Scott v. City of Anniston, Ala.

• Citation: 597 F.2d 897
• Decision Date: 25 June 1979
• Docket Number: No. 77-1979,77-1979
• Parties: 20 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 62, 20 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 30,049 Mack SCOTT et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. The CITY OF ANNISTON, ALABAMA, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)

Page 897

597 F.2d 897

20 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 62, 20 Empl. Prac.

Dec. P 30,049

Mack SCOTT et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. The CITY OF ANNISTON, ALABAMA, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 77-1979.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

June 25, 1979.

Rehearing Denied July 13, 1979.

George C. Longshore, Birmingham, Ala., for plaintiffs-appellants.

John R. Phillips, Anniston, Ala., for Anniston Civil Serv. Bd., Miller & Sawyer.

Richard B. Emerson, Anniston, Ala., for City of Anniston et al.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.

Before MORGAN, FAY and RUBIN, Circuit Judges.

ALVIN B. RUBIN, Circuit Judge:

In this Title VII class action, ¹ brought on behalf of black employees of the Public Works Department of the City of Anniston, Alabama, many of the issues turn on whether it suffices, in order to prevail, that plaintiffs prove discrimination alone or whether they must in addition prove that it was purposeful. We hold, on both principle and authority, that proof of intentional discrimination is not essential to recovery in a Title VII action even when the employer is a governmental agency, and that the requirement of equal employment opportunity prohibits all invidious employment practices, even those not intended to achieve a prohibited end.

Turning to the other issues in the case, we find that a prima facie case of discrimination was proved, and that the defendants failed to refute it; therefore, we remand the class action for further proceedings. ² However, because substantial evidence supports the trial court's factual determination that Mack Scott's discharge was not motivated by racial discrimination, we affirm the holding of the district court denying him relief. We reach these conclusions for reasons explained below.

I.

Discriminatory intent must be shown in fourteenth-amendment actions against government agencies. Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp., 1977, 429 U.S. 252, 265, 97 S.Ct. 555, 563, 50 L.Ed.2d 450, 464; Washington v. Davis, 1976, 426 U.S. 229, 96 S.Ct. 2040, 48 L.Ed.2d 597. See also Austin Independent School District v. United States, 1976, 429 U.S. 990, 97 S.Ct. 517, 50 L.Ed.2d 603 (per curiam). As a result, the trial court in the present case reasoned that intent is also a prerequisite to success in Title VII actions against such agencies; it considered that, notwithstanding the power granted Congress by the fourteenth amendment, the legislature could not by statute create a right of action subject to less stringent requirements than those imposed by that amendment alone. We cannot accept that assumption.

Washington, supra, held that to prevail under Section 1981 ³ a plaintiff must prove discriminatory purpose. Section 1981 grants all persons the same right to contract as is enjoyed by white citizens. It therefore implements directly the equal protection guarantees of the fourteenth amendment. The Court did not distinguish the elements required to recover from governmental agencies from those that must be shown against private persons. The Court did expressly distinguish, however, between the standards applicable under the Fair Employment Practices Act and those controlling under the fourteenth amendment. 426 U.S. at 239-40, 246-47, 96 S.Ct. at 2047, 2051, 48 L.Ed.2d at 611, 612. This distinction has been reaffirmed in a recent case in which the Court expressly noted that discriminatory intent need not be shown in a Title VII action. International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States, 1977, 431 U.S. 324, 97 S.Ct. 1843, 1861, 52 L.Ed.2d 396, (involving a private employer).

Two circuits have expressly ruled that a Title VII plaintiff need not prove intentional discrimination in an action against a governmental unit. United States v. City of Chicago, 7 Cir. 1978, 573 F.2d 416, 420-24; Firefighters Institute for Racial Equality v. City of St. Louis, 8 Cir. 1977, 549 F.2d 506, 510, Cert. denied sub nom. United States v. Banta, 434 U.S. 819, 98 S.Ct. 60, 54 L.Ed.2d 76. See also Davis v. County of Los Angeles, 9 Cir. 1977, 566 F.2d 1334, 1341 n.14 Vacated as moot, 1979, --- U.S. ---, 99 S.Ct. 1379, 59 L.Ed.2d 642. This circuit has made the same observation in dicta. See Grigsby v. North Mississippi Medical Center, 5 Cir. 1978, 586 F.2d 457, 461. Neither the Supreme Court nor any circuit court has held that Title VII imposes different requirements depending upon whether the suit is against a governmental employer or a private litigant. We see no reason to initiate such a distinction.

