Marino v. Ortiz

Decision Date13 January 1988
Docket NumberNo. 86-1415,86-1415
Citation484 U.S. 301,108 S.Ct. 586,98 L.Ed.2d 629
PartiesEvelyn MARINO, et al., Petitioners v. Juan U. ORTIZ et al
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

See 484 U.S. 1082, 108 S.Ct. 1064.

Ronald Podolsky, New York City, for petitioners.

Gled D. Nager, pro hac vice, for United States as amicus curiae, supporting petitioners, by special leave of Court.

Leonard J. Koerner, New York City, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

Petitioners seek to challenge a consent decree approving an agreement settling a Title VII lawsuit against the City of New York. After the results of a police sergeant's examination revealed that blacks and Hispanics had passed the examination at disproportionately low rates, groups representing these minority members of the New York City Police Department sued the Department under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 253, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. Three other groups were permitted to intervene as codefendants: "the Sergeants Benevolent Association ('SBA'), representing over 500 officers on the eligible list who had obtained provisional appointments as sergeants; the Sergeants Eligibles Association ('SEA'), representing officers who were on the eligible list but had not received provisional appointments; and various white ethnic societies and other individual officers (the 'Schneider Intervenors')." Hispanic Society of New York City Police Dept. v. New York City Police Dept., 806 F.2d 1147, 1151 (CA2 1986) (Costello case below). The parties reached settlement, which was first approved by the District Court on an interim basis, and finally, after a hearing, by consent decree. The settlement provided that black and Hispanic candidates who had failed to make the eligible list would be promoted until the racial/ethnic composition of the new sergeants was approximately the same as the racial/ethnic composition of the group of candidates taking the test. The SBA and the SEA signed the agreement; the Schneider Intervenors, although opposing the settlement, chose not to appeal.

Petitioners are a group of white police officers who claim that they were not placed on the eligible list even though they had scored at least as high on the examination as the lowest scoring minority officer promoted under the interim order. Although they presented their objections to the District Court at the hearing, they chose not to move to intervene pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24, either initially as codefendants or later to replace the Schneider Intervenors for purposes of appeal. See United Airlines, Inc. v. McDonald, 432 U.S. 385, 395, 97 S.Ct. 2464, 2470, 53 L.Ed.2d 423 (1977). Instead, they filed suit during the period between the interim approval of the settlement and the final consent decree, claiming a violation of their Fourteenth Amendment equal protection rights. In 806 F.2d 1144 (CA2 1986) (Marino case below), the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's dismissal of petitioners' suit, deeming it an impermissible collateral attack on a con- sent decree by persons who could have intervened in the underlying litigation. Petitioners also attempted to appeal from the consent decree. 306 F.2d 1147 (CA2 1986). In Costello, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal because petitioners were not parties to the litigation giving rise to the consent decree. We granted certiorari to consider these judgments, 481 U.S. 1047, 107 S.Ct. 2177, 95 L.Ed.2d 833 (1987).

As to the issue raised in Marino, namely, whether a district court...

To continue reading

Request your trial
266 cases
  • Elliott Industries Ltd. Part. v. Bp America Prod.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • 10 Mayo 2005
    ...to a lawsuit, or those that properly become parties, may appeal an adverse judgment is well settled." Marino v. Ortiz, 484 U.S. 301, 304, 108 S.Ct. 586, 98 L.Ed.2d 629 (1988) (per curiam). In Devlin v. Scardelletti, the Supreme Court excepted from this general rule unnamed class members who......
  • Martin v. Wilks Personnel Board of Jefferson County, Alabama v. Wilks Arrington v. Wilks
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • 12 Junio 1989
    ...849 F.2d 240, 245 (CA6 1988); Marino v. Ortiz, 806 F.2d 1144, 1146-1147 (CA2 1986), aff'd, by an equally divided Court, 484 U.S. 301, 108 S.Ct. 586, 98 L.Ed.2d 629 (1988); Thaggard v. Jackson, 687 F.2d 66, 68-69 (CA5 1982), cert. denied sub nom. Ashley v. City of Jackson, 464 U.S. 900, 104 ......
  • Edwards v. City of Houston
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • 1 Abril 1996
    ...a lawsuit, or has not properly become a party, has no right to appeal a judgment entered in that suit. Marino v. Ortiz, 484 U.S. 301, 304, 108 S.Ct. 586, 587-88, 98 L.Ed.2d 629 (1988); Karcher v. May, 484 U.S. 72, 77, 108 S.Ct. 388, 391-93, 98 L.Ed.2d 327 (1987) (and cases cited therein, es......
  • United States v. Amy Unknown (In re Amy Unknown)
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • 19 Noviembre 2012
    ...United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 438 U.S. 422, 437 (1978), including that crime victims have no right to appeal. See Marino v. Ortiz, 484 U.S. 301, 304 (1988) (citing United States ex rel. Louisiana v. Jack, 244 U.S. 397, 402 (1917)) (explaining that "[t]he rule that only parties to a laws......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
3 books & journal articles
  • An Intervention Requirement Provides Greater Benefit to the Corporation When Nonparty Shareholders Appeal Derivative Action Settlements: Felzen v. Andreas, 134 F.3d 873 (7th Cir. 1998).
    • United States
    • University of Nebraska - Lincoln Nebraska Law Review No. 79, 2021
    • Invalid date
    ...to keep in mind, for it is an important factor that later courts have used to partially justify intervention. See Marino v. Ortiz, 484 U.S. 301, 304 (1988); Felzen, 134 F.3d at 874. 45. See 815 F.2d at 628. 46. See id. 47. See id. 48. Id. at 629. 49. See 50. Id. 51. 484 U.S. 301 (1988). 52.......
  • Appeals and Writs
    • United States
    • California Lawyers Association California Litigation Review (CLA) No. 2022, 2022
    • Invalid date
    ...States ex rel. Alexander Volkhoff, LLC v. Janssen Pharmaceutica N.V. (9th Cir. 2020) 945 F.3d 1237, 1241 (quoting Marino v. Ortiz (1988) 484 U.S. 301, 304 (per curiam)); see also Fed. R. App. P., rule 3(c)(1)(A) (notice of appeal must "specify the party or parties taking the appeal").110. I......
  • Approval of a Class Action Settlement Under C.r.c.p. 23(e)
    • United States
    • Colorado Bar Association Colorado Lawyer No. 31-5, May 2002
    • Invalid date
    ...In re Discovery Zone Securities Litigation, 1181 F.R.D. 582 (N.D.Ill. 1998). 55. Higley, supra, note 3 at 890; see also Marino v. Ortiz, 484 U.S. 301 56. Higley, supra, note 3 at 891; Bonfils, supra, note 18 at 999. 57. Bonfils, supra, note 18 at 998-99. (c) 2002 The Colorado Lawyer and Col......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT