Opinion ID: 502794
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the effect of the prior appeal

Text: 11 This case is governed by two related doctrines. The first is what commentators have denominated the mandate rule. See, e.g., J. Moore, J. Lucas & T. Currier, Moore's Federal Practice p 0.404 (2d ed. 1983); see also Litman v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Co., 825 F.2d 1506, 1511 (11th Cir.1987) (in banc). The mandate rule simply embodies the proposition that a district court is not free to deviate from the appellate court's mandate. Wheeler v. City of Pleasant Grove, 746 F.2d 1437, 1440 n. 2 (11th Cir.1984); see Baumer v. United States, 685 F.2d 1318, 1321 (11th Cir.1982). The lower court may consider anew issues not  'within [the mandate's] compass.'  Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 348 n. 18, 99 S.Ct. 1139, 1148 n. 18, 59 L.Ed.2d 358 (1979) (appropriateness of notice relief could be considered where Court had addressed only constitutionality of notice relief) (quoting Sprague v. Ticonic National Bank, 307 U.S. 161, 168, 59 S.Ct. 777, 781, 83 L.Ed. 1184 (1939)); see Perkins v. Standard Oil of California, 399 U.S. 222, 224, 90 S.Ct. 1989, 1990, 26 L.Ed.2d 534 (1970) (lower courts could consider award of attorneys' fees where Court had addressed only merits of Clayton Act claim). However, where an appellate court remands for resolution of a narrow factual issue, the lower court may not circumvent the mandate by approaching the identical legal issue under an entirely new theory. Baumer, 685 F.2d at 1321 (district court could not take evidence of fair market value of option when granted where appellate court remanded for determination of option's fair market value when exercised); see EEOC v. International Longshoremen's Ass'n, 623 F.2d 1054, 1058 (5th Cir.1980) (district court could not hold hearing on the equity of merging one of four locals of a union where appellate court directed that all four locals be merged), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 917, 101 S.Ct. 1997, 68 L.Ed.2d 310 (1981). As should be apparent, the application of these mandate rule principles will, in accord with the rule's purpose of promoting finality, depend considerably on the stage a case has reached when it goes up on appeal and on the language of the appellate court's mandate and/or opinion. 12 It seems rather clear to us that the district court violated the mandate rule when it reopened the case to accept the records of and testimony concerning a number of white union members not mentioned in this court's prior opinion and ostensibly not a part of the first trial. The first opinion of this court directed the district court to resolve four narrow factual issues: (1) whether Damon Temple received any 100% referrals after June 30, 1980; (2) whether James Ray was admitted to the union as a trainee or a full-fledged boilermaker; (3) if so, whether Ray was given credit for experience that would justify the 100% referrals; and (4) if so, whether there was any evidence that might suggest that the union's claim of reliance on Ray's experience was a pretext for discrimination. The case had been fully tried below, and this court's opinion clearly specified the only remaining areas of inquiry. See Litman, 825 F.2d at 1513. Although we recognize that the district court remarked on remand that it had never indicated that [Sharit, Ray, and Temple] were the only similarly situated white employees, Barber, 651 F.Supp. at 266 n. 3, we note that even on remand, the only white employees the district court referred to that were not mentioned in its first order were men whose records were not in evidence at the first trial. In short, even if it had been appropriate for us to sift through the record on the first appeal trying to find the other, unnamed, similarly situated white employees, the district court's own order on remand convinces us that we would not have been able to do so. 2 13 Barber argues that the admission of the additional records did not violate the mandate rule because the union was permitted on remand to amend certain aspects of the pretrial order. Specifically, the union was permitted to indicate that a provision of the Southeastern States Agreement that trainees could receive the 100% rate while doing ASME Code welding was no longer in force when Barber was doing such welding. See supra note 1. We reject Barber's argument that this amendment reopened the case because permitting the amendment was itself a violation of the mandate. The subject matter of the amendment was addressed in this court's first opinion, see Barber, 778 F.2d at 753 n. 2, the court evidently felt there was not a need for any further fact-finding, 3 and the district court was not directed to resolve the ambiguity. We conclude that the district court violated the mandate rule by taking evidence as to Carl Arrington, William Burroughs, William James, Ted Gerrard, and John McGhee, and that to the extent its finding of intentional discrimination was based on the referrals of these men, that finding was clearly erroneous. 14 We further conclude that the district court violated the mandate rule by considering new evidence concerning John Sharit. This court determined on the first appeal that Sharit became a full-fledged boilermaker in February or March 1980 and thus could not be considered situated similarly to Barber during the relevant time period, i.e., post-June 30, 1980. We cannot help but note that we did so because Sharit himself, a witness for the plaintiff, testified to the February-March date, and in its first ruling, the district court expressly credited Sharit's testimony. 4 Supp.Record, Vol. I at 65, 157. Under these circumstances, and the fact, as described above, that we specifically directed the district court to resolve only the four factual issues concerning Damon Temple and James Ray, any consideration of Sharit on remand was foreclosed. Thus, insofar as the district court relied on referrals of Sharit, it exceeded the mandate and its finding of intentional discrimination was clearly erroneous. 5 15 The second doctrine implicated here is that of the law of the case. Under this doctrine, both the district court and the court of appeals generally are bound by findings of fact and conclusions of law made by the court of appeals in a prior appeal of the same case. United States v. Robinson, 690 F.2d 869, 872 (11th Cir.1982); see Dorsey v. Continental Casualty Co., 730 F.2d 675, 678 (11th Cir.1984). The courts are bound not only by explicit findings, but by those matters decided by necessary implication. Carpa v. Ward Foods, Inc., 567 F.2d 1316, 1319 (5th Cir.1978). The law of the case does not bar reconsideration of factual findings or legal conclusions when (1) a subsequent trial produces substantially different evidence, (2) controlling authority has since made a contrary decision of law applicable to that issue, or (3) the prior decision was clearly erroneous and would work manifest injustice. Wheeler, 746 F.2d at 1440; Robinson, 690 F.2d at 872. 16 In its conclusion regarding James Ray--that he had been admitted as a full-fledged boilermaker but that allowing him such status was itself discriminatory--the district court violated the law of the case. This court determined on the prior appeal that Barber might have a valid claim of disparate treatment if he could establish that James Ray was being referred at 100% while still a trainee like Barber. Because the record was clear that Ray had been referred at 100%, but was not clear on Ray's status, we remanded the case for clarification of the latter point. In the course of our discussion, we stated flatly that if Ray had been admitted to the union as a full-fledged boilermaker, Barber's claim necessarily would fail: If the court finds on remand that Ray had been considered a full-fledged boilermaker all along, ... then it must conclude that his referrals in this status do not support Barber's prima facie case. Barber, 778 F.2d at 762. Implicit in this statement was our conclusion that Ray was admitted to the union in December 1979, and thus, even if it was discriminatory to give him full-fledged status, the discrimination occurred during the period covered and rendered non-actionable by Barber's settlement with the union. No exceptions to the law of the case doctrine permitted the district court to contradict this conclusion, see Westbrook v. Zant, 743 F.2d 764, 768 (11th Cir.1984), and its finding of intentional discrimination based on referrals of Ray was thus clearly erroneous.