Document: 450 U.S. 79 101 S.Ct. 993 67 L.Ed.2d 59 Frank L. CARSON, Lawrence Hatcher and Stuart E. Mines, Petitioners,v.AMERICAN BRANDS, INC., etc., et al. No. 79-1236. Argued Dec. 10, 1980. Decided Feb. 25, 1981. Syllabus Petitioners, representing a class of present former black employees job applicants, sought injunctive declaratory relief damages in an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 Title VII the Civil Rights Act 1964, alleging that respondent employer unions had engaged racially discriminatory employment practices. The parties negotiated settlement jointly moved District Court to enter proposed consent decree which would permanently enjoin respondents from discriminating against require them give hiring seniority preferences fill one-third certain supervisory positions with qualified blacks. court denied motion, holding since there was no showing or past discrimination, illegally granted racial petitioner class, any event be illegal as extending all future employees, not just actual victims alleged discrimination. Appeals dismissed petitioners' appeal for want jurisdiction, Court's order appealable 28 1292(a)(1), permits appeals right courts interlocutory orders district "refusing . injunctions." Held : refusing "refusing" "injunction" therefore 1292(a)(1). Pp. 83-90. (a) order, although terms injunction, practical effect doing so. However, such immediately litigant must also show might have "serious, perhaps irreparable, consequence" can "effectually challenged" only by immediate appeal. Baltimore Contractors, Inc. v. Bodinger, 348 176, 181, 75 249, 252, 99 L.Ed. 233. 83-86. (b) Here, petitioners meet test. First, they lose their opportunity settle case on terms, because party pending legally justified withdrawing its agreement once trial is held final judgment entered. And second justifying that, cannot obtain restructuring respondents' transfer promotional policies until entered, further delay reviewing propriety refusal cause serious irreparable harm. 86-89. 4 Cir., 606 F.2d 420, reversed. Napoleon B. Williams, Jr., New York City, petitioners. Harlon Dalton, United States E.E.O.C. amici curiae, special leave Court. Henry T. Wickham, Richmond, Va., respondent, American Brands, Jay J. Levit, Unions. Justice BRENNAN delivered opinion 1 question presented this whether denying joint motion containing order. 2 * seasonal applicants at theRichmond Leaf Department Tobacco Co., brought suit Eastern Virginia 2000e seq. Alleging respondents1 discriminated hiring, promotion, transfer, training opportunities, judgment, preliminary permanent relief, money damages. 3 After extensive discovery been conducted plaintiff certified,2 approve decree. See Fed.Rule Civ.Proc. 23(e).3 required Richmond While agreeing decree, "expressly den[ied] violation equal law, regulation, order." App. 25a. 446 F.Supp. 780 (1977). Concluding preferential treatment basis race violated andthe Constitution absent facts submitted support demonstrated "vestiges discrimination," id., 790, class. It declared even if discrimination shown, it extend Department, Id., 789. 5 Fourth Circuit, sitting en banc, jurisdiction. 420 (1979). neither "collateral order" 1291,4 nor "injunctio[n]" 1292(a)(1).5 Three judges dissented, concluding 6 Noting conflict Circuits,6 we certiorari. 447 920, 100 3009, 65 1111 (1980). We hold accordingly reverse Appeals.7 II 7 first Judiciary 1789, Stat. 73, established general principle decisions federal reviewable 1291. 178-179, 250-251, 233 (1955); Cobbledick States, 309 323, 324-325, 60 540, 541, 84 783 (1940). Because rigid application found create undue hardship some cases, however, Congress created exceptions it. supra, U.S., 180-181, S.Ct., 252-253. One these exceptions, "[i]nterlocutory granting, continuing, modifying, dissolving injunctions ." (Emphasis added.)8 8 Although declining did "refus[e]" "injunctio[n]," nonetheless Cf. General Electric Co. Marvel Rare Metals 287 430, 433, 53 202, 203, 77 408 (1932). This decreewould enjoined directed changes benefit systems, goals blacks positions, job-bidding employees. Indeed, prospective very core disapproved settlement.9 9 For more than has injunction. 1292(a)(1) intended carve out limited exception final-judgment rule, construed statute narrowly ensure will available circumstances where statutory purpose "permit[ting] litigants effectually challenge serious, consequence." 252. Unless consequence," appeal, congressional policy piecemeal review preclude 10 In Switzerland Cheese Assn., Horne's Market, Inc., 385 23, 87 193, 17 23 (1966), example, contended denial summary simply becauseits deny injunction summary-judgment motion. seemed fit within language contention rejected consequences reviewed. argue harm pendente lite. Since obtained after trial,10 lacked prerequisite appealability 11 Similarly, Gardner Westinghouse Broadcasting 437 478, 98 2451, 57 364 (1978), sex her behalf herself putative petitioner's certification, filed She complaint requested court's certification limiting breadth "refus[ing] substantial portion complaint." 480, 2453. 12 As Cheese, thus "no direct impact merits controversy." 