Hohenstein, "Subtract Inflation from Your Income, Prices and Profits," Legal Economics 35 (ABA Section on Economics of Law Practice, Summer 1978) 1b H. Rep. No. 92-238 (92d Cong. 1st Sess., 1971) .............. 43 ix Letter from Irving Jaffe, Acting Assistant Attorney General, to Senator John V. Tunney, May 6, 1975, 2 CCH Employment Practices Guide 5327 ( 1976) . . . . . 57 Memorandum of Attorney General Griffin B. Bell for United States Attorneys and Agency General Counsel (Auq. 31, 1977), 2 CCH Employment Practices Guide 1f 5046 ( 1977) .................... 59, 60 Note, "Interest in Judgments Against the Federal Government: The Need for Full Compensation," 91 Yale L.J. 297 (1981) . . . . 20 1 Op. Atty. Gen. 268 (1819) . . . . 21 2 Op. Atty. Gen. 390 (1830) . . . . 22 5 Op. Atty. Gen. 138 (1849) . . . . 22 5 Op. Atty. Gen. 227 (1850) . . . . 22 Ralston, "The Federal Government as Employer: Problems and Issues in Enforcing the Anti- Discrimination Laws," 10 Ga. L. Rev. 717 ( 1976)............ 57 S. Rep. No. 92-415 (92d Conq. 1st Sess., 1971)........ 34, 43, 45 H. Rep. No. 94-1558 (94th Conq. 2d Sess. 1976) . . . . 27, 28, 34 x S. Rep. No. 94-1011 (94th Cong. 2d Sess. 1976) . . . . . . . . . 27 Schlei & Grossman* Employment Discrimination Law, (2d Ed. 1983)................... 36, 47 Subcommittee on Labor, Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, "Legislative History of the Equal Employment Oppor tunity Act of 1972" . . . 45, 51, 52, 53, 55 United States Dept, of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Monthly Labor Review, May, 1985 . . . 2b xi No. 85-54 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES October Term, 1985 LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, et aI., Petitioners v. TOMMY SHAW On Writ of Certiorari to The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit BRIEF FOR RESPONDENT STATUTES INVOLVED In addition to those in petitioners' brief, this case involves the following statutes, the text of which are set out in the appendix to this Brief: 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(a)-(c) 28 U.S.C. § 2516(a). 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE In general, petitioners' description of the proceedings below is accurate. Respondent does wish to emphasize a number of points regarding the context in which issue now before the Court arose. This action began with the filing of an administrative complaint charging discrimination in employment against respondent Tommy Shaw, an employee of the Library of Congress. After respondent retained counsel, a settlement of his claim was negotiated. However, the agency, on advice from the Comptroller General, took the position that it could not agree to an award of back pay. This ruling, which the district court noted was caused by the Library's failure to make it clear that the claim arose under Title VII, necessitated the filing of the 3 present action. Order and Judgment of the District Court, Sept. 14, 1979; Pet. App. p. 59a-60a. The government continued to argue that an award of back pay was not possible when a federal employee's claim of discrimination was settled administra tively, but the district court ruled for the respondent and against the governmentl....... on cross-motions for summary judgment. As a result of these proceedings, respondent received a promotion and an appropriate amount of back pay. As petitioners note, at issue in this case now are the fees remaining to be paid to one of the respondent's attorneys for work done as far back as 1978. The fee award was not made by the district court until 1980 since it decided to await the en banc decision of the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia in Copeland v. Marshall 9 641 F.2d 880 (1980), which 4 established definitive standards for awards of fees in Title VII cases in the District, particularly in cases involving the federal government. The government made no objection to delaying the fee 1 disposition until Copeland was announced. As the district court noted when it made its award, the government neither disputed respondent's entitlement to fees 2nor much of the amount to be awarded. * 2 The district court entered its judgment on the merits on September 14, 1979. In that order it announced its intention to await the e_n banc decision in Copeland. See, Order and Judgment of the District Court, filed September 14, 1979. Copeland was announced in September, 1980. 2 The government argued that a proper hourly rate would be $60. It was not precise, however, with regard to the number of hours for which fees should be awarded, but only suggested that the 103.75 hours claimed should be reduced "significantly. " See, Defendant's Memorandum of Points and Authorities In Opposition to Shalon Ralph's Motion for Attorney's Fees, pp. 3-5; 7-8. The district court subtracted only 4.75 hours, for time spent on an issue on which respondent did not prevail, and awarded fees for a total of 99 hours. Pet. App. pp. 63a-64a. The government did not dispute this result on appeal. 5 Nevertheless, in keeping with its long standing practice, the government did not offer to pay that part of the fee that was undisputed. (Pet. App. p. 68a.) Indeed, payment of the undisputed amount was not made until the present appeal was pending and, then, it was a consequence of a decision of the court of appeals in another case, Parker v. Lewis, 670 F.2d 249 (D.C. Cir. 1982), requiring payment of the undisputed portions of a fee award pending appeal.3 The Parker rule was premised on the need to avoid delays in payroent and conseguent hardships to Title VII plaintiffs and their attorneys. The court of appeals did, as recited in its opinion (Pet. App. p. 6a, n. 24), order payment of $6,779.50, the undisputed amount. However, the parties had pre viously entered into a stipulation for such payment in the district court based on Parker v. Lewis, supra. See, Stipula tion to The Entry of An Order to Enforce In Part the Judgment Awarding Counsel Fees and Costs. 6 Copeland squarely held that in actions against the federal government delay in payment must he factored in when calculating a reasonable fee. 641 F.2d at 893. Thus, the district court followed Copeland and used one of the methods set out in that decision to arrive at an appropriate amount for the delay.4 As petitioners note in their brief, the correctness of the district court's calculation is still in dispute, since the court of appeals remanded for clarifi cation whether the hourly rate awarded already included compensation for delay. Three methods to compensate for delay are: (1) the use of hourly rates current at the time the award is made; (2) adjusting the rates by year by an appropriate amount so as to adjust for inflation; (3) adjusting the lodestar amount by an appropriate factor. See Johnson v. University College of the University of Alabama, 706 F.2d 1205, 1210-1 1 (1 1th CTT. T983). The district court used the third method. 7 In addition to the en banc decision in Copeland, panels of the court of appeals had held that fees in Title VII actions against federal agencies fees should be adjusted for delay in payment. Thus, when the present case arrived in the court of appeals, there was already an e_n banc decision and at least three panel deci sions of that court that squarely held that the district court was correct in including a delay factor. Counsel for respondent in the court of appeals (who are also counsel here) not surprisingly relied on the clear law of the circuit to support the judgment of the district court. ̂ Since there was no need to go beyond the settled law of the circuit, they did not argue at length the issues of The court below noted "the seemingly clear applicability of these precedents" but decided not to rest "on stare decisis alone." Pet. App. p. 9a. 5 8 waiver of sovereign immunity and other matters presented now. Thus, the argument made was essentially that the calculation of a reasonable attorney's fee necessarily included compensation for delay in payment, an argument accepted even by the dissenting judge below. Moreover, panel decisions of the court of appeals had also held that cost of living adjustments were not available on 6backpay awards against the government and that interest qua interest could not 7be assessed on a fee award. Again, since the state of the law in the circuit established the correctness of the district court's decision, counsel for Blake v. Califano, 626 F.2d 891 (D.C. Cir. 1980) . Holly v. Chasen, 639 F.2d 795 (D.C. Cir. 1981) , cert, denied, 454 U.S. 822 (1981). 