Court Opinion

ID: 9428747
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:24:39.557598+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:23:14.963306
License: Public Domain

Justice Marshall,
with whom Justice Blackmun joins except as to Part I, dissenting.
In 1971, a group of Negro employees at Pullman-Standard’s Bessemer, Ala., plant brought this class action against Pullman-Standard, the United Steelworkers of America and its Local 1466 (USW), and the International Association of Machinists and its Local 372 (IAM). The plaintiffs alleged, inter alia, that the departmental seniority system negotiated *294by both unions discriminated against Negroes in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U. S. C. § 2000e et seq. (1976 ed. and Supp. IV), and the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U. S. C. § 1981. In 1974, the District Court for the Northern District of Alabama concluded that the seniority system did not operate to discriminate against Negroes. A unanimous panel of the Fifth Circuit reversed. The court ruled that the District Court had committed several errors of law, including failure to give proper weight to the role of the IAM, and had relied on patently inaccurate factual conclusions. Swint v. Pullman-Standard, 539 F. 2d 77, 95-96 (1976). On remand, the District Court again ruled that the seniority system was immune from attack under Title VII, this time finding that respondents had failed to show discriminatory intent as required by this Court’s decision in Teamsters v. United States, 431 U. S. 324 (1977). Ante, at 275. The Fifth Circuit again unanimously rejected the conclusion of the District Court. 624 F. 2d 525 (1980). The majority now reverses the Fifth Circuit’s second unanimous decision on the ground that the Court of Appeals did not pay sufficient homage to the “clearly erroneous” rule, Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 52(a), in concluding that the seniority system at Pullman-Standard was the product of intentional discrimination against Negroes. Because I cannot agree with the premise of the majority’s decision to remand these cases for yet another trial, or with its application of that premise to the facts of this case, I respectfully dissent.
HH
The majority premises its holding on the assumption that “ ‘absent a discriminatory purpose, the operation of a seniority system cannot be an unlawful employment practice even if the system has some discriminatory consequences.’” Ante, at 277, quoting Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, 432 U. S. 63, 82 (1977). As I have previously indicated, I do not find anything in the relevant statutory language or legislative *295history to support the proposition that § 703(h) of Title VII immunizes a seniority system that perpetuates past discrimination, as the system at issue here clearly does, simply because the plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate to this Court’s satisfaction that the system was adopted or maintained for an invidious purpose. See Teamsters v. United States, supra, at 377-394 (opinion of Marshall, J.). In my opinion, placing such a burden on plaintiffs who challenge seniority systems with admitted discriminatory impact, a burden never before imposed in civil suits brought under Title VII, frustrates the clearly expressed will of Congress and effectively “freeze[s] an entire generation of Negro employees into discriminatory patterns that existed before the Act.” Quarles v. Philip Morris, Inc., 279 F. Supp. 505, 516 (ED Va. 1968) (Butzner, J.).
II
Even if I were to accept this Court’s decision to impose this novel burden on Title VII plaintiffs, I would still be unable to concur in its conclusion that the Fifth Circuit’s decision should be reversed for failing to abide by Rule 52(a). The majority asserts that the Court of Appeals in this action ignored the clearly-erroneous rule and made an independent determination of discriminatory purpose. I disagree. In my view, the court below followed well-established legal principles both in rejecting the District Court’s finding of no discriminatory purpose and in concluding that a finding of such a purpose was compelled by all of the relevant evidence.
The majority concedes, as it must, that the “Court of Appeals acknowledged and correctly stated the controlling standard of Rule 52(a).” Ante, at 290. In a footnote to its opinion, the Court of Appeals plainly states that findings of fact may be overturned only if they are either “clearly erroneous” or “made under an erroneous view of controlling legal principles.” 624 F. 2d, at 533, n. 6. Furthermore, as the majority notes, ante, at 283, the Court of Appeals justified its decision to reject the District Court’s finding that the senior*296ity system was not the result of purposeful discrimination by stating: “An analysis of the totality of the facts and circumstances surrounding the creation and continuance of the departmental system at Pullman-Standard leaves us with the definite and firm, conviction that a mistake has been made” 624 F. 2d, at 533 (emphasis added; footnote omitted).1 I frankly am at a loss to understand how the Court of Appeals could have expressed its conclusion that the District Court’s finding on the issue of intent was clearly erroneous with any more precision or clarity.
The majority rejects the Court of Appeals’ clear articulation and implementation of the clearly-erroneous rule on the apparent ground that in the course of correctly setting forth the requirements of Rule 52(a), the court also included the following quotation from its prior decision in East v. Romine, Inc., 518 F. 2d 332, 339 (1975):
“‘Although discrimination vel non is essentially a question of fact it is, at the same time, the ultimate issue for resolution in this case, being expressly proscribed by 42 U. S. C. A. § 2000e-2(a). As such, a finding of discrimination or nondiscrimination is a finding of ultimate fact. [Cites omitted]. In reviewing the district court’s findings, therefore, we will proceed to make an independent determination of appellant’s allegations of discrimination, though bound by findings of subsidiary fact which are themselves not clearly erroneous.’” 624 F. 2d, at 533, n. 6.
