Louisiana Ed. Ass'n v. Richland Parish Sch. Bd.

• Decision Date: 26 October 1976
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 76-0548.
• Parties: LOUISIANA EDUCATION ASSOCIATION et al. v. RICHLAND PARISH SCHOOL BOARD et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Louisiana

421 F. Supp. 973

LOUISIANA EDUCATION ASSOCIATION et al. v. RICHLAND PARISH SCHOOL BOARD et al.

Civ. A. No. 76-0548.

United States District Court, W. D. Louisiana, Monroe Division.

October 26, 1976.

William J. Jefferson, Jefferson & Bryan, New Orleans, La., for plaintiffs.

Stephen J. Katz, Paul Henry Kidd, Kidd, Katz & Strickler, P.C., Monroe, La., for defendants.

OPINION

STAGG, District Judge.

The Louisiana Education Association (LEA), the Richland Parish Education (RPEA) and Ms. Lottie S. Dickson brought this action to enforce an order of this Court of June 12, 1975, in Civil Action 15,796, Hope Smith, et al v. Richland Parish School Board, et al, and in Civil Action 12,169, United States v. Richland Parish School Board, et al. Plaintiffs named the School Board, the Superintendent and several Board members in Richland Parish as defendants. A copy of the order, which resulted from a consent decree, is attached as an Appendix to this opinion. Plaintiffs styled their pleading a motion for a "rule to show cause" why defendants should not be held in contempt of court. The pleading alleged a failure to comply with the order's procedure, such that plaintiff Lottie S. Dickson did not receive a particular job. Plaintiffs requested relief to force defendants to comply with the order and to compensate Ms. Dickson for her alleged loss.

Importantly, plaintiffs sought remedial relief in the form of a contempt order rather than substantial relief in an independent action. For that reason, their claim rests solely on the order and not on any other theory or cause of action independent from it.

The gist of plaintiffs' claim is that defendants hired Ms. Christine Ford, a white female, for the position of lunchroom supervisor when the Court's order required the board to hire or promote a black person for the position. More specifically, Ms. Dickson alleged that she should have been the black person to be hired. The proceeding came on for hearing in Monroe, Louisiana, on August 9, 1976. Plaintiffs introduced oral and documentary evidence, then rested. Defendants moved for a directed verdict or to dismiss. The Court discussed with counsel the procedure it should follow from that point forward. Petitioners claimed that respondents bore the burden of proof that they did not violate the order, while the Court and respondents suggested that petitioners bore the burden of proving noncompliance. Petitioners also claimed that the proceeding was not independent; thus, they said, a motion for directed verdict was improper. How the motion was denominated is unimportant. Because a contempt proceeding is a sui generis phenomenon, no specific forms are supplied by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The gravamen of the motion was that defendants need not produce any evidence due to plaintiffs' failure to carry its burden of showing noncompliance. Thus, it is analogous to and may be considered as a motion for involuntary dismissal pursuant to F.R.C.P. 41(b). The Court took the motion under advisement.

THE NATURE OF THE CONTEMPT PROCEEDING

The power of a court to punish persons for contempt is an inherent power claiming deep historical roots. Shillitani v. United States, 384 U.S. 364, 370, 86 S.Ct. 1531, 1535, 16 L.Ed.2d 622 (1966); Ex parte Robinson, 86 U.S. (19 Wall.) 505, 22 L.Ed. 205 (1874); United States v. Fidanian, 465 F.2d 755 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1044, 93 S.Ct. 540, 34 L.Ed.2d 494 (1972); United States v. Dickinson, 465 F.2d 496, 510 (5th Cir. 1972), on remand, 349 F.Supp. 227 (M.D.La.1972), aff'd, 476 F.2d 373 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 979, 94 S.Ct. 270, 38 L.Ed.2d 223 (1973); 11 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 2960 at 581 (1973) hereinafter cited as 11 Wright & Miller. In an early case, the United States Supreme Court recognized the necessity for the power and its existence:

"The power to punish for contempts is inherent in all courts; its existence is essential to the preservation of order in judicial proceedings, and to the enforcement of the judgments, orders and writs of the courts, and consequently, to the due administration of justice. The moment the courts of the United States were called into existence and invested with jurisdiction over any subject, they became possessed of this power." Ex parte Robinson, 86 U.S. (19 Wall.) 505, 510, 22 L.Ed. 205 (1874).

Of course, the power to punish for contempt includes the power of a court to redress violations of its own orders. United States v. Fidanian, 465 F.2d 755, 757 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1044, 93 S.Ct. 540, 34 L.Ed.2d 494 (1972). The court may exercise its power with discretion, and some courts have held that the power should be used sparingly. United States v. Reide, 494 F.2d 644 (2d Cir. 1974); United States v. Dickinson, 465 F.2d 496, 513 (5th Cir. 1972), on remand, 349 F.Supp. 227 (M.D.La.1972), aff'd, 476 F.2d 373 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 979, 94 S.Ct. 270, 38 L.Ed.2d 223 (1973); United States v. Panico, 308 F.2d 125 (2d Cir. 1962), vacated on other grounds, 375 U.S. 29, 84 S.Ct. 19, 11 L.Ed.2d 1 (1963). However, a court's discretion is not unfettered. A court cannot refuse to preserve rights under its own order absent extraordinary circumstances. McComb v. Jacksonville Paper Co., 336 U.S. 187, 191, 69 S.Ct. 497, 499, 93 L.Ed. 365 (1949).