7 9 respondent (appellee there) did not feel it either necessary or desirable to raise 8these other issues. If the government's suggestion to the court of appeals for rehearing en banc in the present case had been granted, respondent would, of course, have raised and relied upon all of the arguments made herein to support the judgment of the district court. Thus, the government's attempt (Pet. Brief, p. 18) to make some thing out of counsel's decision not to raise these questions before a panel of the court below when such issues were decided by its earlier decisions is As we have already noted in our Brief in Opposition to the Petition for Writ of Certiorari, we believe that the decisions of lower courts holding that back pay awards cannot be adjusted for inflation in cases against the federal government are incorrect. See infra at pp.3 5^3 8 . Indeed, that precise issue was presented to this Court in Saunders v. Claytor, 629 F.2d 596 (9th Cir. 1980), cert, denied, 450 U.S. 980 ( 1981), but this Court has not resolved the issue to date. 10 without substance. Of course, respondent may rely here on any ground in support of the judgment below. United States v. New York Telephone Co., 434 U.S. 159, 166, n. 8 (1977); Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 215, n. 6 (1982). SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT I. A. There is no sovereign immunity or statutory bar to awards of pre-judgment interest, or its equivalent, against the United States where it is necessary to provide complete equitable relief. The cases the government relies on, as well as 28 U.S.C, § 2516, involve post-j udgment interest, the purpose of which is entirely different. Decisions of this Court make the distinction clear and hold that pre-judgment interest may be made in the absence of specific statutory authority. B. In calculating a reasonable attorneys' fee, factoring in amounts to compensate for delays in payment is essential. Without such an adjustment, a prevailing plaintiff's attorney will in fact be awarded less than a market rate. The result will be that attorneys will be discouraged from representing federal employees who have Title VII claims. Therefore, pre-judgment interest or its equivalent is appropriate in awards of fees against the United States. II. A. The extent of a waiver of sov ereign immunity is a matter of Congres sional intent. Whether interest on awards against the government is permissible must be determined from the purpose of the particular statutory scheme. - 11 - 12 B. Both the language of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16 and its legislative history make it clear that Congress intended to remove all sovereign immunity bars to the granting of full relief to federal employees who have equal employment claims. The statute itself explicitly provides that attorneys' fees are to be awarded on the same basis as against "a private person." ARGUMENT I. THERE IS NO BAR TO A DELAY IN PAYMENT ADJUSTMENT TO AN ATTORNEYS' FEE AWARD AGAINST THE UNITED STATES This case, in the government's view, involves no more than whether the word "interest" can be found somewhere in the provisions of Title VII that apply to the United States. We will demonstrate that: 13 1 . A long line of decisions of this Court establishes that, even in the absence of specific statutory authoriza tion, pre-j udgment adjustments that compensate for delay in payment and/or deprivation of the use of funds — whether denominated "pre-j udgment interest" or otherwise -- are available against the government to provide full compensation as part of equitable relief. 2. The inclusion of a delay in payment factor, as in this case, is a necessary component of a reasonable attorney's fee. Since the adjustment is necessary to provide full compensation, it is available here as a matter of leg is- lative intent, consistent with the Court' s precedents. 3. Alternatively, there is no sovereign immunity bar to an award of interest against the government in a Title 14 VII action because 42 U.S.C. §2000e-16 is a complete abrogation of sovereign immunity. Congress' clear intent was to ensure that employees of the United States will enjoy the same scope of protection from employment discrimination as do all other employees. Therefore, Title VII jjs a statute that authorizes interest as part of complete relief. A. Adjustments For Pre-judgment Delays In_____Payment May Be Included In Awards Of Equitable Relief Against The Federal Government In The Absence of Specific Statutory Authority. The petitioners argue that decisions of this Court, as codified in 28 U.S.C. § 2516, stand as an absolute bar to any inclusion of a delay in payment factor in calculating the value of a fee award because the word "interest" does not appear in Title VII. However, a close examination of the cases cited by the 15 government demonstrates that they do not support this proposition. Rather, precisely the opposite is true? the government has been led into a fatal error by its failure to distinguish between the nature and purpose of pre-judgment interest, which is involved here, and post-judgment interest, which is not. In General Motors Corp. v. Devex Corp. , 461 U.S. 648 (1983), the Court explained that, in a patent infringement case, an award of prejudgment interest from the time that the royalty payments would have been received to the time of the judgment, "merely serves to make the patent owner whole, since his damages consist not only of the value of the royalty payments but also of the forgone use of the money between the time of infringement and the date of the judg — 16 ment." Therefore, prejudgment interest should ordinarily be awarded. 461 U.S. at 655-56. The Court went on: This very principle was the basis of the decision in Waite v. United States, 282 U.S. 508 (1931), which involved a patent infringement suit against the United States. The patent owner had been awarded unliquidated damages in the form of lost profits, but had been denied an award of prejudgment interest. This Court held that an award of prejudgment interest to the patent owner was necessary to ensure "complete justice as between the plaintiff and the United States," id., at 509, even though the statute govern ing such suits did not expressly provide for interest. 461 U.S. at 656 (emphasis added). In Waite .itself, Justice Holmes noted that the statute at issue granted "'recovery of [the plaintiff's] reasonable and entire compensation for such use.' We are of 17 opinion that interest should be allowed in order to make the compensation 'entire'". 282 U.S. at 509.9 Waite cites and relies upon a series of decisions in eminent domain actions holding that the Fifth Amendment's "just compensation" clause includes compensation for delay between the time of the determi nation of market value of the property and when the award is made. Seaboard Air Line R. Co. v. United States, 261 U.S. 299 (1923); Brooks-Scanlon Corp. v. United States, 265 U.S. 106, 126 (1924); Liggett & M. Tobacco Co. v. United States, 274 U.S. 215 (1927); Phelps v. United States, 274 U.S. 341 (1927). See also Albrecht v. United States, 329 U.S. 599 (1947), and cases cited Ld.at 602, n. 4. As explained in General Motors Co. v. Devex, supra, <5 ‘ — — —Interestingly, in Waite the government conceded that pre-judgment interest was proper. 18 without such an adjustment the patent or property owner will not in fact be fully compensated for the value of his property and the loss of its use. Thus, "no specific command to include interest is necessary when interest or its equivalent is a part of [just] compensation." Seaboard Air Line R. Co. v. United States, 261 U.S. at 306.10 The situation here is precisely analogous. The government contends that reimbursement for attorneys' fees is limited to the dollar amount that was the market value of the services at the time In contrast, the rule is that interest is not available in the absence of specific statutory provision when land is taken through purchase or a contract rather than by an adverse condemnation proceeding. See, e,g., United States v. North American Transportation & Trading Co. , 253 U.S. 330 (1920). In the former case the interest is on the established amount agreed upon as proper compensation, and therefore has the character of post-judgment interest. In the latter case, the interest is pre-judgment and is therefore part of the calculation of just compensation. 