482, 2454. conditional, 23(c)(1), could effectively reviewed still full she delayed stated: 13 "The 'irreparable' effect. both prior judgment; affect own claim; pass legal sufficiency claims relief." 480-481, 2453-2454 (footnotes omitted).11 III 14 instant case, unless appealable, challenge" denies plainly terms. Armour & 402 673, 681, 91 1752, 1757, 29 256 (1971), 15 "Consent decrees are entered into careful negotiation produced precise waive litigate issues involved save themselvesthe time, expense, inevitable risk litigation. Naturally, reached normally embodies compromise; exchange saving cost elimination risk, each up something won proceeded litigation." 16 Settlement agreements may predicated express implied condition would, agreement, able avoid costs uncertainties radically affected By ordered proceed respective rights liabilities limits laid down court.12 entered,13 compromise dispute mutually agreeable terms.14 There justifies our conclusion 1292 (a)(1). seeking entry policies. They asserted suffer injury earliest opportunity.15 harm.16 18 sum, parties' claim benefits negotiated. These constitute consequences" follows 19 Reversed. Respondents are: operates Co.; Local 182 Workers International Union, exclusive bargaining agent hourly paid production unit Department; Union. certified pursuant Federal Rule Procedure 23(b)(2). consisted persons who were employed September 9, 1972, applied date. 23(e) provides: "A shall compromised without approval court, notice dismissal given members manner directs." expressly mention collateral-order doctrine, argued cited cases decided doctrine. 423-424, citing Coopers Lybrand Livesay, 463, 2454, 351 (1978); Cohen Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 69 1221, 93 1528 (1949); Seigal Merrick, 590 35 (CA2 1978). "(a) jurisdiction from: "(1) Interlocutory thereof, injunctions, dissolve modify except Supreme Court.. Compare Norman McKee, 431 769 (CA9 1970) (refusal 1291), cert. sub nom. Security Pacific National Bank Myers, 401 912, 879, 27 811 City Alexandria, 614 1358 (CA5 1980) 1292(a)(1)), supra (not (CA4 1979) (case below) 1291 1292(a)(1)). re House Pancakes Franchise Litigation, 487 303 (CA8 1973) appealable; discussion jurisdictional question). need decide Evarts 1891, 7, 26 828, authorized "where continued decree." 1895, amended requests injunctions. 666. reference dropped 1900 reasons relevant here, 31 660, reinstated 129 Judicial Code 1911, 36 1134, remained part statute. Neither predominant injunctive. entitled major "Injunctive Relief Class," agreed "permanently facilities Department." 26a, 27a (emphasis added). Appeals, construing action, similarly characterized contained "injunctive." F.2d, 423. disputed material fact, disagreed arguments. Thus, free grant conducting merits, but precluded granting during pendency litigation allege contrast, (1932), counterclaim grounds, concluded consequence challenged taken. noted "necessarily upon defendants injunction," 204, decision resolved "the among others, formal injunction." Ibid. made clear remedial provisions rest solidly evidence F.Supp., 788-790. ruling so broadly, postpone consideration claim. foreclosed consideration. Having stated perceive discrimination" presented, could, others "actual victims" 789, nothing short admission plus complete induce provisions. yet trial, now claiming withdraw agreement. returned Court, pretrial conference "In assert do Decree 67a. considered statement constitutes withdrawal permissible point litigation, those issues. Furthermore, undermine one underlying VII. enacting VII, expressed strong preference encouraging voluntary claims. explained Alexander Gardner-Denver 415 36, 44, 94 1011, 1017, 39 147 (1974): "Congress enacted assure equality opportunities eliminating practices devices discriminate race, color, religion, sex, national origin. Cooperation compliance selected preferred means achieving goal." Moreover, postjudgment raises additional problems. Not come prevailing placed difficult position having choose between ordering agreed-upon affirming when rested different judgments respect ultimate liability. addition, delaying appellate adversely appeals' ability fairly evaluate Courts judge fairness weighing plaintiff's likelihood success amount form offered settlement. Protective Comm. Independent Stockholders Anderson, 390 414, 424-425, 88 1157, 1163-1164, 20 (1968). resolve unsettled questions. likely outcome best evaluated light state perceptions existed considered, effective factfinding rather established. "Relief" section complaint, alleged: "Plaintiffs represent suffered continue policies, practices, customs usages complained herein same Plaintiffs plain, adequate remedy law redress wrongs securing relief. "WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray advance docket, speedy hearing practicable date, hearing, to: "1. Grant enjoining agents, successors, attorneys, acting concert direction continuing maintain lower-paying less desirable jobs, on-the-job fringe afforded other Company, union representation color." 9a-10a. essentially specific competitive advantages opportunities.

Category: 8