Fundamentally, two kinds of contempt exist. Civil contempt vindicates the rights of aggrieved persons under valid court orders, while criminal contempt vindicates the court's power and authority without reference to any party. Norman Bridge Drug Co. v. Banner, 529 F.2d 822, 827 (5th Cir. 1976); Universal Athletic Sales Co. v. Salkeld, 511 F.2d 904, 910 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 863, 96 S.Ct. 122, 46 L.Ed.2d 92 (1975); International Business Machines Corp. v. United States, 493 F.2d 112, 115 (2d Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 416 U.S. 995, 94 S.Ct. 2409, 40 L.Ed.2d 774 (1974). The aggrieved party institutes the proceeding and controls the litigation in civil contempts while generally the court initiates a criminal contempt proceeding. 11 Wright & Miller § 2960 at 587-88; cf. Flight Engineers International Association v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc., 301 F.2d 756 (5th Cir. 1962); FTC v. A. McLean & Son, 94 F.2d 802 (7th Cir. 1938). The aggrieved party benefits from the court's finding of civil contempt. He may receive coercive or compensatory relief. Coercive relief attempts to persuade the other party to comply with the court's order, while compensatory relief reimburses the aggrieved party for his losses due to the adversary's non-compliance. McComb v. Jacksonville Paper Co., 336 U.S. 187, 191, 69 S.Ct. 497, 499, 93 L.Ed. 365 (1949); Norman Bridge Drug Co. v. Banner, supra, at 827. The court and the public interest benefit from a determination of criminal contempt.

Plaintiffs seek to enforce a court order and obtain relief for Ms. Dickson; they request both coercive and compensatory relief. Obviously they do not aim toward the vindication of the Court's power or authority. Thus, the pleading in this cause speaks in terms of civil, not criminal contempt.

The petitioner in a proceeding in civil contempt bears the burden of proving that the respondent violated some court order, especially when the respondent denies the material allegations in the pleading. Schauffler v. Local 1291, International Longshoremen's Association, 292 F.2d 182, 189 (3d Cir. 1961); Cohn v. Kramer, 136 F.2d 293 (6th Cir. 1943); NLRB v. Reed & Prince Manufacturing Co., 130 F.2d 765 (1st Cir. 1942); NLRB v. Whittier Mills Co., 123 F.2d 725 (5th Cir. 1942); Washington v. Central of Georgia Railway Co., 174 F.Supp. 33 (M.D.Ga.1958), aff'd, 268 F.2d 445 (5th Cir. 1959), cert. denied, 361 U.S. 943, 80 S.Ct. 407, 4 L.Ed.2d 363 (1960). The "order to show cause" is a widely used method of instituting a civil contempt proceeding, but it merely is a method of serving notice on the party allegedly in noncompliance. It does not shift the burden of proof from the petitioner to the respondent. In re Van Meter, 413 F.2d 536, 538 (8th Cir. 1969).¹ The burden that remains with petitioner is to show the violation by clear and convincing evidence. A bare preponderance of the evidence will not suffice. Stringfellow v. Haines, 309 F.2d 910, 912 (2d Cir. 1962); Schauffler v. Local 1291, supra; Telling v. Bellows-Claude Neon Co., 77 F.2d 584, 585 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 296 U.S. 594, 56 S.Ct. 108, 80 L.Ed. 420 (1935); Washington v. Central of Georgia Railway Co., supra; 11 Wright & Miller § 290 at 591. The petitioner need not prove a willful violation of the order. McComb v. Jacksonville Paper Co., 336 U.S. 187, 191, 69 S.Ct. 497, 499, 93 L.Ed. 365 (1949); NLRB v. Local 282, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, 428 F.2d 994, 1001 (2d Cir. 1970); Telling v. Bellows-Claude Neon Co., supra, at 586; 11 Wright & Miller § 2960 at 592.

Most orders that are the object of civil contempt proceedings arise out of the equitable jurisdiction of the court. For example, frequently a petitioner seeks, by civil contempt proceeding, to coerce his adversary into compliance with an injunction, mandatory or prohibitive. As a matter of legal theory, the burden of proving noncompliance by clear and convincing evidence stems from a presumption of sorts that a party will comply with court decrees. In civil contempt, the presumption in turn derives from the equitable maxim, Equity regards as done that which ought to be done.² As a practical matter, the heavy burden protects parties who are in compliance. Were it not for the heavy burden on the petitioner, there would be no deterrent to frivolous pleadings in civil contempt; an individual would face virtually no risk. The respondent then would face burdensome and repetitious allegations from which he would have to extricate himself time and time again. The burden existing, courts impose a balance of power between petitioner and responde...