19 they were rendered. As we will demonstrate at length below, however, full compensa tion can only be made through an adjust ment of that dollar amount to reflect loss of value because of the passage of time. The inclusion of pre-judgment interest as part of the award of full relief is well established in federal law. See Nedd v. United Mine Workers of America, 488 P. Supp. 1208, 1216-25 (M.D. Pa. 1980) for a scholarly and comprehen sive survey of the cases. An award is left to the court's sound discretion based on the weighing of four factors: (1) responsibility for delays in prosecuting an action; (2) undoing unjust enrichment; (3) compensation of the victim of a legal wrong; and (4) other equitable considera tions. Id. at 1220-24. The key to pre-judgment interest is that it is a part of the calculation of the judgment itself, 20 and is included when it is necessary to provide "reasonable", "entire", or "just" 11compensation. Post-j udgment interest, on the other hand, rests on an entirely different basis. The traditional rationale for assessing post-judgment interest was to punish a debtor for failing to repay a loan or another certain obligation the amount of which had become fixed, such as a judgment of a court. haycock v. Parker, 103 Wis. 161, 179, 79 N.W. 327, 332 (1899). See, Note, "Interest in Judgments Against the Federal Government: The Need for Full Compensation," 91 Yale L.J. 297, 11 As Nedd points out, the common law distinction between liquidated and unliquidated damages does not determine, under federal law, whether pre-judgment interest is available. 488 F. Supp. at 1217. The government's suggestion to the contrary (Pet. Brief, p. 23, n. 13) is both incorrect and inconsistent with its position that fee and back pay awards against private employers may be adjusted for delay in payment. 21 300-1 (1981). The no-interest rule developed when interest was thus viewed as a penalty. Sovereign immunity barred an award of interest since the government had to give its specific consent to being penalized. As this Court explained: Whenever interest is allowed either by statute or by common law, except in cases where there has been a contract to pay interest, it is allowed for delay or default of the debtor. But delay or default cannot be attributed to the government. It is presumed to be always ready to pay what it owes. United States v. Sherman, 98 U.S. 56 5, 567-8 (1878). Thus, the 1819 Attorney General's opinion from which the no-interest rule derives involved interest on a claim in a pre—determined amount. The opinion notes, "Interest is in the nature of damages for withholding money which the party ought to pay, and would not or could not." 1 Op. 22 Atty. Gen. 268 (1819). Indeed, even the opinions of the attorney general upon which the government relies recognize that in some instances interest is recoverable where it is necessary for full compensa tion, e.g . , where a "claimant shall have paid interest; in which case, indeed, interest becomes strictly a portion of the principal of his claim." 2 Op. Atty. Gen. 390, 392 (1830). See also, 5 Op. Atty. Gen. 1 38 ( 1 849); 5 Op. Atty. Gen. 226 (1850). United States v. Sherman also recognizes the distinction, noting, "the interest is no part of of the amount recovered. It accrues only after the recovery has been had." 98 U.S. at 567. Similarly, virtually all of the cases cited by the petitioners at pages 13—15 of their brief involved the award of ordinary post-judgment interest. They simply apply the rule that a penalty for failure 23 to pay an established debt could not be imposed on the government without its consent. And, as the government concedes here, 28 U.S.C. § 2516(a) and its prede cessors, barring interest on "claims against the United States" in the absence of contract or specific statutory authori zation, did no more than codify the rule established by the attorney generals' opinions and the post-judgment interest cases. Thus , it can be seen that the aovernment has failed to recognize the distinction between ordinary interest of the post-j udgment kind contemplated by 28 U.S.C. § 2516, which serves as a penalty or as income for the use of money fol lowing a delay in the satisfaction of a judgment, and prejudgment interest (or other similar factors) which represents part of the calculation of full relief in 24 the first instance. The cases upon which the government relies involve the former type of interest. This case involves the latter. B . The Inclusion Of A Factor To Compen sate For Pre-judgment Delays In Payment Is A Necessary Component In Calculating A Reasonable Attorney’s Fee. Section 2000e-5(k) provides that the court, in its discretion, shall award a reasonable attorney's fee. The lower courts have held, so far without excep tion, that in civil rights cases compen sation for delay in payment must be 1 2included in a reasonable fee. The See, e.g., Copeland v. Marshall, 641 F. 2d at 892-93? InstitutionaTTzed~Juveniles v. Secretary ofHPublic Welfare, 758 F.2d 897 (3rd Cir. 1985); Graves v. Barnes, 700 F.2d 220, 224 (5th Cir. 1983); Gautreaux v. Chicago Housing Authority, 690 F.2d 601, 612 (7th Cir. 1982); Jorstad v. IDS Realty Trust, 643 F.2d 1305, 1313 (8th Cir. 1981); Ramos v. Lamm, 713 F.2d 546, 555 (10th Cir. 1983); Johnson v. Univer- sity Colleqe of the University of Alabama, 706 F72d 1205, 1210-11 (11th Cir. 1983). 25 government has not directly challenged the correctness of those decisions insofar as fees are to be calculated against every other employer except itself. Neverthe less, it is essential to understand why such an adjustment is a prerequisite to a reasonable fee in order to demonstrate the fallacy of the government’s mechanical equation of all pre-judgment adjustments with post-judgment interest. The legislative purpose of the various civil rights attorneys' fees act statutes have been explored at length by this Court in recent decisions and need not be repeated in 1 3detail here. Suffice it to say that a key concern of Congress was See also "Counsel Fees in Public Interest Litigation," Report By the Committee on Legal Assistance, 39 The Record of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York 300, 318 ( 1984). Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983); Blum v. Stenson, U.S. , 79 L.Ed.2d 891 (1984). 1 3 26 that if the fees that were available were insufficient to attract the private bar, there would not be an adequate level of private enforcement of Title VII and the other civil rights acts. As this Court noted in its seminal decision in Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, 390 U.S. 490 (1968) the resources of the federal government itself were simply insufficient for the level of enforcement necessary to end the problem of racial discrimination in our society. Thus, the statute provided fees to ensure that "private attorneys general" would furnish the essential level of private enforcement. The problem is even more acute when the government is a defendant in a Title VII case for, as has been noted in another context, there is no public attorney general to bring actions on discrimina tion claims of federal employees. Parker 27 v . Cali f ano, 561 F.2d 320, 331 (D.C. Cir. 1977). Only private parties may bring such actions and, therefore, without the full involvement of the private bar the statute will not be enforced. In the legislative history of the Civil Riqhts Attorneys Fee Act of 1976 Congress expressed these concerns at length. Thus, there is a consistent theme that unless fees are sufficiently attractive to attact the private bar there 1 4will be insufficient enforcement. The legislative history of the Fees Act is replete with comparisons between the situations of plaintiff's attorneys and defendant's attorneys in civil rights 1 5cases. Ordinarily a defendant, particu- 14 15 14 See S. Rep. No. 94-1011 (94th Cong. 2d Sess. , 1976), 2-5; H. Rep. No. 94-1558 (94th Cong. 2d Sess., 1976), 2-3). 15 H. Rep. No. 9 4-1558, supra at 7; The Effect of Legal Fees on the Adequacy of Representation, HearingsBefore the Subcommittee' on "Representation of~Citizen- 28 larly when it is a public agency, has available far greater resources than the 1 6ordinary civil right litigant. Indeed, this case is paradigmatic: a single middle-class federal employee faced with the full array of the legal and technical resources of the Library of Congress and the Department of Justice. Such plaintiffs typically cannot pay attorney's fees at all or, as here, only a limited amount. Thus, the attorney must look to the possible award of fees in the future for compensation. If the eventual award is not sufficiently equivalent to fees the attorney could have obtained through other types of practice at the time the services are rendered, there will be a "negative incentive to move away from * Interests of the Committee on the Judi ciary, United States Senate, 93rd Cong., 1st Sess. at 84; 834-36 (1973). ^ H. Rep. No. 94-1558, supra at 7. 