The fourteenth amendment empowers Congress to enact appropriate legislation establishing more exacting requirements than those minimum safeguards provided in the amendment. Katzenbach v. Morgan, 1966, 384 U.S. 641, 651, 86 S.Ct. 1717, 1723-24, 16 L.Ed.2d 828. The plaintiff in Katzenbach argued "that an exercise of congressional power under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment that prohibits the enforcement of a state law can only be sustained if the judicial branch determines that the state law is prohibited by the provisions of the Amendment that Congress sought to enforce." Id. at 648, 86 S.Ct. at 1722, 16 L.Ed.2d at 834. In rejecting this argument, the Court noted that "(i)t would confine the legislative power in this context to the insignificant role of abrogating only those state laws that the judicial branch was prepared to adjudge unconstitutional or of merely informing the judgment of the judiciary by particularizing the 'majestic generalities' of § 1 of the Amendment." 384 U.S. at 648-49, 86 S.Ct. at 1722, 16 L.Ed.2d at 834. The judicial task is limited to determining whether legislation enacted pursuant to the authority conferred by the fourteenth amendment is, as required by § 5, appropriate to enforce the equal protection clause. 384 U.S. at 649-50, 86 S.Ct. at 1723; 16 L.Ed.2d at 834-835.

In addition to enacting a constitutional standard, the fourteenth and fifteen amendments granted significant power to Congress. See, e. g., Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 1976, 427 U.S. 445, 96 S.Ct. 2666, 49 L.Ed.2d 614; Oregon v. Mitchell, 1970, 400 U.S. 112, 91 S.Ct. 260, 27 L.Ed.2d 272 (opinion of Black, J., announcing judgments of the Court); South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 1966, 383 U.S. 301, 86 S.Ct. 803, 15 L.Ed.2d 769; Ex parte Virginia, 1880, 100 U.S. 339, 25 L.Ed. 676. As the Court noted in Fitzpatrick, supra, "these Amendments 'were intended to be, what they really are, limitations of the power of the States and enlargements of the power of Congress.' " 427 U.S. at 454, 96 S.Ct. at 2670, 49 L.Ed.2d at 620, Quoting Ex parte Virginia, supra, 100 U.S. at 345, 25 L.Ed. at 679. Thus, even if Title VII were enacted pursuant to fourteenth-amendment power alone, a question we need not here decide, Congress is authorized to enact more stringent standards than those provided by the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments in order to carry out the purpose of those amendments.

Title VII is unquestionably appropriate legislation to enforce the equal protection clause. In Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 1971, 401 U.S. 424, 91 S.Ct. 849, 28 L.Ed.2d 158, the Court noted that Title VII was intended to carry out the objectives of the fourteenth amendment, and that the "disproportionate impact" standard was an appropriate means of fulfilling those objectives. It added:

Under the Act, practices, procedures, or tests neutral on their face, and even neutral in terms of intent, cannot be maintained if they operate to "freeze" the status quo of prior discriminatory employment practices.

401 U.S. at 430, 91 S.Ct. at 853, 28 L.Ed.2d at 163.

The decision in National League of Cities v. Usery, 1976, 426 U.S. 833, 96 S.Ct. 2465, 49 L.Ed.2d 245, which was cited by the district court, does not require a different result. The plaintiffs there challenged 1974 amendments to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 extending its minimum wage and maximum hour provisions to almost all employees of states and their political subdivisions. The Court held that, to the extent the amendments operated directly to displace the states' ability to structure employer-employee relationships in areas of traditional governmental functions, they were not within the authority granted Congress by the commerce clause. The Court stressed that Congress was seeking to wield its power "in a fashion that would impair the States' 'ability to function effectively in a federal system'." Id. at 852, 96 S.Ct. at 2474, 49 L.Ed.2d at 257, Quoting Fry v. United States, 1975, 421 U.S. 542, 547 n.7, 95 S.Ct. 1792, 1796, 44 L.Ed.2d 363, 369. It concluded that this legislation would have effects that would "not comport with the federal system of government embodied in the Constitution." Id.

Title VII relies at least in part on fourteenth-amendment prerogatives. Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, supra, 427 U.S. at 453 n.9, 96 S.Ct. at 2670, 49 L.Ed.2d at 620. Its impact on state and local governments does not impair their ability to function effectively in a federal system. Thus, in Firefighters Institute for Racial Equality v. City of St. Louis, supra, the Eighth Circuit noted in dicta that Usery was "undoubtedly inapposite" to Title VII, See 549 F.2d at 510 n.5, an observation with which we agree. Title VII intrudes less than minimum wage legislation on the role of state and local governments, places a less stringent financial burden on them, and reflects a more important national purpose that of ending discrimination.

For these reasons, we hold that, whether the employer be private or public, the same prerequisites to Title VII liability apply, and discriminatory purpose need not be shown. Following this standard, we review the facts.

II.

This action was brought by three black employees of the Public Works Department of the City of Anniston, individually and on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated, against the city, the mayor, members of the city council, the civil service board and its...