Opinion ID: 488133
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Plaintiffs' Burden of Proof

Text: 12 The district court held that to succeed on the merits of their discrimination claim plaintiffs had to prove discriminatory intent by Dothan. Plaintiffs argue on appeal, as they did before the district court, that they need only show that Project 31 had a discriminatory effect on Dothan's black citizens because Dothan's conduct constituted a perpetuation of past discrimination and a violation of the city's continuing responsibilities under Yelverton. 5 Although the district court properly concluded that plaintiffs must prove discriminatory intent even if they alleged perpetuation of past discrimination, the court erred in holding that plaintiffs' action did not constitute an enforcement action of the Yelverton order. Plaintiffs, therefore, need only prove discriminatory effect. 6
13 Proof of discriminatory intent is required to show a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 265, 97 S.Ct. 555, 563, 50 L.Ed.2d 450 (1977); Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229, 242, 96 S.Ct. 2040, 2049, 48 L.Ed.2d 597 (1976). A plaintiff must prove discriminatory intent even if a history of past discrimination exists. City of Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55, 74, 100 S.Ct. 1490, 1503, 64 L.Ed.2d 47 (1980) (plurality decision). 7 The cases cited by plaintiffs are inapposite because they either involve statutory actions in which proof of discriminatory intent is not required under the statute, see, e.g., International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. U.S., 431 U.S. 324, 97 S.Ct. 1843, 52 L.Ed.2d 396 (1977) (Title VII); Fullilove v. Klutznick, 448 U.S. 448, 100 S.Ct. 2758, 65 L.Ed.2d 902 (1980) (Public Works Employment Act) or school desegregation cases in which courts apply a different standard, see Georgia State Conference v. Georgia, 775 F.2d 1403, 1414 n. 13 (11th Cir.1985).
14 The district court held that this action was not properly an action to enforce the order in Yelverton because: (1) the Yelverton order appears to have been based on the erroneous assumption that municipal services were an issue in the case; and (2) the Yelverton order violated the specificity requirement of Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(d). Williams II, Mss. at 21-24. 15 In Yelverton the district court held that Dothan's system of multi-member districting for the city commission improperly diluted the political power of its black citizens. In so ruling the court concluded that there has been and still remains substantial and pervasive racial discrimination in Dothan. Yelverton, 370 F.Supp. at 618. The court made specific factual findings regarding discrimination in Dothan, including that governmental services have been disproportionately bad in the black areas and that the city had exhibited a clear lack of responsiveness to the physical needs of its black citizens. Id. In fashioning its remedies the court recognized that a new city commission had just been elected, including one black member. These officials testified that they planned to improve services to blacks in the community. The court therefore ordered relief that was the least disruptive to the orderly function of the city government. Id. at 619. In its February 7, 1974 companion order to Yelverton the district court expressly enjoined Dothan from operating the City government in a manner which denies to the black citizens of Dothan ... their right to equal treatment in the provision of governmental services. The court further ordered that Dothan had an affirmative duty to provide blacks with their proportionate share of government services ... in order to remedy the effects of past denial to blacks of access to the political process. The court also required the parties to submit periodic reports concerning the city's compliance with the order. 16
17 A district court has the authority to interpret a previous order by that court in a subsequent enforcement action. Alabama Nursing Home Ass'n v. Harris, 617 F.2d 385, 387-88 (5th Cir.1980). Furthermore, [g]reat deference is due the interpretation placed on the terms of an injunctive order by the court who issued and must enforce it. Id. at 388. But, however Dothan characterizes the district court's action here, the end result is that the court questioned the legality of the Yelverton order and held that it was not enforceable. This constitutes more than mere interpretation of the scope of a prior order, and Alabama Nursing Home is therefore inapplicable. 18 It is beyond question that obedience to judicial orders is an important public policy. An injunction issued by a court acting within its jurisdiction must be obeyed until the injunction is vacated or withdrawn. W.R. Grace & Co. v. International Union of the United Rubber Workers of America, Local 759, 461 U.S. 757, 766, 103 S.Ct. 2177, 2183, 76 L.Ed.2d 298 (1983); see also Watson v. Henderson, 493 F.2d 912, 913 (5th Cir.1974). Dothan never challenged the Yelverton order by direct appeal or motion for post-judgment relief. It cannot now, more than ten years later, object to the legality of the order. Combs v. Ryan's Coal Co., 785 F.2d 970, 979 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 107 S.Ct. 187, 93 L.Ed.2d 120 (1986). 8
19 Even if the district court had authority under Alabama Nursing Home to invalidate the Yelverton order, it abused its authority. A district court has the inherent equitable power to fashion a remedy appropriate to the wrong committed. See U.S. v. Paradise, --- U.S. ----, 107 S.Ct. 1053, 1073, 94 L.Ed.2d 203 (1987) (plurality); Milliken v. Bradley, 433 U.S. 267, 281-82, 97 S.Ct. 2749, 2757-58, 53 L.Ed.2d 745 (1977); Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., 402 U.S. 1, 15-16, 91 S.Ct. 1267, 1275-76, 28 L.Ed.2d 554 (1971); Dowdell v. City of Apopka, 698 F.2d 1181, 1186 (11th Cir.1983). In reaching its decision in Yelverton that Dothan's multi-member districting system improperly diluted the political power of blacks, the district court relied on evidence that the city had provided inadequate public services to black citizens in comparison to white citizens. Rather than order a complete change in the city government the Yelvertoncourt exercised judicial restraint and ordered, in part, that the city treat its black citizens equally in the provision of governmental services and provide blacks with a proportionate share of governmental services. That order was within the inherent equitable remedial authority of the court. 20 The district court here also found that the Yelverton order was a mere obey the law injunction that violates the specificity requirement of Rule 65(d). See Payne v. Travenol Laboratories, Inc., 565 F.2d 895, 897-98 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 835, 99 S.Ct. 118, 58 L.Ed.2d 131 (1974). As this court has noted, Rule 65(d) should not be applied strictly; rather the inquiry should be whether the parties subject to the injunctive order understood their obligations under the order. Combs, 785 F.2d at 978-79. The language of the Yelverton order, that Dothan provide blacks with equal treatment and their proportionate share of governmental services, suggests that the court intended to include such governmental services as street paving and sewer improvements. 9 Dothan listed its special assessment projects, including Project 31, in its two compliance reports filed with the district court as required by Yelverton, indicating that it knew that its obligations under the Yelverton order included paving and sewer improvements in black neighborhoods. The order therefore did not violate the specificity requirement of Rule 65(d). See id. at 979.