Document: 467 U.S. 867 104 S.Ct. 2794 81 L.Ed.2d 718 Sylvia COOPER, et al., Petitionersv.FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF RICHMOND. No. 83-185. Supreme Court of the United State Argued March 19, 1984. Decided June 25, Syllabus The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission brought an action in Federal District against respondent Reserve Bank, alleging that one respondent's branches (the Bank) violated § 703(a) Title VII Civil Rights Act 1964 by engaging employment discrimination based on race during a specified time period. Subsequently, four Bank's employees Cooper petitioners) were allowed to intervene as plaintiffs, and they alleged practices 42 U.S.C. 1981, well VII, could adequately represent class black whom Bank had discriminated. then certified pursuant Rules Procedure 23(b)(2) (3), ordered notice be given members. Among recipients Baxter petitioners. At trial both petitioners testified, held engaged pattern practice racial with respect certain pay grades but not above those grades, found discriminated two others. Thereafter, moved intervene, denied motion ground, petitioner, since she was member which relief been ordered, her rights would protected later stage proceedings, and, other petitioners, ground employed jobs for granted. These latter filed separate Court, each them promotion because their violation 1981. dismiss its order interlocutory appeal, consolidated pending appeal action. Appeals reversed merits action, holding there insufficient evidence establish or none against. court further that, under doctrine res judicata, judgment precluded from maintaining individual claims Bank. Held: are While correct generally concluding members represented bound adverse erred preclusive effect it attached judgment. bars bringing another same period precludes any litigation relitigating question whether such But is dispositive Assuming prima facie case discrimination, will required articulate legitimate reason challenged decisions, if meets burden, ultimate regarding motivation petitioners' cases resolved Court. Permitting bring frustrate purposes Rule 23. To deny permission tantamount requiring every permitted litigate his claim. Moreover, issues framed named parties should expanded encompass additional matter decided first instance Nothing 23 requires make finding testimony 23's purpose providing mechanism expeditious decision common questions might defeated attempt decide host before relating liability has adversely defendant. Pp. 874-881. 698 F.2d 633 (4th Cir.1983), remanded. Eric Schnapper, New York City, Harriet S. Shapiro, Washington, D.C., States E.E.O.C. amicus curiae, special leave George R. Hodges, Charlotte, N.C., respondent. Justice STEVENS delivered opinion 1 determining employer did engage general subsequent civil claim employer. 2 * On 22, 1977, commenced respondent, Richmond.1 Respondent operates branch N.C. Bank), where years 1974-1978 about 350-450 several departments. EEOC complaint violating "policies practices" included "failing refusing promote blacks race." App. 9a. 3 Six months after complaint, employees2 plaintiffs. In "complaint intervention," these plaintiffs VII; victim race; race. due course, entered conditionally certifying following (3): 4 "All persons who have defendant at Charlotte Branch Office January 3, 1974 [6 prior charge intervenors EEOC], promotion, wages, job assignments terms conditions race."3 5 After class, published newspapers mailed class. described status litigation, plainly stated "will determination" exclude themselves sending written Clerk.4 Phyllis five individuals Bank.5 It undisputed individuals—the petitioners—are intervening made no 6 testified. through 1978 failing afford opportunities advancement assignment equal afforded white 5. Except so specified, however, "there does appear pervasive enough relief." Pet. Cert. 193a-194a. With Russell, Moore Hannah. Finally, somewhat cryptically although "the entitlement some testified trial," defer matters proceeding. Id., 194a. 7 24, discriminatory reasons. Emma Ruffin, therefore Stage II proceedings relief. also motion, different reason. all grade category, entitled benefit court's ruling stated: "The proof classwide therefore, participate this case." 287a. added "see why, actively interested pursuing claims, cannot file Section 1981 suit next week. . ." 288a. 8 A few days than 5, determination dismiss, 28 1292(b). litigation. 9 Fourth Circuit Court's (1) (2) account v. Richmond, Cir.1983). thus denying remanded dismissal complaint. We granted certiorari review judgment, 464 932, 334, 78 305 (1983),6 we now reverse. 10 Claims types adjudicated First, finally favor.7 Those decisions do not, foreclose claims. Second, followed discriminating decided.8 judicata analysis. 11 There course dispute elementary principles adjudication properly entertained binding See, e.g., Tribe Ben-Hur Cauble, 255 356, 41 338, 65 L.Ed. 673 (1921); Restatement Judgments 86 (1942); (Second) 41(1)(e) (1982); see Fed.Rule Civ.Proc. 23(c)(3); & Cohn, Class Actions—Jurisdiction Effect Judgments, 32 Ill.L.Rev. 555 (1938). Basic (merger bar preclusion) collateral estoppel (issue apply. favor plaintiff extinguishes claim, merges into granting barring either side conclusive between issue actually litigated determined, essential III 12 1964, Stat. 255, amended, 2000e-2(a), initial burden establishing him race, color, religion, sex, national origin. offering adequate create inference he opportunity basis criterion enumerated VII. establishes justifying showing belongs minority, applied qualified vacant position attempting fill, (3) rejected position, (4) rejection, remained open continued seek applicants plaintiff's qualifications. McDonnell Douglas Corp. Green, 411 792, 802, 93 1817, 1824, 36 668 (1973). Once facts established, must produce "evidence rejected, someone else preferred, legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason." Texas Dept. Community Affairs Burdine, 450 248, 254, 101 1089, 1094, 67 207 (1981). point, presumption "drops case," id., n. 10, S.Ct., 1095, district suit: particular Postal Service Board Governors Aikens, 460 711, 714-715, 103 1478, 1481-1482, 75 403 (1983); U.S., 253, 1093. persuading trier fact intentionally "remains times plaintiff," ibid., final analysis "must party's explanation employer's believes." 716, 1482. 13 Franks Bowman Transportation Co, 424 747, 96 1251, 47 444 (1976), plaintiff, behalf himself others similarly situated, various company policies, including hiring, transfer, discharge employees. demonstrating existence established 772, 1268. Proving isolated sporadic acts discrimination; rather preponderance "racial company's standard operating procedure—the regular unusual practice." Teamsters States, 431 324, 336, 97 1843, 1855, 52 396 (1977) (footnote omitted).9 itself justifies award prospective ordinarily determine scope 361, 1867. 14 crucial difference individual's manifest. inquiry decision, while "at pattern-or-practice focus often hiring decisionmaking." 360, 46, 1867, 46. See generally, Furnco Construction Waters, 438 567, 575, 7, 98 2943, 2948 57 957 (1978). 15 This distinction critical our General Telephone Co. Southwest Falcon, 457 147, 102 2364, 72 740 (1982), employee's grounds necessarily representative composed allegedly refused explained: 16 "Conceptually, wide gap (a) grounds, otherwise unsupported allegation policy (b) suffered injury individual, share law typical For bridge gap, prove much more validity own Even though passed over when less deserving whites advanced may support conclusion origin, justify inferences treatment petitioner's practices, motivated ethnic pervades Irving division, reflected way manifested practices." 157-158, 2371. 17 analyzing particulars case, pointed out "one specific sufficient across-the-board attack, potential companywide action." 159, observed: 18 "In regard noteworthy prohibits abstract discrimination. mere aggrieved private identifiable origin standing possible employer." 15, 2372, 15. 19 Falcon holds valid warrant successfully maintain equally clear policy, even consistent within department, fail proved. illustrate point. 20 victims but, noted, higher provided 5.10 Given entirely simultaneously conclude Russell expressly plain rejection "A racially balanced work force immunize discrimination." 579, 2950-2951. 21 conclusion. essence, statistical evidence, buttressed expert anecdotal three bankwide grades. true unpersuaded evidence; clear, instances policy.11 quite recognized "court wary color forest better revealed reptiles hidden weeds foliage countless free-standing trees." NAACP Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 886, 934, 3409, 3437, 73 1215 (1982). Conversely, piece fruit bruised without being rotten core. 22 case. erred, adjudication. That relevant Douglas, beneficial action: pretext. 804-805, 1825-1826. argues permitting actions think converse true. class-action device intended procedure fact. If theory adopted, 24 suggested duty members, least insofar claimants became witnesses joint proceeding subjected histories scrutiny trial.12 Unless main proceeding, duplicative designed avoid encouraged, defendants risks offsetting favorable termination exposure 25 argument fails differentiate what done did. adjudicate pointedly Whether judicial administration Indeed, carefully drafted provide questions. Its find denial findings inconsistent 26 reversed, opinion. 27 ordered. MARSHALL concurs 29 POWELL took part organized federal statute, 341, enables sue sued, appoint employees, define duties. Cooper, Constance Helen Moore, Elmore Hannah, Jr., sometimes referred "intervening plaintiffs" "Cooper petitioners." certiorari, declined presented parties. (1983). 200a (brackets original). Certification sought female concluded certification sex 200a, 1. actual text paragraphs read follows: "3. plaintiff-intervenors, plaintiff-intervenors defined include: Richmond 1974. "4. you fit definition paragraph member. As member, pursue You need nothing remain However, desire, yourself notifying Clerk, below. "5. advised that: include unless request excluded writing; unfavorable class; action; exclusion, hearings attorney your choice. "6. desire able depend toll statutes limitations Clerk writing Clerk's address is: Post Box 1266, North Carolina 28232." 35a-37a. addition Baxter, Brenda Gilliam, Glenda Knott, Alfred Harrison, Sherri McCorkle. All individuals, "Baxter petitioners," stipulated received notice. 95a. 2, supra, limited grant raised concerning Appeals' disposition Two Appeals; determinations final. except pertaining 5; subclass Appeals. Again, subclasses longer significant entire decided. Although involved Government 707(a) Act, elements 358-360, 1866-1867. wrote: 'in 5' whose 'classwide discrimination.' By test, Knott McCorckle term 'oral members,' complaining only Ruffin Harrison met qualifying standard." 633, 644 here intentional group treating favorably disparate accordingly treated such. result reached us substantially considered impact 639. "This presents contrast members' demonstrated 40 offered Chisholm Service, 665 482, 495 Cir.1981), 'class testifying Here can rested. presentation oral wanting Ste. Marie Eastern Ass'n, 650 395, 405-06 (2d declared small number incidents 'would routine .,' or, Goff Continental Oil 678 593, 597 (5th Cir.1982), 'even witnesses' accounts true, company-wide Conoco.' follows failure regarded discriminatory, (which assume arguendo), promotions 5." 643-644 (footnotes omitted). contention wholly merit.

Category: 1