29 civil rights litigation and to concentrate efforts on more profitable aspects of the . „ 1 7practice. The disincentives are particularly strona for the typical civil riqhts lawyer, who tends to be a. single practi tioner or in a small firm. Given the realities of paying off the massive loans incurred to obtain a law degree and to set up practice, paying rent, staff salaries, and having enough left over to live on, taking on a complex civil rights case must be economically feasible for such a lawyer. To give an example, assume an attorney in 1975 with the choice of accepting: (1) a fee-paying client whom he could bill at his or her established market rate of S80 per nour, monthly; or 17 17 Counsel Fees In Public Interest Litiga- TTonT op7~cit. supraT n7~~T27 at 318, 3*25-26. 30 (2) a civil rights client for whose case he or she would receive no fees until a court award five years later in 1980. If, in 1980, the lawyer received only the same $80 per hour, he or she would have to be extraordinarily altruistic to take on client number two, wait five years, and receive an $80 per hour devalued by inflation and the loss of the use of that money. There must be some basis to encourage him or her to take the second client over the first or Congress' intent will be thwarted entirely. In order for the lawyer to be paid at a rate ecu ivalent to the $80 market rate in 1975 he or she must be able to receive $ 1 22.40 per hour in 1980.^ This larger amount will do no more than compensate the lawyer at the same effec- 1 6 A simple calculation based on the Consumer Price Index is set out in detail in appendix II to this Brief at pp. 2b-3b. 31 tive rate as he or she would have received in 1975 dollars. Even that would not cover the full value of the money, for the lawyer (or fee-paying client) has lost the value of the use of that money in the interim, and has suffered attendant cash 1 Qflow problems. ' Accordingly, the 10% adjustment per year ordered by the district court on the basis of the rate available on Treasury bonds, is the least 20that counsel was entitled to. For example, consider what counsel would have had to spend to borrow sufficient money to pay his or her 1975 bills in reliance on a fee to be awarded in 1980. With commercial interest rates in the 8 to 15% range, eighty 1975 dollars would have cost about $155 by 1980. Of course, the court should have compoun ded the interest rather than simply multiplying it by the number of years passed. The court's mathematical error, however, only results in a difference of about $2.50 per hour in the government's f avor. 32 Put in another way, paying the attorney S80 per hour in 1980 would be the same as if he or she had been paid $52 in 1975.21 Since the lesser amount is substan tially below the established market rate, it can not, a fortiori, be a reasonable fee under this Court's decision in Blum v. Stenson, ___ U.S. ___, 79 L.Ed.2d 891 (1984). Unfortunately, it is not unusual in civil rights cases, particularly in Title VII cases involving the federal govern ment, for the entire process from the beginning of the administrative process through final decision in court on the 22merits, to take many years. Many of 21 See Appendix II to this Brief at p. 3b. For example, present counsel are involved in one case against the Postal Service begun by the filing by an administrative complaint in 1971 and which was filed in court in 1972. The case did not go to trial until 1982, and a decision adverse to plaintiffs was reversed by the court of appeals in 1985. The case is now back in 33 - these cases began in the mid-1970's and the impact of the high rate of inflation in the latter part of that period was severe. Congress was aware of the problem of delay in payment when it enacted the 1976 Pees Act. Thus, it contemplated interim fees in appropriate cases because civil 73rights litigation was often protracted. the trial court for further proceedings. If plaintiffs were to win on the merits in 1986 there would be potential entitlement to attorneys’ fees going back as far as 1972. See, Griffin v. Carlin 755 F.2d 1516 (11th Cir. 1985). Griffin is not unusual. See, Chisholm vT United States Postal Service, 665 P.2d 482 (4th Cir. 1981 ) ( nine years from administrative complaint to final disposition of merits); Saunders v. Claytor, 629 F. 2d 596 (9th Cir. 1980 ) ("six years between illegal d i scharge and award of back pay and attorneys’ fees); Shultz v. Palmer (No. 85-50) (eight years betwee'n initial charge and award of fees on that portion of the case that was settled). H. Rep. No. 94-1558, supra at 8. The legislative history of the Equal Employ ment Opportunity Act of 1972 also reflects Congress' awareness of the limited resources of Title VII plaintiffs and the problem of time delays attendant to such 34 As one court has noted, the risk of financial drain will discourage the bringing of Title VII suits and defendants "may be tempted to seek victory through an economic war of attrition against the plaintiffs." James v. Stockham Valves & Fitting Co. , 559 F. 2d 310, 358-59 (5th Cir. 1977). Thus, the reasons discussed supra at pp. 15-20 that make pre-judgment interest ordinarily available in patent cases apply with full force to awards of attorneys' fees, since the impact of delay is the same. Full compensation cannot be achieved unless the value of the "forgone use of the money" between the time fees are incurred "and the date of the judg- ment" (General Motors Corp. v. Pevex, 461 litigation. Sen. Rep. No. 92-415 (92d Cong. 1st Bess., 1971) p. 17. 35 U.S. at 656) is taken into account.' Just as in a patent infringement case,, denying pre-judgment interest to a prevailing Title VII plaintiff "not only undercompen sates [the employee] but also may grant a windfall to the [discriminator] and create an incentive to prolong litigation." 461 U.S. at 655 n. 10. For similar reasons, the Court should reject the government's contention that a rule that fees may be adjusted for delay in payment would be incongruous because it is "settled law," that backpay awards cannot be so adjusted. (Pet. Brief, pp. 20-21). There are three things wrong with this argument. First, if anything is "24 'This is the case whether the client has paid the attorney as the case progressed, or whether the fee was delayed in whole or in part until the action was successfully concluded. In the former instance, the plaintiff will not be made whole unless compensated for delay; in the latter, the attorney will not otherwise receive a reasonable fee. 36 "settled" it is that nothing is "settled law" until this Court has spoken on the 25question. This Court has never deter mined whether the lower courts have been correct in holding that back pay awards against the federal government cannot be adjusted for delay in payment. See, Schlei and Grossman, Employment Discrimination Law, 1214 n. 175 (2d Ed. 1983). Second, it is clear that the princi ples enunciated in General Motors Corp. v. Devex,(GMC) supra, and Waite v. United States, supra, apply fully to back pay awards. As GMC makes clear, "the standard governing the award of prejudgment interest . . . should be consistent with Congress' overriding purpose of af- _ _ See, e♦g . , Alyeska Pipeline Service v. Wilderness Soc., 421 U.S. 240, 270, n. 46 (1975) (overruling thirteen lower court decisions on attorneys' fees) and Team- sters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324, 378 n. 2 (1977) (overruling more than thirty decisions by six courts of appeals). 37 fording . . . complete compensation." 461 U.S. at 655. That purpose is to place the patent owner "in as good a position as he would have been in" if there had not been a violation. Ibid. This purpose is, of course, precisely the same purpose Congress had when it provided for equi table make-whole relief in the form of back pay in Title VII cases. Compare GMC v. Devex, 461 U.S. at 655-656 {prejudgment interest necessary to "make the patent owner whole" and to ensure "complete justice between the plaintiff and the United States") with Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405, 418 (1975) (back pay an equitable remedy necessary to "make persons whole for injuries suffered on account of unlawful employment discrimi nation" and "to secure complete justice"). 