The only question presented by this case, therefore, is whether this reference to East v. Romine, Inc., should be read as negating the Court of Appeals’ unambiguous ac*297knowledgment of the “controlling standard of Rule 52.” Ante, at 290. The majority bases its affirmative answer to that question on two factors. First, the majority contends that the Court of Appeals must not have properly respected the clearly-erroneous rule because its acknowledgment that Rule 52(a) supplied the controlling standard “came late in the court’s opinion.” Ante, at 290. Second, the Court of Appeals “identified not only the mistake” that it felt had been made, “but also the source of that mistake.” Ante, at 291. If the Court of Appeals had really been applying the clearly-erroneous rule, it should have abided by the “usual requirement of remanding for further proceedings to the tribunal charged with the task of factfinding in the first instance.” Ante, at 293.
Neither of these arguments justifies the majority’s conclusion that these cases must be remanded for a fourth trial on the merits. I am aware of no rule of decision embraced by this or any other court that places dispositive weight on whether an accurate statement of controlling principle appears “early” or late in a court’s opinion. Nor does the majority suggest a basis for this unique rule of interpretation. So long as a court acknowledges the proper legal standard, I should think it irrelevant whether it chooses to set forth that standard at the beginning or at the end of its opinion. The heart of the majority’s argument, therefore, is that the failure to remand the action to the District Court after rejecting its conclusion that the seniority system was “bona fide” within the meaning of § 703(h) indicates that the Court of Appeals did not properly follow the clearly-erroneous rule. Before addressing this issue, however, it is necessary to examine the nature of the finding of “intent” required by this Court in Teamsters, the procedure that courts of appeals should follow in reviewing a district court’s finding on intent, and the extent to which the court below adhered to that procedure in this case.
The District Court examined the four factors approved by the Fifth Circuit in James v. Stockham Valves & Fittings *298Co., 559 F. 2d 310 (1977), cert. denied, 434 U. S. 1034 (1978), to determine whether the departmental seniority system at Pullman-Standard was adopted or maintained for a discriminatory purpose. Although indicating that these four factors are not the only way to demonstrate the existence of discriminatory intent,2 the Court today implicitly acknowledges that proof of these factors satisfies the requirements of Teamsters.3 In particular, the majority agrees that a finding of discriminatory intent sufficient to satisfy Teamsters can be based on circumstantial evidence, including evidence of discriminatory impact. See ante, at 289; see also Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Dev. Corp., 429 U. S. 252, 266, 267 (1977).
Given the nature of this factual inquiry, the court of appeals must first determine whether the district court applied correct legal principles and therefore considered all of the legally relevant evidence presented by the parties. This, as the majority acknowledges, is a “legal” function that the court of appeals must perform in the first instance. Ante, at 282, 283. Second, the court of appeals must determine whether the district court’s finding with respect to intent is supported by all of the legally relevant evidence. This, the Court holds today, is generally a factual determination limited by the dictates of Rule 52(a). Finally, if the court of appeals sets aside the district court’s finding with respect to intent, either because that finding is clearly erroneous or because it is based on an erroneous legal standard, it may determine, in the interest of judicial economy, whether the le-*299gaily relevant evidence presented to the district court “permits only one resolution of the factual issue.” Ante, at 292. If only one conclusion is possible, the reviewing court is free to find the existence of the fact in question as a matter of law. See Bigelow v. Virginia, 421 U. S. 809, 826-827 (1975); Levin v. Mississippi River Fuel Corp., 386 U. S. 162, 170 (1967).
A common-sense reading of the opinion below demonstrates that the Court of Appeals followed precisely this course in examining the issue of discriminatory intent. Even the majority concedes that the Court of Appeals determined that the District Court committed “legal error” by failing to consider all of the relevant evidence in resolving the first and the third James factors. Ante, at 282, 283. With respect to the first James factor — whether the system inhibits all employees equally from transferring between seniority units — the District Court found that the departmental system “locked” both Negro and white workers into departments by discouraging transfers. The District Court acknowledged that Negroes might suffer a greater impact because the company’s previous discriminatory policy of openly maintaining “Negro” jobs and “white” jobs had caused Negroes to be concentrated in less desirable positions. The District Court concluded, however, that this differential impact was irrelevant in determining whether the seniority system operated neutrally. The Court of Appeals properly held that the District Court erred in failing to consider the fact that the departmental system locked Negroes into less desirable jobs.
