509 F.2d 623 (9th Cir. 1975), 73--2445, United States v. Youritan Const. Co.

Docket Nº:73--2445.
Citation:509 F.2d 623
Party Name:UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. YOURITAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, a corporation, et al., Defendants-Appellants.
Case Date:January 14, 1975
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 623

509 F.2d 623 (9th Cir. 1975)

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

YOURITAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, a corporation, et al.,

Defendants-Appellants.

No. 73--2445.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

January 14, 1975

Page 624

Judith Wolf (argued), Dept. of Justice, Housing Section, Washington, D.C., for plaintiff-appellee.

Gerald B. Ferrari (argued), Palo Alto, Cal., for defendants-appellants.

Before HAMLEY, MERRILL and DUNIWAY, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

The defendants appeal from a judgment enjoining them from violating, and requiring certain actions to ensure their complaince with, the Fair Housing Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601--3631. The trial judge's findings of fact, conclusions of law, and judgment are reported in United States v. Youritan Construction Co., N.D.Cal., 1973, 370 F.Supp. 643.

Appellants mount a broadside attack on the trial court's findings, conclusions and judgment, but we find no sufficient substance in any of them, with one exception, to require a reversal. The attack on the findings is largely based on conflicting evidence, and conflicting inferences that can be drawn from the evidence. We find no clear error in the judge's resolutions of these conflicts. Assuming that, as appellants argue, certain evidence was erroneously admitted, we are convinced that its exclusion would not have affected the result. We therefore affirm the judgment for the reasons stated by the trial judge, except in one respect.

The action was filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 3613 to enforce the Fair Housing Act. There is not one word in the complaint charging violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88--352, Title VII, 78 Stat. 253--266), since amended by the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972 (Pub.L. 92--261, 86 Stat. 103) and codified at 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e--17. There is almost nothing in the record about appellants' employment practices, and what little there is was admitted only to show the appellants' state of mind. The trial judge found that all of appellants' resident managers and other persons employed to assist in the tenant application process have been white persons. There is evidence to support this finding. (Finding 3, 370 F.Supp. at 646). However, the court did not find that appellants had violated the Equal Employment Opportunity Act, and there is almost nothing...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP