Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc, 339

Decision Date18 March 1968
Docket NumberNo. 339,339
Citation390 U.S. 400,88 S.Ct. 964,19 L.Ed.2d 1263
PartiesAnne P. NEWMAN et al., Petitioners, v. PIGGIE PARK ENTERPRISES, INC., et al
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Jack Greenberg, New York City, for petitioners.

No appearance for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

The petitioners instituted this class action under Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, § 204(a), 78 Stat. 244, 42 U.S.C. § 2000a—3(a), to enjoin racial discrimination at five drive-in restaurants and a sandwich shop owned and operated by the respondents in South Carolina. The District Court held that the operation of each of the respondents' restaurants affected commerce within the meaning of § 201(c)(2), 78 Stat. 243, 42 U.S.C. § 2000a(c)(2), and found, on undisputed evidence, that Negroes had been discriminated against at all six of the restaurants. 256 F.Supp. 941, 947, 951. But the District Court erroneously concluded that Title II does not cover drive-in restaurants of the sort involved in this case. 256 F.Supp., at 951 953. Thus the court en- joined racial discrimination only at the respondents' sandwich shop. Id., at 953.

The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's refusal to enjoin discrimination at the drive-in establishments, 377 F.2d 433, 435—436, and then directed its attention to that section of Title II which provides that 'the prevailing party' is entitled to 'a reasonable attorney's fee' in the court's 'discretion.' § 204(b), 78 Stat. 244, 42 U.S.C. s 2000a—3(b).1 In remanding the case, the Court of Appeals instructed the District Court to award counsel fees only to the extent that the respondents' defenses had been advanced 'for purposes of delay and not in good faith.' 377 F.2d, at 437. We granted certiorari to decide whether this subjective standard properly effectuates the purposes of the counsel-fee provision of Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 389 U.S. 815, 88 S.Ct. 87, 19 L.Ed.2d 66. We hold that it does not.

When the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed, it was evident that enforcement would prove difficult and that the Nation would have to rely in part upon private litigation as a means of securing broad compliance with the law.2 A Title II suit is thus private in form only. When a plaintiff brings an action under that Title, he cannot recover damages. If he obtains an injunction, he does so not for himself alone but also as a 'private attorney general,' vindicating a policy that Congress considered of the highest priority.3 If successful plaintiffs were routinely forced to bear their own attorneys' fees, few aggrieved parties would be in a position to advance the public interest by invoking the injunctive powers of the federal courts. Congress therefore enacted the provision for counsel fees—not simply to penalize litigants who deliberately advance arguments they know to be untenable but, more broadly, to encourage individuals injured by racial discrimination to seek judicial relief under Title II.4

It follows that one who succeeds in obtaining an injunction under that Title should ordinarily recover an attorney's fee unless special circumstances would render such an award unjust. Because no such circumstances are present here, 5 the District Court on remand should include reasonable counsel fees as part of the costs to be assessed against the respondents. As so modified, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is

Affirmed.

Mr. Justice MARSHALL took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

1 'In any action commenced pursuant to this subchapter, the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs, and the United States shall be liable for costs the same as a private person.' 42 U.S.C. § 2000a—3(b).

