Opinion ID: 374663
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Authority of Attorney General

Text: 8 FOP argues that the Attorney General lacks authority to institute this action under the 1972 amendments to Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-6, 5 which effected a transfer of authority concerning pattern or practice suits from the Attorney General to the EEOC. The Attorney General argues that this transfer of authority only related to suits against private employers, and that the Attorney General retained authority to initiate pattern or practice suits against public employers. 9 Although for some time the ultimate resolution of this issue remained doubtful, see United States v. Board of Education of Garfield Heights, 581 F.2d 791 (6th Cir. 1978); United States v. South Carolina, 445 F.Supp. 1094, 1110-1111 (D.S.C.1977) (three-judge court), aff'd without opinion, 434 U.S. 1026, 98 S.Ct. 756, 54 L.Ed.2d 775 (1978), Congress has recently spoken plainly concerning its intent when the 1972 amendments were made. Both the Senate and House Committee Reports to Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1978 6 have clearly stated that the 1972 transfer of authority related only to suits against private employers, and that the Attorney General retained jurisdiction to initiate pattern or practice suits against state and local governments. See S.Rep.No.750, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. 4 (1978); H.R.Rep.No.1069, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. 8 (1978). 7 After these reports, there can be little doubt that the 1972 amendments did not deprive the Attorney General of authority to bring pattern or practice suits against public employers. See United States v. Fresno Unified School District, 592 F.2d 1088 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 100 S.Ct. 62, 62 L.Ed.2d 41 (1979); United States v. North Carolina, 587 F.2d 625 (4th Cir. 1978); Garfield Heights, supra, 581 F.2d at 792 (dissenting opinion). 10 Even if the legislative history is not accepted as conclusive, we perceive no injustice in allowing the Attorney General to sue, and therefore apply the law in effect at present. Our duty is to apply the law as it stands at the time we render our decision, unless doing so would result in manifest injustice or there is statutory direction or legislative history to the contrary. Bradley v. School Board of Richmond, 416 U.S. 696, 711, 94 S.Ct. 2006, 2016, 40 L.Ed.2d 476 (1974). Accord Cort v. Ash, 422 U.S. 66, 77, 95 S.Ct. 2080, 45 L.Ed.2d 26 (1975). 11 Moreover, the Attorney General was amply authorized to institute suit by two independent statutory provisions, Section 122 of the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972, P.L. 92-512, 86 Stat. 932 (Oct. 20, 1972) 8 and Section 518 of the Crime Control Act of 1973, P.L. 93-83, 87 Stat. 214 (Aug. 6, 1973). 9 The relevant provisions of these Acts at the time suit was instituted were very similar. Each act prohibited discrimination in all programs and activities which receive funds under it, 10 and each empowered the Attorney General, whenever he has reason to believe that a State government or unit of local government is engaged in a pattern or practice in violation of the provisions of this section, to bring a civil action in any appropriate United States district court for such relief as may be appropriate, including injunctive relief. State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972, supra, § 122(c); Crime Control Act of 1973, supra, § 518(c)(3). 12 Since the City has stipulated that it is a recipient of federal funds under each of these statutes, the authority of the Attorney General to bring suit under these statutes is unquestionable. Moreover, the standards to be applied, at least in a suit in which the Attorney General's authority is based on 42 U.S.C. § 3766, are the same as those applied under Title VII. See H.R.Rep.No.94-1723, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. at 32, reprinted in (1976) U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News at pp. 5374, 5418.