Document: 470 U.S. 564 105 S.Ct. 1504 84 L.Ed.2d 518 Phyllis A. ANDERSONv.CITY OF BESSEMER CITY, NORTH CAROLINA. No. 83-1623. Argued Dec. 3, 1984. Decided March 19, 1985. Syllabus In 1975, respondent city set about to hire a new Recreation Director manage the city's recreational facilities and develop programs. A committee, consisting of four men one woman, was responsible for choosing Director. Eight persons applied position, including petitioner, only woman applicant. At time, petitioner 39-year-old schoolteacher with college degrees in social studies education. The committee offered position 24-year-old male applicant, who had recently graduated from degree physical on voted offer job him, petitioner. Petitioner then filed discrimination charges Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which, upon finding that there reasonable cause believe petitioner's were true, invited parties engage conciliation proceedings. When these efforts proved unsuccessful, EEOC issued right-to-sue letter, she an action Federal District Court under Title VII Civil Rights Act 1964. After trial which testimony applicant hired, members selection heard, court memorandum announcing its entitled judgment because been denied account her sex. requested submit proposed findings fact conclusions law expanding those forth memorandum. complied this request, received response setting respondent's objections findings. own law. court's employment sex based most qualified candidate, asked questions during interview regarding spouse's feelings application other applicants not asked, biased against hiring woman. Appeals reversed, holding Court's clearly erroneous therefore erred discriminated Held: misapprehended misapplied clearly-erroneous standard accordingly denying relief VII. Pp. 571-581. (a) Where did simply adopt but provided opportunity respond ultimately varied considerably by is no reason doubt ultimate represented considered or subject more stringent appellate review than called applicable rules. 571-573. (b) Under Rule Procedure 52(a)—which provides "[f]indings shall be aside unless erroneous, due regard given judge credibility witness"—"[a] 'clearly erroneous' when although evidence support it, reviewing entire left definite firm conviction mistake has committed." United States v. Gypsum Co., 333 364, 394-395, 68 525, 541-542, 92 L.Ed. 746. If district plausible light record viewed entirety, appeals may reverse it even though convinced sitting as trier fact, would have weighed differently. This so do rest determinations, are documentary inferences facts. determinations witnesses, 52(a) demands greater deference finding. 573-576. (c) Application above principles facts case discloses standard. better notwithstanding contains nothing mandates erroneous. As failing give ability interpret discern oral testimony, especially member whose felt supported Given bias cannot termed It treatment also he believed difficult perform another solicited applications men. Because 576-581. 717 F.2d 149, reversed. Jonathan Wallas, Charlotte, N.C., Carolyn F. Corwin, Washington, D.C., amici curiae supporting special leave Court. Philip M. Van Hoy, respondent. Justice WHITE delivered opinion 1 Pullman-Standard Swint, 456 273, 102 1781, 72 66 (1982), we held discriminatory intent brought 1964, 78 Stat. 253, amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., factual overturned appeal if case, Fourth Circuit concluded clear error our reading convinces us standard, reverse. 2 * Early officials Bessemer City, North Carolina, city. Although duties went precisely delineated, managing all developing programs—athletic otherwise—to serve needs residents. five-member selected Mayor Of five members, men; Mrs. Auddie Boone, served chairperson. 3 Petitioner, at time education, among eight. reviewed resumes submitted briefly interviewed each jobseekers. Following interviews, Mr. Donald Kincaid, All Kincaid; Boone 4 Believing passed over favor less candidate solely Charlotte Office Commission. July 1980 (five years after charges), EEOC's found true attempt resolution grievance through course, letter. 5 Western Carolina. 2-day heard brief decision addition laying out rationale finding, counsel Petitioner's request submitting lengthy (App. 11a-34a); detail (id., 36a-47a)—objections were, turn, answered somewhat reply 48a-54a). receiving submissions, 557 F.Supp. 412, 413-419 (1983). 