Court Opinion

ID: 9476964
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 06:10:08.50311+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:45:36.700052
License: Public Domain

ANDERSON, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
Respectfully, I dissent. In my judgment, the opinion for the court ignores an important holding in United States v. Jefferson County, 720 F.2d 1511 (11th Cir.1983). In Jefferson County, the BFA and two white firefighters, who are probably in privity with the individual plaintiffs in the instant case, sought to intervene in the litigation which resulted in the consent decree at issue in this case. This court affirmed the district court’s denial of intervention, holding that those intervenors “knew at an early stage in the proceedings that their rights could be adversely affected, as was evidenced by their conversations with the City regarding the tactics the City should take in defending the action,” id. at 1516. In analyzing the prejudice prong of the intervention question, this court addressed the preclusive effect of the consent decree on the intervenors and held:
Naturally, that the employer undertook the challenged action pursuant to a court-approved consent decree ... would be evidence of nondiseriminatory intent by the employer.
Id. at 1518. I dissent because the opinion for the court in this case ignores the holding just quoted from the previous litigation in Jefferson County. In determining whether the City has discriminated against the instant plaintiffs, Jefferson County requires that the trial judge consider as evidence of nondiseriminatory intent1 the fact that the City’s action was taken pursuant to the consent decree. Ignoring this mandate from Jefferson County, the opinion for the court instructs the district judge on remand merely to evaluate the validity of the consent decree.
In my judgment, the appropriate resolution of this case would distinguish between the individual plaintiffs’ claim for back pay and their claim for prospective relief. With respect to their back pay claim, they will have to establish that the City intentionally discriminated against them, and their attempt will probably be defeated under the Jefferson County rationale by the evidence that the City was merely implementing the consent decree. This result is consistent with the demands of equity. It would be anomalous for the City to be liable to the instant plaintiffs for actions that the City was required to take on pain of being held in contempt at the hands of the black employees who were parties to and beneficiaries of the consent decree. This result is especially appropriate here in light of Jefferson County’s holding that parties in privity with or situated similarly to the instant plaintiffs knew at an early stage in the original litigation that their rights could be adversely affected, consulted with the City regarding defensive tactics, but made an “ill-advised decision” not to intervene in timely fashion deciding instead to rely on the City to advance their interests. 720 F.2d at 1516-17.
This result also is supported by an analysis of § 713(b) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-12(b)(l) and the applicable EEOC regulations. Section 713(b) provides that no Title VII liability results from an employer’s good faith reliance on or adherence to “any written interpretation or opinion of the Commission.”2 The relevant “written interpretation” of the EEOC3 is 29 C.F.R. *1503§ 1608.8, which provides, in part, that “[t]he Commission interprets Title VII to mean that actions taken pursuant to the direction of a court order [including a consent decree] cannot give rise to liability under Title VII.”4 Thus, the City could rely upon the written interpretation of the EEOC to the effect that the City is precluded from retrospective Title VII liability because of its compliance with the consent decree.5
On the other hand, plaintiffs claim for prospective relief will not be affected in the same way by the existence of the consent decree. In their claim for prospective relief, the validity of the consent decree is itself at issue. I agree with the opinion for the court that these plaintiffs were not parties to the prior litigation which resulted in the consent decree, and that the instant plaintiffs are not bound by the consent decree and should be free on remand to challenge the consent decree prospectively and test its validity against the recent Supreme Court precedent. See Johnson v. Transportation Agency, — U.S. —, 107 S.Ct. 1442, 94 L.Ed.2d 615 (1987).

. Because I write only in dissent, I need not resolve the question reserved in Jefferson County as to whether the fact that the City merely followed the consent decree would conclusively establish that the City is not liable under Title VII.

. Section 713(b) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-12(b)(l) provides in relevant part:
In any action or proceeding based on any alleged unlawful employment practice, no person shall be subject to any liability or punishment for or on account of (1) the commission by such person of an unlawful employment practice if he pleads and proves that the act or omission complained of was in good faith, in conformity with, and in reliance on any written interpretation or opinion of the Commission....

. A "written interpretation or opinion of the Commission," as defined by the EEOC procedural regulations, includes "[mjatter published and specifically designated as such in the F[ederal] *1503Register]...." 29 C.F.R. § 1601.33(b). Here, the relevant EEOC regulation, 29 C.F.R. § 1608.8, was published in the Federal Register as part of a set of guidelines promulgated by the EEOC to "clarify and harmonize the principles of Title VII...." 29 C.F.R. § 1603.1(a). Section 1608.2 of the guidelines specified that the guidelines "constitute ‘a written interpretation and opinion’ of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission as the term is used in [Section 713(b) of Title VII] and § 1601.33 of the procedural regulations of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission_” 29 C.F.R. § 1608.2. Consequently, Section 1608.8 constitutes a "written interpretation” under Section 713(b) of Title VII.

. 29 C.F.R. § 1608.8 provides:
Parties are entitled to rely on orders of courts of competent jurisdiction. If adherence to an Order of the United States District Court or other court of competent jurisdiction, whether entered by consent or after contested litigation, in a case brought to enforce a federal, state, or local equal employment opportunity law regulation, is the basis of a complaint filed under Title VII or is alleged to be the justification for an action which is challenged under Title VII, the Commissioner will investigate to determine: (a) whether such an order exists and (b) whether adherence to the affirmative action plan which is part of the order was the basis of the complaint or justification. If the Commission so finds, it will issue a determination of no reasonable cause. The Commission interprets Title VII to mean that actions taken pursuant to the direction of a court order cannot give rise to liability under Title VII.
Emphasis supplied.

. I note that the Seventh Circuit has held that a consent order does not constitute a “written interpretation or opinion of the Commission” within the meaning of § 713(b) of Title VII. Eirhart v. Libbey-Owens Ford Co., 616 F.2d 278 (7th Cir.1980). That court, however, apparently overlooked the provision of the regulation upon which I rely. Instead, it evaluated the consent order under subsection (a) of 29 C.F.R. § 1601.33. My analysis is based upon subsection (b) of 29 C.F.R. § 1601.33; therefore the conclusion in Eirhart is inapposite to this case.