38 Third, as we will now demonstrate, Congress intended by § 2000e-16 to abrogate sovereign immunity in its entirety in Title VII actions against the government. Therefore, federal employees are entitled the same full relief with regard to both attorneys' fees and back pay as are all other employees.2^ 26 The government's asserted dichotomy between back pay as benefiting the discriminated against employee and attorneys' fees as benefiting the lawyer is also simply wrong. The provision that fees are to be paid by the defendant is for the benefit of the prevailing civil rights plaintiff just as much as is the provision of back pay. Congress and this Court recognize that without the possibil ity of fee-shifting, attorneys would not be available; without attorneys there will be no civil rights plaintiffs to recover back pay. See Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc., supra. For those clients who can pay fees, their recovery is as much make whole relief as is the recovery of back pay. 39 II. SECTION 717 OP THE EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY ACT OP 1972 IS A COMPLETE ABROGATION OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY IN EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION CASES. A. Congressional Intent Is Determinative Of The Extent Sovereign Immunity Is Waived By A Particular Statutory Scheme. The government relies mechanically on cases decided at a time when sovereign immunity was viewed as an absolute and impenetrable bar to actions brought against the federal government. More recent decisions of this Court, on the other hand, establish that sovereign immunity is a disfavored doctrine and that conaressional waivers of it will be construed liberally. Thus, in Franchise Tax Board of California v. United States Postal Service, ____ U.S. ____, 81 L.Ed.2d 446 (1984) this Court reaffirmed a line of cases that have interpreted liberally "sue and be sued" language as constituting the 40 total abrogation of sovereign immunity. 8 1 L.Ed . 2d at 451. The lower courts have correctly held that such language encom passes an abrogation of the bar to an award of interest in a Title VII case. See, Nagy v. United States Postal Service, 773 F.2d 1190 (11th Cir. 1985). To what extent the sovereign immunity of the federal government has been waived by a particular statutory scheme depends, of course, on the intent of Congress. Indeed, this proposition is firmly established by the very cases relied upon by petitioners. Thus, for example, in Boston Sand Co. v. United States, 278 U.S. 41 (1928), the Court did not simply rest on the absence of the word "interest" from 27the private act in question. Rather, the decision by Justice Holmes carefully scrutinized the context of the statute. It 27 42 Stat. 1590, ch. 192 (5-15-22) 41 concluded that Congress did not intend to "put the United States on the footing of a private person in all respects." Id. at 47. In Standard Oil Co. v. United States, 267 U.S. 76 (1925), in contrast, the Court did find the United States liable for interest under a statute that again was silent on the subject. There, the United States acted as if it were a private insurer; therefore, it had without more consented to be treated as a private insurer. Id. at 79. As a result, interest could be obtained even though it was not expressly provided for by statute. Thus, the rule established by the deci sions of this Court is that the presence or absence of a particular phrase or word is not dispositive. Rather, one must look 42 to the intent of Congress as evidenced by both the language and purpose of the particular statutory scheme involved. As we have explained in our Brief in Opposition to the Petition for Writ of Certiorari at pages 17-23, the decisions embodying the no-interest rule dealt with narrow and specific Acts, leases, and contracts in regard to which the United States was acting in its sovereign and governmental capacity. By 42 U.S.C. § 200Oe-16 (§ 717 of the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972), in contrast, Congress had the specific and clear intent that governmental agencies, in their capacities as providers of employment opportunities, would have the same status as all other employers, private, state and local , covered under the broad and comprehensive provisions of Title VII. 43 Indeed, Congress intended that the federal government serve as a model for all other employers because: The Federal service is an area where equal employment opportun ity is of paramount signi ficance . . . . Accordingly there can exist no justification for anything but a vigorous effort to accord Federal employees the same rights and impartial treatment which the law seeks to afford employees in the private sector. House Report No. 92-238 (92d Cong. 1st Sess. , 1971), pp. 22-23; see also Sen. Report No. 92-415 (92d Cong. 1st. Sess. 1971) pp. 12-13. B . Congress Intended To Waive All Sovereign imm'unity*_Bars To The Award O F" Complete Relief In' Title VlT Cases In the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972 Congress used, if anything, even clearer language to evidence an intent to abrogate sovereign immunity 44 totally than the phrase "sue and be sued." Not only has it provided in the statute that an action against the federal government will be governed by precisely the same relief provisions that govern 2 8actions against private employers, but it has provided specifically that the government will be liable for fees "the same as a 29private person." It has, moreover, stated explicitly in the legislative history of the Act that federal employees will "have the full 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(d): The provisions of section 2000e-5(f) through (k) of this title, as applicable, shall govern civil actions brought hereunder. See Chandler v. Roudebush, 425 U.S. 840, 8 4 6-48 ( 1976) for the meaning of the phrase "as applicable." For the reasons stated there, the phrase cannot be construed as limiting the clear language of 2000e-5(k). 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k) , one of the provisions incorporated by reference by § 2000e-16(d). as arerights available in the courts granted to individuals in the private 30sector under Title VII." Strikingly absent from the govern ment's brief is any substantial discussion 31of the Act's legislative history. Similarly striking is the absence of any reference whatsoever to the prior deci sions of this Court discussing the history and purpose of the Act. This Court has held that § 2000e-16 provides federal employees with a "careful blend of * 3 30 Sen. Rep. No. 92-415 (92d Cong., 1st Sess., 1971), reprinted in Subcommittee on Labor, Senate Commitee on Labor and Public Welfare, "Legislative History of The Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972" (hereinafter "Legislative History") at 425. 3 ̂The only citation in its brief, at p. 19, to the legislative history is to the entire lengthy compendium cited supra, n. 30. The government simply asserts that it could find nothing in that substantial book that casts any light on the issue before the Court, presumedly because it could not find the magic word interest therein. 46 administrative and judicial enforcement 3 2powers" intended "to accord federal 33employees the same right[s]" enjoyed by other employees. This was accomplished by providing that 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)-(k), the provisions relating to relief for non-federal employees, govern the provision of relief to federal employees. Brown v. General Services Administration, 425 U.S. 820, (1976), squarely held that: Sections 706(f) through (k), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-5(f) through 2000e-5(k) . . . . which are incorporated "as applicable" by § 717(d), govern such issues as venue, the appointment of attorneys, attorneys' fees, and the scope of relief. 425 U.S. at 832 (emphasis added). Brown v. General Services Administration, 425 U.S. 820, 833 ( 1976) . Chandler v. Roudebush, 425 U.S. 840, 848 ( 1976) . 33 47 Crucial to an understanding of the intent of Congress when it passed 42 U.S.C. §2Q00e-16 is the background of that statute and the specific, underlying problem it addressed. Existing sovereign immunity doctrine had served as a bar both to the recovery of full relief in the administrative process and to the pursuit of such relief in court.34 Congress passed § 200Qe-16 to overcome that bar entirely. When Congress enacted Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it did not include the United States within the definition of employer. However, it did include a proviso that employment deci sions of the government were to be free of discrimination and entrusted to the 34 See Schlei & Grossman, Employment Discri mination Law, Chap. 33, "Federal Employee ’Litigation” (2d Ed. 1983), for a summary of the history of the 1964 and 1972 Acts and of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 as they relate to federal employee discrimination claims. 