Opinion ID: 437665
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: denial of injunction

Text: 7 Dybczak asserts that regardless of whether he was adversely affected by the Institute's alleged policy of preferring the recruitment of black 'role model' professors, the policy constitutes a pattern and practice of discrimination warranting injunctive relief. In his brief, he states: 8 The Plaintiff's position is that he was entitled to an injunction prohibiting the Defendant's continued adherence to its pattern and practice of discrimination even if that pattern and practice did not cause the Plaintiff's loss of employment as dean or if it did not cause the Defendant not to reemploy him as dean. 9 It is well settled that where claims at law and in equity are joined and the legal claims are tried separately by a jury, the jury's verdict operates as a finding of fact binding on the trial court in its determination of the equitable claims. As the court observed in Williams v. City of Valdosta, 689 F.2d 964 (11th Cir.1982), all findings necessarily made by the jury in awarding the verdict to [a party] are binding on the parties as well as on the trial court. Id. at 976. Insofar as the jury's verdict in this case establishes that the Institute did not discriminate against Dybczak, 1 the question presented is whether an injunction which may benefit nonparties (white faculty candidates other than Dybczak), but which is wholly unrelated to the rights of the plaintiff (Dybczak) is mandatory in an individual action. 10 In Gregory v. Litton Systems, Inc., 472 F.2d 631 (9th Cir.1972), the Ninth Circuit recognized that injunctive relief which may incidentally benefit many persons not before the court is appropriate if necessary to give a plaintiff or a group of plaintiffs relief to which they are entitled. Id. at 633-34. The court expressly disapproved of injunctive benefits for nonparties [which are] neither incidental nor necessary to the resolution of the pending litigation. Id. at 634. In Meyer v. Brown & Root Construction Co., 661 F.2d 369 (5th Cir.1981), the Fifth Circuit observed: 11 Injunctive relief which benefits non-parties may sometimes be proper even where the suit is not brought as a Rule 23 class action. ... The court in Gregory noted that there are many cases where injunctive relief designed to assist a party will accidentally assist persons not before the court. This is not a case where injunctive relief need be designed for a just disposition of the action. That portion of the judgment granting injunctive relief is therefore reversed. 12 Id. at 374. From these precedents, we conclude that in a suit brought in the plaintiff's individual capacity, injunctive relief benefiting nonparties is not required if it in no way relates to the vindication of the plaintiff's rights. Accordingly, we hold that the district court did not err in refusing to enjoin the Institute's alleged adherence to a policy favoring blacks in faculty hiring. 2