6 formal law, rested number subsidiary First, made choice, Kincaid range demanded position. experience classroom teacher supervising schoolchildren athletic activities, hospital recreation director late 1950's, extensive involvement variety civic organizations, knowledge sports acquired both high school athlete mother children involved organized athletics, skills public speaker, handling money (gained course community activities work bookkeeper group physicians), music, dance, crafts. Kincaid's principal qualifications his student coach local youth basketball league, team individual sports, result lifelong training education major college. Noting management programs, breadth 7 Second, part "real hard" handle want wife additional told successful vacancy three men, attempted recruit any women job. 8 Also critical inference alone job, whether realized involve night travel husband approved applying pursued line inquiry similar applicants. testified interview, "comment" him reaction bride taking Director, comment serious inquiry, merely "facetious" remark prompted Boone's annoyance questioned reaction. declined credit wife's "in way" committeeman their willingness families' work. seriously family's suggested family responsibilities certain forms inappropriate. 9 Finally, reasons choice pretextual. rejected proposition justified where candidates concerned, valued highly education.1 claim committeemen hired superiority programs planned implement credited outlined substantially identical. 10 On basis committee's explanations pretextual, met burden establishing having conceded ordering inappropriate remedy circumstances, awarded backpay amount $30,397 attorney's fees $16,971.59. 11 reversed discrimination. 149 view Appeals, crucial erroneous: spared, Having findings, II 12 We must deal outset Circuit's suggestion "close scrutiny [was] manner prepared," id., 156—that is, adoption recalled many occasions condemned practice leaving prevailing party write See, e.g., Cuthbertson Biggers Bros., Inc., 702 454 (1983); Reserve Bank Richmond, 698 633 Chicopee Mfg. Corp. Kendall 288 719 (1961). contention procedure followed proper object adopted verbatim. According court, vice lay solicitation already announced "substance" 13 We, too, criticized courts verbatim prepared parties, particularly taken form conclusory statements unsupported citation record. El Paso Natural Gas 376 651, 656-657, 1044, 1047-1048, (1964); Marine Bancorporation, 418 602, 615, n. 13, 94 2856, 2866, 41 978 (1974). aware potential overreaching exaggeration attorneys preparing they informed decided favor. See J. Wright, Nonjury Trial—Preparing Findings Fact, Conclusions Law, Opinions, Seminars Newly Appointed Judges 159, 166 (1962). Nonetheless, previous discussions suggest adopts verbatim, supra, S.Ct., 13; U.S., 1047-1048. 14 event, does appear uncritically accepted without judicial guidance party. itself framework preliminary memorandum, essential directed detailed consistent them. Further, availed length Nor findings: qualifications, questioning subjected, committeemen—vary organization content counsel. see represent judge's conclusions. There III 15 intentional governing 52(a): "Findings witnesses." question before us, then, 16 meaning phrase "clearly erroneous" immediately apparent, general exercise power overturn derived cases. foremost principles, recognized, "[a] 395, 542, 746 (1948). plainly entitle oversteps bounds duty undertakes duplicate role lower court. "In jury, constantly mind function decide issues de novo." Zenith Radio Hazeltine Research, 395 100, 123, 89 1562, 1576, 23 129 (1969). two permissible views evidence, factfinder's between them Yellow Cab 338 338, 342, 70 177, 179, 150 (1949); Inwood Laboratories, Inc. Ives 844, 2182, 606 (1982). 17 instead To sure, various Courts occasion asserted theory novo determinations. Orvis Higgins, 180 537 (CA2 1950); Lydle States, 635 763, 765, (CA6 1981); Swanson Baker Industries, 615 479, 483 (CA8 1980). impressive genealogy, first articulated written Judge Frank subscribed Augustus Hand, impossible trace theory's lineage back text 52(a), states straightforwardly "findings erroneous." That goes emphasize paid alter command: "does make exceptions purport exclude categories obligation accept 287, 1789. 