Saunders v Claytor Brief for the Appellee

    I n  the

(Hmtrt 0! %  luttd* States
October T erm, 1979 

No. 79-647

Barbara N. Copeland,

v.
Petitioner,

'Samuel R. Martinez, Director, 
Community Services Administration.

PETITIONER’S REPLY TO THE MEMORANDUM 
FOR THE RESPONDENT IN OPPOSITION

Jack Greenberg 
James M. N abrit, III 
Charles Stephen Ralston 
B ill  L ann  L ee 

Suite 2030 
10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York 10019

A lexander G. P ark

910 17th Street, N.W.
Suite 812
Washington, D.C. 20006 

Attorneys for Petitioner



IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

October Term, 1979 

No. 79-647

BARBARA N. COPELAND,

Petitioner,

v .

SAMUEL R. MARTINEZ, D i r e c t o r ,  
Community Serv ices  Admin is tra t ion .

PETITIONER'S REPLY TO THE 
MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENT IN OPPOSTION

1. P e t i t i o n e r  f i r s t  notes that the govern­

ment has responded  t o  v i r t u a l l y  none o f  the 

arguments presented in the pet i t  ion f o r  w r i t  o f  

c e r t i o r a r i . Thus, the Memorandum in Opposit ion

does not mention, l e t  alone address,  the language 

in Brown v.  GSA, 425 U.S. 820, 832 (1976) ,  h o ld ­

ing  tha t  § 200Qe_ 5 ( k )  gove rns  the award o f

c ou n se l  f e e s  in  a f e d e r a l  T i t l e  V I I  a c t i o n .

2. S i m i l a r l y , the government quotes that 

part o f  Hal l  v.  C o le , 412 U.S. 1, 5 (1973),  which 

no tes  the  genera  1 power o f  the f e d e r a l  c o u r t s

to  award f e e s  in  bad f a i t h  c a s e s ,  but f a i l s



-  2 -

to discuss H a l l ' s fu r the r  h o ld ing ,  noted in  the

p e i t i t i o n  f o r  c e r t i o r a r i ,  that

This [ the  d iscuss ion  o f  genera l  p r i n c i p l e s ]  
does not end our in qu i r y ,  however, f o r  even 
where " f e e - s h i f t i n g "  would be appropr ia te  as 
a matter o f  e q u i t y , Congress has the power to  
c ircums c r i b e  such r e l i e f . In F le ischm ann  
D i s t i l l i n g  Corp. v . Maier Brewing C o . , supra, 
f o r  example, we he ld  that § 35 o f  the Lanham 
Ac t  . . .  p r e c lu d e d  an award o f  a t t o r n e y s '  
f e e s . . . .  Since § 35 "m et icu lous ly  d e t a i l e d
the  rem ed ies  a v a i l a b l e  t o  a p l a i n t i f f  who 
p ro v e s  th a t  h i s  v a l i d  t rademark  has been 
in f r i n g e d "  Congress must have intended the 
express remedial  p rov is ions  o f  § 35 " t o  mark 
the boundaries to  award monetary r e l i e f  in  
cases a r i s in g  under the A c t . "

412 U.S. at 9-10.

3. The government a l s o  does not d i s c u s s  

Fleischmann D i s t i l l i n g  Corp. v.  Maier Brewing Co. , 

386 U.S .  714 ( 1 9 6 7 ) ,  wh i c h , p e t i t i o n e r  u r g e s ,  

d i r e c t l y  governs th is  case.

4. The Memorandum in Opposit ion ignores  the 

l e g i s l a t i v e  h i s t o r y  o f  the C i v i l  Rights  A t t o rn e y ' s  

Fee Act o f  1976, which makes i t  c l e a r  that the 

re levan t  language o f  42 U.S.C. § 1988, which i s  

i d e n t i c a l  to that o f  § 2000e-5 (k ) ,  i s  an absolute  

p r o h i b i t i o n  o f  an award o f  f e e s  t o  the U n i t ed  

S t a t e s . In ad d i t i on  to  those instances  a l ready  

noted in  the P e t i t i o n  f o r  a Writ  o f  C e r t i o r a r i  at 

pp. 11-14, p e t i t i o n e r  c a l l s  the Court 's  a t t en t io n



3

to the statement o f  Congressman Drinan in i n t r o -

duct  in g  the  b i l l  t o  the  House s ubcommi 11 e e :

[U]nder these  b i l l s  the Federa l  government 
could never recover  i t s  a t to rney  f e e s . On 
the other hand, i t  would be requ ired  to  pay 
the  cou n se l  f e e s  o f  a p r i v a t e  p r e v a i l i n g  
par ty  . . .

AWARDING OF ATTORNEYS' FEES, Hearing Before  the 

House Jud i c  i a r y  Subcommitte on C o u r t s , C i v i l  

L i b e r t  i e s  , and the  A d m i n i s t r a t i o n  o f  J u s t i c e , 

(94th Cong.,  1st S es s . )  p. 53 (1975) (emphasis 

added)

5. F i n a l l y ,  p e t i t i o n e r  w ish es  t o  r e ­

emphas ize  th a t  j u s t  because  c ouns e 1 f e e s  a r e  

not awardable, i t  does not f o l l o w  that there  is  

noth ing to  d e te r  p l a i n t i f f s  from f i l i n g  m e r i t l e s s  

T i t l e  V I I  su i t s  against  the f e d e r a l  government. 

The f a r  g r e a t e r  resources a v a i l a b l e  to  the United 

S ta tes ,  the cost o f  r e t a in in g  counsel when there  

i s  l i t t l e  prospect o f  r e c o v e r in g  f e e s , and the 

power o f  the court to  award the other  costs  o f

1/ The Department o f  Jus t ic e ,  in  i t s  testimony 
in  support o f  the b i l l ,  in d ica ted  that i t  under­
stood thay the United St ates could  not recover  
fees  in  a case covered by i t .  See, test imony o f  
Rex E. Lee,  Ass is tan t  A t to rney  General f o r  the 
C i v i l  D iv i s i o n ,  Hear ings , supra at pp. 176-177.



l i t i g a t i o n  to the government are a l l  substant ia l  

p ro te c t  ions against abuses o f  the j u d i c i a l  system.

CONCLUSION

In sum, p e t i t i o n e r  urges that the d ec i s i o n  

below is  in d i r e c t  c o n f l i c t  with the dec is ions  o f  

th is  Court in  Brown v.  G .S .A . , supra, and F l e i s c h -  

mann D i s t i l l i n g  Corp. v.  Maier Brewing Co. , supra, 

and th e r e fo r e  should be r e v i ew ed .

R es p e c t fu l l y  submitted ,

JACK GREENBERG 
JAMES M. NABRIT, I I I  
CHARLES STEPHEN RALSTON 
BILL LANN LEE

Suite 2030
10 Columbus C i r c l e
New York, New York 10019

ALEXANDER G. PARK
910 17th S t r e e t ,  N.W. 
Suite  812
Washington, D.C. 20006

Attorneys  fop P e t i t i o n e r



MEILEN PRESS IN C  — N. Y. C  219