Similarly, as for the third James factor — whether the seniority system had its genesis in racial discrimination — the District Court rejected respondents’ argument that the motives of the IAM were relevant. It concluded that the USW could not be charged with the racial bias of the IAM. The Court of Appeals held that this conclusion was erroneous because the “motives and intent of the I. A. M. in 1941 and 1942 *300are significant in consideration of whether the seniority system has its genesis in racial discrimination.” 624 F. 2d, at 532.4
As the majority acknowledges, where findings of fact “‘are made under an erroneous view of controlling legal principles, the clearly erroneous rule does not apply, and the findings may not stand.’” Ante, at 285, quoting 624 F. 2d, at 533, n. 6; see also Kelley v. Southern Pacific Co., 419 U. S. 318, 323 (1974); United States v. General Motors Corp., 384 U. S. 127, 141, n. 16 (1966); United States v. Singer Manufacturing Co., 374 U. S. 174, 194, n. 9 (1963); United States v. Parke, Davis & Co., 362 U. S. 29, 44 (1960); Rowe v. General Motors Corp., 457 F. 2d 348, 356, n. 15 (CA5 1972). Having found that the District Court’s findings as to the first and third James factors were made under an erroneous view of controlling legal principles, the Court of Appeals was compelled to set aside those findings free of the requirements of the clearly-erroneous rule.5 But once these two findings were set aside, the District Court’s conclusion that the departmental system was bona fide within the meaning of § 703(h) also had to be rejected, since that conclusion was based at least in part on its erroneous determinations concerning the first and the third James factors.
At the very least, therefore, the Court of Appeals was entitled to remand this action to the District Court for the pur*301pose of reexamining the bona fides of the seniority system under proper legal standards. However, as we have often noted, in some cases a remand is inappropriate where the facts on the record are susceptible to only one reasonable interpretation. See Dayton Board of Education v. Brinkman, 443 U. S. 526, 534-537 (1979); Bigelow v. Virginia, supra, at 826-827. In such cases, “[effective judicial administration” requires that the court of appeals draw the inescapable factual conclusion itself, rather than remand the case to the district court for further needless proceedings. Levin v. Mississippi River Fuel Corp., 386 U. S., at 170. Such action is particularly appropriate where the court of appeals is in as good a position to evaluate the record evidence as the district court. The major premise behind the deference to trial courts expressed in Rule 52(a) is that findings of fact “depend peculiarly upon the credit given to witnesses by those who see and hear them.” United States v. Yellow Cab Co., 338 U. S. 338, 341 (1949); see also United States v. Oregon State Medical Society, 343 U. S. 326, 332 (1952). Indeed Rule 52(a) expressly acknowledges the importance of this factor by stating that “due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the trial court to judge of the credibility of the witnesses.” Consequently, this Court has been especially reluctant to resolve factual issues which depend on the credibility of witnesses. See generally United States v. Oregon State Medical Society, supra, at 332.
In the cases before the Court today this usual deference is not required because the District Court’s findings of fact were entirely based on documentary evidence.6 As we *302noted in United States v. General Motors Corp., supra, at 141, n. 16, “the trial court’s customary opportunity to evaluate the demeanor and thus the credibility of the witnesses, which is the rationale behind Rule 52(a). . . , plays only a restricted role [in] a ‘paper case.’” See also Jennings v. General Medical Corp., 604 F. 2d 1300, 1305 (CA10 1979) (“When the findings of a trial court are based on documentary, rather than oral evidence, they do not carry the same weight on appellate review”); Orvis v. Higgins, 180 F. 2d 537, 539 (CA2 1950).7
I believe that the Court of Appeals correctly determined that a finding of discriminatory intent was compelled by the documentary record presented to the District Court. With respect to three of the four James factors, the Court of Appeals found overwhelming evidence of discriminatory intent. First, in ruling that the District Court erred by not acknowledging the legal significance of the fact that the seniority system locked Negroes into the least remunerative jobs in the company, the Court of Appeals determined that such disproportionate impact demonstrated that the system did not “ ‘operat[e] to discourage all employees equally from transferring between seniority units.’” 624 F. 2d, at 530, quoting *303James v. Stockham Valves & Fittings Co., 559 F. 2d, at 352. Second, noting that “[n]o credible explanation ha[d] been advanced to sufficiently justify” the existence of two separate Die and Tool Departments and two separate Maintenance Departments, a condition not found at any other Pullman-Standard plant, or the creation of all-white and all-Negro departments at the time of unionization and in subsequent years, the Court of Appeals concluded that the second James factor had not been satisfied.8 624 F. 2d, at 533. Finally, with respect to the third James factor the Court of Appeals found that once the role of the IAM was properly recognized, it was “crystal clear that considerations of race permeated the negotiation and the adoption of the seniority system in 1941 and subsequent negotiations thereafter.” 624 F. 2d, at 532.9
*304After reviewing all of the relevant record evidence presented to the District Court, the Court of Appeals concluded: “There is no doubt, based upon the record in this case, about the existence of a discriminatory purpose.” Id., at 533. Because I fail to see how the Court of Appeals erred in carrying out its appellate function, I respectfully dissent from the majority’s decision to prolong respondents’ 11-year quest for the vindication of their rights by requiring yet another trial.