18 original finder limited credibility. determination fulfilling comes expertise. Duplication very likely contribute negligibly accuracy huge cost diversion resources. addition, forced concentrate energies resources persuading correct one; requiring persuade judges level too much. stated different context, merits should "the 'main event' . rather 'tryout road.' " Wainwright Sykes, 433 72, 90, 97 2497, 2508, 53 594 (1977). For reasons, standard—with rule, exception. 19 findings; can variations demeanor tone voice bear heavily listener's understanding belief what said. Witt, 469 83 841 (1985). insulate denominating factors inflection go into witness. Documents objective contradict witness' story; story internally inconsistent implausible face factfinder it. such present, well find purportedly determination. 396, 542. But whom coherent facially contradicted extrinsic inconsistent, virtually never error. Cf. Aluminum Co. America, 148 416, 1945); 539-540. IV 20 foregoing lays bare errors committed detecting improperly conducted amounted weighing essentially undisputed respective backgrounds Court, considering City carried broad creating program involving citizens ages interests. determined educational background rounded narrowly focused athletics. 21 Circuit, same record, basic program, qualification either specifically related athletics.2 Accordingly, seemed evident 22 Based say interpretation illogical implausible. Each drawn record; inclined answer, however, McAllister 348 20-21, 75 6, 7-8, 99 (1954). qualified, and, above, examined appropriately deferential apparent conclusion Somewhat concerns raised Here failure testimony. rejection differential Boone—the witness eyes (a judged Court) conclusively established perhaps well, spouse. 24 point, margin,3 certainly free ambiguity. several times wives—at least, "not context" And recalling calling attention "asked" matters Whether actually tell paper easy imagine comment, coupled immediate denial subject, might facetious one. agree 25 Once characterization accepted, wives deemed faced (Mrs. Boone) none questioned, member) way," (another committeeman) subjected questioning. None accounts face, reliable evidence. 26 refusal large extent spared. finds men.4 27 Our conduct leads conclude superior sufficient hold 28 holding, assert happened ago Appeals; nor insight state Even judge, witnesses directly closely touch milieu controversy arises, always confident "knows" happened. Often, determine plaintiff succeeded presenting not. task—and task tribunals generally—is still: are. 29 Reversed. 30 POWELL, concurring. 31 I dissent case. separately, am concerned read implying criticism engaged comprehensive Such encourage overburdened apply fashion, undertake type burdensome appropriate some 32 arbitrary contrary, meticulously reached One easily could discrimination, based, was, fragmentary before* informal exchanges filled. issue fairly Therefore, holds, within 52(a). 33 BLACKMUN, concurring judgment. 34 like join opinion, think correct, says. I, dictum, ante, 573-574, effect wholly past, joined least that, generally, opposite effect. Mississippi Valley Barge Line 285 381, 388 1960). Ralston Purina General Foods Corp., 442 389, 391 1971); Frito-Lay, So Good Potato Chip 540 927, 930 1976); 35 While dictum today, require question. far adequately discloses. requires question, eventually persuaded approach wise. prefer, wait resolved briefed argued address edict customary safeguards. 36 opinion. initially favored third Bert Broadway, unwilling move City. Broadway director; lacked thus saw inconsistency statement preferred training. 1, supra. demonstrated relevant while neither. "Q: Did ask kind applicants? "A: Not recall. Do you deny applicants, plaintiff, prospect working position? my knowledge. Are saying that? They context Phyllis. don't know worried Jim wasn't going get supper what. You know, ways. Anderson Donnie work? He answers Now, let's answer Yes, interviews—I next day sometime, know—may something? it's asked; otherwise, no. It's up say. about—I just married, personally—and your won't mind. So, yourself reaction? No, "Mr. Gibson: Objection, Your Honor. "[The] Court: Sustained. rephrase answer." App. 108a, 120a-121a. dispelled married worked point marriage insufficient establish decline man's attitude toward irrelevant women, relevance factor particular matter weigh consideration bias, appeals. branch EEOC, complaint, took years. trial, therefore, stale recollections.

Category: 1