Blue v. U.S. Dept. of Army
| Decision Date | 12 October 1990 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 88-1364,88-1376,s. 88-1364 |
| Citation | 914 F.2d 525 |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
| Parties | 54 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 40,260, 17 Fed.R.Serv.3d 737 Sandra L. BLUE, Plaintiff-Appellant, and Mattiebelle C. Harris, Samuel P. Sheppard, Edward R. Humphrey, Robert L. Evans, Beulah Mae Harris, Leonetta Bibby, Annette Todd, William Kincy, James T. Love, Manuel Early, Bernard Fields, Betty Reid, Lynn Siler, Lelia Walker, Thelma Curry, John Smith, James N. Fleming, Geraldine Ballew, Robert Bronson, Omie White, Carlton Giles, Edith B. McMillan, Mitchell McKeller, Carol J. Anderson, Veola McLean, Alicia Chisholm, King S. Cameron, Jeane Hendon, Joyce Malone, Deborah McMillan, Doris Turner, Violet Henderson, Nancy Alexander, Catherine Gutierrez, Nancy McGlone, Jessie Williams, Dianne Sheppard, Leonza Loftin, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF the ARMY, John O. Marsh, Jr., Secretary, U.S. Department of the Army, Defendants-Appellees. Beulah Mae HARRIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, and Mattiebelle C. Harris, Samuel P. Sheppard, Edward R. Humphrey, Robert L. Evans, Leonetta Bibby, Annette Todd, William Kincy, James T. Love, Manuel Early, Bernard Fields, Betty Reid, Lynn Siler, Lelia Walker, Thelma Curry, John Smith, James N. Fleming, Geraldine Ballew, Robert Bronson, Omie White, Carlton Giles, Edith B. McMillan, Mitchell McKeller, Carol J. Anderson, Veola McLean, Alicia Chisholm, King S. Cameron, Jeane Hendon, Joyce Malone, Deborah McMillan, Doris Turner, Violet Henderson, Nancy Alexander, Catherine Gutierrez, Nancy McGlone, Jessie Williams, Dianne Sheppard, Leonza Loftin, Sandra L. Blue, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF the ARMY, John O. Marsh, Jr., Secretary, U.S. Department of the Army, Defendants-Appellees. In re FERGUSON, STEIN, WATT, WALLAS & ADKINS, P.A., Appellant. Mattiebelle C. HARRIS, Samuel P. Sheppard, Edward R. Humphrey, Robert L. Evans, Beulah Mae Harris, Leonetta Bibby, Annette Todd, William Kincy, James T. Love, Manuel Early, Bernard Fields, Betty Reid, Lynn Siler, Lelia Walker, Thelma Curry, John Smith, James N. Fleming, Geraldine Ballew, Robert Bron |
Bonnie Kayatta-Steingart, Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson, New York City, William Clarence McNeill, III, Employment Law Center, San Francisco, Cal., George Cochran, Law Center, University, Miss. (John Sullivan, Douglas H. Flaum, Tricia Kallett Klosk, Peter L. Simmons, Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson, New York City, Cressie H. Thigpen, Jr., Raleigh, N.C., Morton Stavis, Center for Constitutional Rights, New York City, Stephen B. Burbank, University of Pennsylvania Law School, Philadelphia, Pa., Georgene Vairo, Fordham Law School, New York City, Jerold Solovy, Laura Kaster, Jenner & Block, Chicago, Ill., Barrington D. Parker, Jr., Leslie D. Callahan, Morrison & Foerster, New York City, on brief), for appellants.
Mark B. Stern, Civil Div., U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C. (Stuart M. Gerson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Robert S. Greenspan, Thomas M. Bondy, Civil Div., U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., Margaret P. Currin, U.S. Atty., Raleigh, N.C., on brief), for appellees.
Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, and PHILLIPS and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges.
In this case we must determine whether the district court erred in imposing sanctions on two Title VII plaintiffs, their counsel, and counsel's law firm. The court invoked a number of different yet overlapping legal theories to justify its imposition of sanctions, including Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 11 and 16, the "bad faith" exception to the American Rule, and 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1927. In imposing the sanctions, the court ordered not only that defendant be awarded payment for court costs and attorneys' fees, but also that the court itself be reimbursed for the expenses it incurred and the time it spent presiding over the litigation. It also directed that the NAACP Legal Defense Fund not pay any part of the sanctions for the lawyers involved in the case. Harris v. Marsh, 679 F.Supp. 1204 (E.D.N.C.1987). Plaintiffs, counsel, counsel's law firm, and the Legal Defense Fund challenge the propriety of the sanctions on numerous factual and legal grounds. Finding merit in some, but not all, of their contentions, we affirm in part and reverse in part the judgment of the district court.