 As the majority acknowledges, ante, at 284-285, n. 14, this Court stated in United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U. S. 364, 395 (1948), that a finding of fact is clearly erroneous if “the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed” (emphasis added).

 Contrary to the majority’s suggestion, ante, at 279, n. 8, I find nothing in the Fifth Circuit’s decision in James v. Stockham Valves & Fittings Co. to imply that these factors constitute the only relevant criteria for determining discriminatory intent.

 This conclusion would seem to be compelled since, as the majority notes, the James factors are nothing more than a summary of the criteria examined by this Court in Teamsters, 431 U. S., at 355-356.

 As the majority indicates in a footnote, ante, at 292, n. 23, the discriminatory motive of the IAM is “relevant... to the extent that it may shed light on the purpose of USW or the Company in creating and maintaining the separate seniority system at issue in this case.” I do not read the Court of Appeals opinion in this action as holding anything more than that if the USW participated in establishing a system that was designed for the purpose of perpetuating past discrimination, the third James factor would be satisfied. Given that the IAM is a party to this litigation, its participation in the creation of the seniority system can hardly be deemed irrelevant.

 It is therefore irrelevant that the Court of Appeals did not specifically hold that the District Court’s other factual findings were clearly erroneous.

 Only two witnesses testified during the brief hearing that the District Court conducted on the question whether the seniority system at Pullman-Standard was immune under § 703(h). Both of these witnesses were longtime Negro employees of Pullman-Standard who testified on behalf of respondents concerning racial segregation at the plant and by the USW. There is no indication in the District Court’s opinion that it relied upon the *302testimony of these two witnesses in concluding that the system was bona fide within the meaning of § 703(h). The remainder of the record before the District Court consisted entirely of 139 exhibits submitted by respondents, the company, and the unions concerning the development and maintenance of the seniority system from 1940 through the 1970’s.

 This is not to say that the clearly-erroneous rule does not apply to “document” cases. See United States v. Singer Manufacturing Co., 374 U. S. 174, 194, n. 9 (1963). However, “when the decision of the court below rests upon an incorrect reading of an undisputed document, [the appellate] court is free to substitute its own reading of the document.” Eutectic Corp. v. Metco, Inc., 579 F. 2d 1, 5 (CA2 1978). See also McKensie v. Sea Land Service, 551 F. 2d 91 (CA5 1977); Best Medium Pub. Co. v. National Insider, Inc., 385 F. 2d 384 (CA7 1967), cert. denied, 390 U. S. 955 (1968); United States ex rel. Binion v. O’Brien, 273 F. 2d 495 (CA3 1959), cert. denied, 363 U. S. 812 (1960).

 Although the majority is correct in stating that the Court of Appeals did not “refer to or expressly apply the clearly-erroneous standard” in reaching this conclusion, ante, at 282 (emphasis added), the appellate court’s adherence to the requirements of Rule 52(a) is nevertheless apparent from the following statement:
“The record evidence indicates that a significant number of one-race departments were established upon unionization at Pullman-Standard, and during the next twenty five years, one-race departments were carved out of previously mixed departments. The establishment and maintenance of the segregated departments appear to be based on no other considerations than the objective to separate the races.” 624 F. 2d, at 531 (emphasis added).
In my opinion, this statement is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Rule 52(a), particularly in light of the Court of Appeals’ general acknowledgment that it was bound by the clearly-erroneous rule. See supra, at 296-297.

 Whether or not the Court of Appeals expressly ruled on the fourth James factor is irrelevant. As the Court of Appeals clearly stated, its conclusion was based on “the totality of the facts and circumstances surrounding the creation and continuance of the departmental system at Pullman-Standard.” 624 F. 2d, at 533; see also id., at 532 (“It is crystal clear that considerations of race permeated the negotiation and the adoption of the seniority system in 1941 and subsequent negotiations thereafter”), and id., *304at 533 (“We consider significant in our decision . . . conditions of racial discrimination which affected the negotiation and renegotiation of the system . . .”). Even assuming that the District Court was correct in concluding that the system had been maintained free of any illegal purpose, the Court of Appeals was entitled to conclude that discriminatory intent had been demonstrated on the basis of other relevant evidence.