Opinion ID: 59430
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Vague Remedial Injunction

Text: Plaintiffs argue that the district court's remedial injunction lacks specificity, fails to remedy the discriminatory exercise of subjective decision-making practices, and includes no provision to ensure Lufkin's compliance. Lufkin agrees that the injunction is unenforceable for lack of specificity, but urges us to reject the additional injunctive relief that plaintiffs now request. We review a district court's fashioning of injunctive relief for abuse of discretion. Peaches Entm't Corp. v. Entm't Repertoire Assocs., Inc., 62 F.3d 690, 693 (5th Cir.1995). The injunction at issue is identical to one the district court included in a preliminary order in January 2005. Lufkin appealed the injunction immediately after the preliminary order. We dismissed the appeal, stating that [b]efore this matter is ripe for appellate review, the district court must identify the specific steps the defendant must take to implement and comply with the injunction. Despite this instruction, the district court included the original injunction verbatim in the final amended judgment. The court's injunction lacks the detail required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d). The injunction includes such vague directives as cease and desist all racially biased assignment and promotion practices, create and implement a program to ensure that black employees receive an equitable proportion of promotions, and take all necessary steps to remedy the effects of past discrimination. An order framed in these broad generalities fails to afford notice to Lufkin of its proscribed or required conduct and is therefore unenforceable. We vacate and remand for the court to try again. This task will not be simple. Where, as here, Title VII does not require plaintiffs to pinpoint the specific practices that caused the discriminatory effect, it is especially difficult to craft an adequate remedial order that will eliminate discrimination without hobbling Lufkin's legitimate promotion policies. We leave to the district court the task of reviewing afresh the propriety of the injunction, and if it is found necessary, of balancing plaintiffs' requests for stronger measures to ensure Lufkin's compliance with the imprecision of the liability finding.