In the spring of 1980, two civilian employees at the United States Army base at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, contacted Julius Chambers, a civil rights attorney from Charlotte, North Carolina, concerning an administrative class action they had filed alleging racial discrimination at Fort Bragg. Chambers conferred with statisticians at that time and was assured that their analyses demonstrated statistically significant racial effects in a number of employment practices at Fort Bragg. He agreed to represent two potential class members in the processing of the administrative complaint. During the administrative proceedings, the EEOC Complaints Examiner concluded that a class should be certified with respect to the claims of discriminatory promotions and reprisal.
A class action complaint was filed in federal court by Chambers in September 1981 with appellant Sandra Blue as one of five class representatives. Plaintiffs maintained that the United States Army had discriminated on the basis of race against them and other similarly situated black civilian employees at Fort Bragg with respect to numerous employment opportunities, in violation of section 717(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e-16(a). They sought back pay and injunctive and other equitable relief on behalf of themselves and the class.
The suit was the largest class action in employment discrimination ever filed against the United States Army. Hundreds of military and civilian employees were charged with racially discriminatory actions. Plaintiffs' allegations of racial discrimination were wide-ranging. They accused the Army of engaging in discriminatory practices in virtually every aspect of civilian employment: in hiring and promotion criteria, pay practices, job assignments, job performance evaluations, disciplinary actions, reductions-in-force, and numerous aspects of on-the-job treatment.
Massive discovery began in November of 1981. An estimated five million documents were produced in the course of discovery, the majority by the Army. In addition, one hundred and forty-nine depositions were ultimately filed with the court.
In January of 1983, Geraldine Sumter, a young attorney eighteen months out of law school and six months out of a judicial clerkship, joined Chamber's law firm and was assigned to this case. She was one of only two associates assisting Chambers full-time on the case. Minor research assistance was provided by several other attorneys.
Discovery ended in February 1983, and a hearing was held in May 1983 to determine whether the litigation should go forward as a class action. In July 1983 the district court denied class certification because plaintiffs had failed to meet the factual predicate...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vandeventer v. Wabash Nat. Corp.
... ... a sanction in the nature of a share of the court's overhead, see Blue v. U.S. Dept. of Army, 914 F.2d 525, 548 (4th Cir.1990) cert. denied, ... ...
-
Anderson v. Westinghouse Savannah River Co.
... ... Dennis, 290 F.3d at 648-649 & n. 4. " Reeves plainly instructs us to apply a contrary approach [to Evans ] by affirming that it is ... the detriment of all applicants for the job, black and white alike." Blue v. United States Dep't of the Army, 914 F.2d 525, 541 (4th Cir.1990). The ... ...
-
Simu v. Carvalho (In re Carvalho), Case No. 15-00646
... ... Kayfetz , 974 F.2d 1166, 1177-78 (9th Cir. 1992), and Blue v ... United States Dep ... Of the Army , 914 F.2d 525, 548-49 (4th Cir ... ...
-
Brubaker v. City of Richmond
... ... First, although the case before us also arises in a mixed commercial and political context, the political ... 37 As this circuit stated in Blue v. United States Dept. of the Army, 914 F.2d 525, 548 (4th Cir.1990), ... ...
-
Pleading
...an attorney may have to conduct an investigation above and beyond merely relying upon the words of his client. Blue v. U.S. Dep’t of Army, 914 F.2d 525, 542 (4th Cir. 1990) (“Undoubtedly there are instances in which an attorney acts irresponsibly by failing to investigate the facts behind h......
-
Federal court sanctions against attorneys under 28 U.S.C. section 1927: the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals attempts to divide the standard for multiplying the proceedings in bad faith.
...the district court's order did not specify any sanctionable conduct on the part of the firm's attorneys. Blue v. U.S. Dep't of the Army, 914 F. 2d 525, 549 (4th Cir. 1990). In our view, these discussions are inconclusive. We therefore consider for ourselves whether a law firm is subject to ......