48 President the power to implement that 35proviso. Subsequently, Executive Orders 1 1 246 and 1 1 478 were issued along with implementing regulations enacted by the 3 6then Civil Service Commission. The regulations provided administra tive procedures and certain remedies to federal employees for discrimination in employment. However, the scope of relief available was severely limited because of an opinion of the Comptroller General that back pay could be awarded for a discrimi nation claim only insofar as it was permitted under the Back Pay Act (5 D.S.C. 37§ 5596(b)). Thus, a federal employee who 35 36 37 35 P.L. 88-352, § 701(b). 36 5 C.P.R. Part 713 (1967). These regula tions, as amended, are now found at 29 C.P.R. Part 1613. 37 Testimony of Irving Kator, Hearings Before the General Subcommittee on Labor of the House Committee On Education And Labor on H.R. 1746, March 3, 4, and 18, 1971, p. 365. 49 succeeded in challenging a discharge could receive the back pay he had been denied thereby, while an employee who successful ly challenged the denial of a promotion on 3 8the ground of discrimination could not. The underlying basis for the Comptroller General’s opinion was that without an explicit waiver of sovereign immunity by Congress, the only relief available for discrimination claims was that available under existing statutory authority. With regard to the availability of a judicial remedy, there was a split in the courts. While the Court of Claims held that there was a right to bring an action 39based on discrimination, the Eighth See, United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392 ( 1976), for a discussion of the distinc tion between discharge and promotion claims under the Back Pay Act in a case that does not involve a discrimination claim. Chambers v. United States, 451 F. 2d 1045 (Ct. Cl. 1971). 39 50 Circuit in Gnotta v. United States, 415 P. 2d 1271 (8th Cir. 1969), held that sovereign immunity precluded such an action and that the various statutes upon which such a claim might be based did not constitute a sufficient waiver of sov ereign immunity. Thus, as this court has already held in Brown v. GSA, one of the central concerns discussed in the hearings and committee reports involving § 2000e-16 were sovereign immunity bars to relief for federal employees asserting claims of discrimination. Thus, witnesses urged that Congress must act to ensure the 40availability of complete relief. Repre sentatives of the Civil Service Com- See, e.g . , testimony of Hon. Walter E. Fauntroy, Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Labor of the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare on S.2515, S.2617, and H.R. 1746, Oct. 4, 6, and 7, 1971, at p. 206. 51 mission, while acknowledging limitations on the relief they could grant because of the Comptroller General's ruling, attemp ted to assure Congress that there was no sovereign immunity bar to judicial i ■ p 41 relief. The Senate Committee, however, noted that "the testimony of the Civil Service Commission notwithstanding . . . [i]n many cases the employee must overcome a U.S. Government defense of sovereign immunity" and that "the remedial authority of the Commission and the courts has also been in doubt."* 42 Thus, it was made explicit in 4 Testimony of Irving Kator, Hearings cited supra, n. 37, pp. 319-20,* Testimony of Irving Kator, Hearings cited supra, n. 40, p. 296. 42 Legislative History at 425. As noted by the government in its brief in Brown v. GSA, supra, "Ultimately, the Committees concluded that judicial review was not available at all or that access was doubtful and that some forms of relief were definitely foreclosed." Brief for Respondents in No. 74-768, p. 24. 52 the legislative reports that a central purpose of § 2000e-16 was specifically to remove sovereign immunity bars to relief for federal employees, both in the 43administrative process and m court. With regard to the administrative process, Congress specified that the Civil Service Commission (now the Equal Employ- 44ment Opportunity Commission) could grant 45back pay and all other relief necessary. Legislative History at 425. Jurisdiction over federal equal employment opportunity matters was transferred to the EEOC by the President's Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1978. 43 F.R. 28971 ( 1978). Section 2000e-16(b) provides that the Commission may enforce 2000e-16(a) "through appropriate remedies, including reinstatement or hiring of employees with or without back pay, as will effectuate the policies of this section . . . ." The section-by-analysis accompanying the conference report explained: The Civil Service Commission would be authorized to grant appropriate remedies which may include, but are not limited to, backpay for aggrieved applicants or employees. Any remedy 53 - The legislative history makes it clear that there was no intent to limit the relief available to that specified in the statute. Rather, Congress recognized the impossibility, in the context of Title VII, of predetermining all the possible types and scope of relief that might be appropriate. Thus, at the same time Congress was enacting § 2000e-16 it was expanding the language of the relief provisions of Title VII in 42 U.S.C. needed to fully recompense the employee for his loss, both financial and professional, is considered appropriate under this subsection. Legislative History at 1851. (Emphasis added.) The District Court for the District of Columbia interpreted § 2000e-16(b) as authorizing the award of attorneys’ fees administratively in an employment discrimination case. Smith v. Califano, 446 F. Supp. 530 (D.D.C. 1978) . Congress authorized the award of fees by theMerit Systems Protection Board in EEO cases in the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, 5 U.S.C. § 7701(g)(2). Subse quently, both the MSPB and the EEOC adopted regulations for the award of fees in EEO cases. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.37; 29 C.F.R. § 1613.271(c). 54 § 200Oe-5 (g ) . As held by this Court in Franks v. Bowman Transportation Company, 424 U.S. 747, 763-66 (1976), the legis lative history of the amendment to § 2000e-5(g) makes it clear that the "'most complete relief possible'" was to be available, unlimited by the enumeration in the statute of certain particular remedies, 424 U.S. at 764. When Congress provided a judicial remedy for federal employees, it seized on the simple expedient of incorporating the relief provisions that were applicable to all other employers into § 2000e-16. Thus, it first provided that federal employees 46could bring a civil action and then made all of the relief provisions applicable to private, state, and local government employers applicable to actions brought by 46 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(c). 55 federal employees. Again, Congress' intent to make precisely the same relief available to federal employees as is available to all other employees is . 48clear. Thus, the clear language of the statute, the legislative history, and the entire background and purpose of the statute allow no other interpretation than that Congress intended to enact a complete waiver of sovereign immunity in cases raising cl a ims of discriminat ion in employment against federal agencies. The waiver includes allowing attorneys' fees 47 42 U.S.C. § 2000e~16(d). The Senate Report states, "aggrieved employees . . . will also have the full rights available in the courts as are granted to individuals in the private sector under Title VII." Legislative History at 425. 56 on the same basis, in the same amount, and calculated in the same manner as fees . 49against other parties. The petitioners' attempt to rely on lower court decisions decided under the Equal Access to Justice Act is misplaced for a number of reasons. (1) The purpose of the EAJA is entirely different. It deals specifically with typical governmental actions and is limited to awarding fees only when the positions taken by the government were not "substantially justified." (2) The EAJA's purpose is not to encourage the bringing of litiga tion, but rather is to provide some measure of reimbursement to those who must defend against unjust governmental actions. (3) The EAJA limits fees to $75 per hour and thus does not purport to provide full or just compensation for expenditures of attorneys fees. There fore, particularly with regard to the inclusion of pre-judgment interest, it has no relevance whatsoever to the calculation of a "reasonable," i ,e., fully compensa tory, fee. (4) Congress explicitly provided that the EAJA did not alter, limit, modify, repeal, invalidate, or supersede any other statute, including the civil rights acts, which provided for fees against the United States. P.L. 96-481, § 206. This language was inserted in the statute precisely because of concerns that the EAJA might be relied upon to restrict fee awards in civil rights cases. 57 Despite the evidence of the clear intent of § 2000e-16, following its enactment the government persisted in arguing that sovereign immunity limited the relief available to federal employees, including the recovery of attorneys5 fees. Indeed, the government's first argument was that no fees were available against the government whatsoever because of sovereign immunity. In fact, the govern ment made the same "fortuity" argument that it now makes at p. 20 of its brief here: that is, when Congress incorporated 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k) into § 2000e-16 it really had no intent to impose on the United States liability for fees when a government employee prevailed in a Title VII action where a federal agency was the defendant.'^ The government eventually _ _ Letter from Irving Jaffe, Acting Attorney General, to Senator John V. Tunney, May 6, 1975, printed in 2 CCH Employment Prac tices Guide 1f5327 ( 1976). See Ralston, 58 - 5 1abandoned this argument in 1975 and finally, in 1977, the Attorney General of the United States officially disavowed any reliance on arguments based on sovereign immunity. He stated: In a similar vein, the Department will not urge arguments that rely upon the unique role of the Federal Government. For example, the Department recognizes that the same kinds of relief should be available against the Federal Government as courts have found appropriate in private sector cases, including imposition of affirmative action plans, back pay and attorney's fees. See Copeland v. Usery, 13 EPD 1(11,434 (D.D.C. 1976); Day v. Mathews, 530 F.2d 1 083 (D.C. Cir. 1976); Sperling v. United States, 515 F.2d 465 (3d Cir. 1975). Thus, while the Depart ment might oppose particular remedies in a given case, it will not urge that different standards be applied in cases "The Federal Government as Employer: Problems and Issues in Enforcing the Anti-Discrimination Laws", 10 Ga. L. Rev. 717, 719 n. 13 ( 1976) . 51 Ibid. 59 against the Federal Government than are applied in other cases. Memorandum of Attorney General Griffin B. Bell for United States Attorneys and Aqency General Counsel (Aug. 31, 1977), p. 2.” This directive was in effect when the services at issue here were rendered and when the district court entered its award; to the knowledge of counsel for respon dent, it has never been withdrawn. If the position taken in the present case constitutes a repudiation of that an nounced in 1977, we urge that it is in error. As we have shown, Congress intended to and in fact did confer "upon Federal employees . . . the same substan tive . . . [and] procedural rights . . . 52 The memorandum was published in 2 CCH Employment Practices Guide 1! 5046 (1977). For the convenience of the Court, the memorandum is reproduced in Appendix III to this Brief at pp. 1c-3c. 60 as it has conferred upon employees . . . in private industry and in state and local governments." (Ibid.) This Court should affirm that the United States has "no lesser obligations with respect to equal employment opportunities than those it seeks to impose upon private and state and local government employees." (Ibid.) The rights afforded federal employees include the recovery of attorneys' fees and back pay in their entirety, including both pre- and post-j udgment interest and other necessary components of full make whole relief. 61 CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the court below should be affirmed. Respectfully submitted, JULIUS LeVONNE CHAMBERS CHARLES STEPHEN RALSTON (Counsel of Record) 99 Hudson Street, 16th Floor New York, N.Y. 10013 (212) 219-1900 Attorneys for Respondent APPENDIX I Statutes Involved la 42 U.S.C. S 2000e-16 (a) All personnel actions affecting employees or applicants for employment (except with regard to aliens employed outside the limits of the United States) in military departments as defined in section 102 of title 5, United States Code, in executive agencies as defined in section 105 of title 5, United States Code (including employees and applicants for employment who are paid from nonappro- priated funds), in the United States Postal Service and the Postal Rate Commission, in those units of the Govern ment of the District of Columbia having positions in the competitive service, and in those units of the legislative and judicial branches of the Federal Govern ment having positions in the competitive service, and in the Library of Congress shall be made free from any discrimination - 2a - based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. (b) Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, the Civil Service Commission shall have authority to enforce the provisions of subsection (a) through appropriate remedies, including reinstatement or hiring of employees with or without back pay, as will effectuate the policies of this section, and shall issue such rules, regulations, orders and instructions as it deems necessary and appropriate to carry out its responsibili ties under this section. The Civil Service Commission shall — (1) be responsible for the annual review and approval of a national and regional equal employment opportunity plan which each department and agency and each appropriate unit referred to in subsection (a) of this section shall submit in (2 ) (3) The head or unit order to maintain an affirmative program of equal employment opportunity for all such employees and applicants for employment; be responsible for the review and evaluation of the operation of all agency equal employment opportunity programs, perio dically obtaining and publishing (on at least a semi-annual basis) progress reports from each such department,, agency, or unit; and consult with and sol icit the recommendations of interested individuals, groups, and organizations relating to equal employment opportunity, of each such department, agency„ shall comply with such rules, 4a regulations, orders, and instructions which shall include a provision that an employee or applicant for employment shall be notified of any final action taken on any complaint of discrimination filed by him thereunder. The plan submitted by each department, agency, and unit shall include, but not be limited to — (1) provision for the establishment of training and education programs designed to provide a maximum opportunity for employ ees to advance so as to perform at their highest potential; and (2) a description of the qualifica tions in terms of training and experience relating to equal employment opportunity for the principal and operating officials of each such depart ment, agency or unit responsible for carrying out the equal 5a employment opportunity program and of the allocation of personnel and resources proposed by such department, agency, or unit to carry out its equal employment opportunity program. With respect to employment in the Library of Congress, authorities granted in this subsection to the Civil Service Commission shall be exercised by the Librarian of Congress. (c) Within thirty days of receipt of notice of final action taken by a department, agency, or unit referred to in subsection 717(a), or by the Civil Service Commission upon an appeal from a decision or order of such department, agency, or unit on a complaint of discri mination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin, brought pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, Executive Order 1 1478 or any succeeding 6a executive orders, or after one hundred and eighty days from the filing of the initial charge with the department, agency, or unit or with the Civil Service Commission on appeal from a decision or order of such department, agency, or unit, an employee or applicant for employment, if aggrieved by the final disposition of his complaint, or by the failure to take final action on his complaint, may file a civil action as provided in section 706, in which civil action the head of the department, agency, or unit, as appropriate, shall be the defendant. (July 2, 1964, P. L. 88-352, title VII, § 717, as added Mar. 24, 1972, P.L. 92-261 , § 11, 86 Stat. 111, as amended, Feb. 15, 1980, P.L. 96-191, § 8(g), 94 Stat. 34.) - 7a - 28 U.S.C. g 2516(a) Interest on a claim against the United States shall be allowed in a judgment of the United States Claims Court only under a contract or Act of Congress expressly providing for payment thereof, (Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., § 284 and section 226 of title 3, U.S.C.!, 1940 ed. , Money and Finance (Sept. 30, 1890^ ch. 1126, § 1, 26 Stat. 537; Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, § 177, 36 Stat. 1141; Nov. 921 , ch . 136, S 1324(b) 9 42 Stat. June 2, 1924, ch., 234, § 1020, 43 346; Feb. 13, 1925 , ch. 229s' § 3 i c) , a t . 939; Feb. 26, 1926, ch . 27, §§ 1 1 1 7, 1 200, 44 Stat. 119, 125; May 29, 1928, ch. 852, § 615(a), 45 Stat. 877; June 22, 1936, ch. 690, § 808, 49 Stat. 1746).) APPENDIX II Calculation of Loss of Value Through Inflation 1b A method for adjusting dollar amounts for the effect of inflation is set out in Hohenstein, "Subtract Inflation from Your Income, Prices and Profits,” Legal Economics 35 (ABA Section on Economics of Law Practice, Summer 1978). The method sets up a formula based on the consumer price index (CPI), which uses 1 967 as the base year. The following table sets out the CPI for each year through 1984. 2b Table Year CPI 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1 0 0 . 0 104.2 109.8 116.3 121.3 125.3 133.1 147.7 161.2 170.5 181.5 195.3 217.7 247.0 272.3 288.6 297.4 307.6 , d yn- ̂ - I Using the example in the text, to convert 1975 dollars into their 1980 equivalent, the following ratio is used 1 980 CPI/1 9 7 5 CPI = 247.0/161.2 = 1.53. The $80 per hour 1975 rate is then multiplied by 1.53; $80 X 1.53 - $122.40. Source: Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers, annual averages and changes, 1967-84. United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Monthly Labor Review. May, 1985, p. 69. 3b Therefore, fees awarded in 1980 would have to be calculated at $122.40 per hour simply to provide the same dollar equiva lent as if the fees had been paid in 1975. To convert the other way, i ,e,, from 1980 dollars to their 1975 equivalent, the converse ratio is used. 1975 CPI/1980 CPI = 161,2/247.0 = .65. Therefore, an award of $80 per hour in 1980 would be the same as if fees had been paid at a rate of 852 per hour in 1975. ($80 X .65 = $52.). APPENDIX III Memorandum of Attorney General Griffin B. Bell for United States Attorneys and Agency General Counsel (Aug. 31, 1977) MEMORANDUM FOR UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS AND AGENCY GENERAL COUNSELS Re: Title VII Litigation In 1972» as additional evidence of our Nation's deter mination to guarantee equal rights to all citizens. Congress amended Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to provide Federal employees and applicants for Federal employment with judicially enforceable equal- employment rights. The Department of Justice, of course, has an important role in the_affirmative enforcement of rights under the Act, in both tne private and public sectors. To effectively discharge those responsibilities, we must ensure that the Department of Justice conducts its representational functions as defense attorneys for agencies in suits under the Act in a way.that.will be_supportive of and consistent with the Department's broader obligations _ to enforce equal opportunity laws. This memorandum is issued as part of what will be a continuing effort by the Department to this end. Congress, in amending Title VII, has conferred upon Federal employees and applicants the same substantive right to be free . from discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, and national origin, and the same procedural rights to judicial enforcement as it has conferred upon employees and applicants . in private industry and in state and local governments. Morton v. Mancari, 417 U . S . 535 (1974) ; Chandler v_,__ Rouges us h , 425 U.S. '8ZJT"OT"76) . And, as a matter of policy, the Federal Government should be willing to assume for its own agencies no lesser obligations with respect to equal employment opportunities than those it seeks to impose upon private and state and local government employers. In furtherance of this policy, the Department, whenever possible, will take the same position in interpreting Title VII in defense of Federal employee cases as it. has taken and will take in private or state and local government employee cases. For example, where Federal employees and applicants meet the - 2 - % criteria of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, they are also entitled to the same class rights as are private sector employees. Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405s 414 (1975). FuFtEer, ene Department of Justice has acquiesced is the recent rulings of the Fifth and Sixth Circuit Courts of Appeals that it is^ unnecessary for unnamed class members to exhaust their ' administrative remedies as & prerequisite to class membership. Eastland v. TVA, 553 P.2d 364 (5th Cir. 1977); Williams v. TVA, F.ld’ Cir. 1977). Consequently, we"will"no longer maintain that each class member in a Title VI1 suit must have exhausted his or her administrative remedy. In a similar vein, the Department will not urge arguments that rely upon the unique role of the Federal Government. For example, the Department recognizes that the same kinds of relief should be available against the Federal Government as courts have found appropriate in private sector cases, including imposition of affirmative action plans, back pay and attorney's fees. See Coseland v. Userv, 13 EPD 111,434 (D.D.C. 19 76.); Dav v. MajEKews, SJ0~W7Td 1083 (D.C. Cir. 1976) ; Sperling v. UnitecT'States, 515 F.2d 465 (3d Cir. 1975). Thus, while the Department might oppose particular remedies in a given case, it will not urge that different standards be applied in cases against the Federal Government than are applied in other cases. The Department, in other respects, will also attempt to promote the underlying purpose of Title VII. For example, the ,1972 amendments to Title VII do not give the Government a right to file a civil action challenging an agency finding of discrimination. Accordingly, to avoid any appearance on the Government’s part of unfairly hindering Title VII law suits, the Government will not attempt to contest a, final agency or Civil Service Commission finding of discrimination by seeking a trial de novo in those cases where an employee who has been succesiTulTTn proving his or her claim before either the agency or the Commission files a civil action seeking only to expand upon the remedy proposed by such final decision. - 2c The policy sec forth above does noc reflect, and should noe be interpreted as reflecting, any unwillingness on the part of the Department to vigorously defend, on the merits, claims of discrimination against Federal agencies where appropriate. It reflects only a concern that enforcement of the equal, opportunity laws as to all employees be uniform and consistent. In_addition to the areas discussed above, the Department of Justice is now undertaking a review of the consistency of other legal positions advanced by the Civil Division in defending Title VII cases with those advocated by the Civil Rights Division in prosecuting Title V I I cases. The objective of this review is to ensure that, insofar as possible, they will be consistent, irrespective of the Department’s role as either plaintiff or defendant under Title V I I . As a pare of this review, "the Equal Employment Opportunity Cases" section of the Civil Division Practice Manual (§3-37), which contains the Department's position on the defense of Title V I I actions brought against the Federal Government, is being revised. When this revision is completed, the new section of the Civil Division Practice Manual will be distributed to all United States Attorneys* Offices and.will replace the present section. Each office should rely on the revised section of the Manual for guidance, on legal arguments to be made in Title VII actions. In order to ensure consistency, any legal arguments which are not treated' in the Manual should be referred to the Civil Division for review prior to their being advocated to the court. This policy statement has been achieved through the cooperation of^Assistant Attorney General Barbara Babcock or the Civil Division who is responsible for the defense of these Federal employee cases, and Assistant Actoraev General Drew Days of the Civil Rights Division who is my principal adviser on civil rights matters. They and their Divisions will continue to work closely together to assure that this policy is effectively implemented. (SrIffin b. snr August 31, 1977 jC - DO J-1977-03