2 In this connection, it is noteworthy that 42 U.S.C. § 2000a—3(a) permits intervention by the Attorney General in privately initiated Title II suits 'of general public importance' and provides that, 'in such circumstances as the court may deem just,' a district court may 'appoint an attorney for (the) complainant and may authorize the commencement of the civil action without the payment of fees, costs, or security.' Only where a 'pattern or practice' of discrimination is reasonably believed to exist may the Attorney General himself institute a civil action for injunctive relief. 42 U.S.C. §...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1374 cases
  • New England Estates v. Town of Branford, No. 18132.
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • February 16, 2010
    ...our review of the trial court's decision not to award attorney's fees to the owners is plenary. Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc., 390 U.S. 400, 402, 88 S.Ct. 964, 19 L.Ed.2d 1263 (1968). To illustrate why the second theory more appropriately applies under these procedural facts, it i......
  • Best v. California Apprenticeship Council
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • March 31, 1987
    ...fees, noting this was the prevailing view among the federal circuit courts. (See also Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises (1968) 390 U.S. 400, 401-402, fn. 4, 88 S.Ct. 964, 965-966, fn. 4, 19 L.Ed.2d 1263 [attorney fees award under Title II of Civil Rights Act not limited to cases where defen......
  • Filipino Accountants' Assn. v. State Bd. of Accountancy
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • April 25, 1984
    ...fee unless special circumstances would render such an award unjust." ' S Rep No. 94-1011, p 4 (1976) (quoting Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, 390 US 400, 402, 19 LEd2d 1263, 88 SCt 964 (1968))." (Hensley v. Eckerhart (1983) 461 U.S. 424, ---- In passing the Civil Rights Attorneys' Fees A......
  • Schmid v. Lovette
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • April 13, 1984
    ...entitled to a full fee award "unless special circumstances would render such an award unjust." (Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises (1968) 390 U.S. 400, 402, 88 S.Ct. 964, 966, 19 L.Ed.2d 1263 [construing the fee provision of Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964]; see also the discussion ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
  • Tis The Season Of Giving, Right?
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • December 20, 2013
    ...chosen instrument of Congress to vindicate a policy that Congress considered of the highest priority." Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, 390 U.S. 400, 402 (1968) (a prior opinion dealing with a Title II plaintiff). Plaintiffs in these cases assume the role of a private attorney general, an......
37 books & journal articles
  • Awakening the Law: Unmasking Free Exercise Exceptionalism
    • United States
    • Emory University School of Law Emory Law Journal No. 72-5, 2023
    • Invalid date
    ...§ 2000e-3(b).149. Newman v. Piggie Park Enters., Inc., 256 F. Supp. 941, 945 (D.S.C. 1966), rev'd, 377 F.2d 433 (4th Cir. 1967), aff'd, 390 U.S. 400 (1968) (per curiam) (disallowing commercial entity religious exemption to justify racial discrimination). 150. Bob Jones Univ. v. United State......
  • The Weaponization of Attorney's Fees in an Age of Constitutional Warfare.
    • United States
    • Yale Law Journal Vol. 132 No. 7, May 2023
    • May 1, 2023
    ...a groundless action. See Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U.S. 412, 416, 419 (1978) (quoting Newman v. Piggie Park Enters., Inc., 390 U.S. 400, 402 (43.) TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. [section] 30.022(a) (West 2021). (44.) Id. Again, California follows this same template in it......
  • Fee-Shifting in Bankruptcy.
    • United States
    • American Bankruptcy Law Journal Vol. 95 No. 4, December 2021
    • December 22, 2021
    ...808 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. [section] 1132(g) (2)). (75) Newman v. Piggie Park Enter., Inc., 390 U.S. 400, 402 (76) Christiansburg Garment Co. v. Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n, 434 U.S. 412, 419-421 (1978) (court may only award attorney's fees to......
  • William B. Gould Iv, Kissing Cousins?: the Federal Arbitration Act and Modern Labor Arbitration
    • United States
    • Emory University School of Law Emory Law Journal No. 55-4, 2006
    • Invalid date
    ...in light of Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324 (1977). 86 See, e.g., Newman v. Piggie Park Enters., Inc., 390 U.S. 400, 402 (1968). 87 Civil Rights Act of 1991, Pub. L. No. 102-66, 105 Stat. 1071 (codified as 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1981a). 88 500 U.S. 20 (1991). 89 Id. at 23. 91......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 provisions
  • DC Register Vol 70, No 17 April 28, 2023 Pages 006095 to 006311
    • United States
    • District of Columbia Register
    • Invalid date
    ...which, at best can only be approximate. Id. at 435. The circumstances to be considered are: 8 Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc., 390 U.S. 400 MSPB is this Office’s federal counterpart. 10 See also, Texas State Teachers Association v. Garland Independent School District, 489 U.S. 782, ......
  • DC Register Vol 69, No 43 October 28, 2022 Pages 013199 to 013444
    • United States
    • District of Columbia Register
    • Invalid date
    ...6 Shimman v. Int'l Union of Operating Engineers, Loc. 18, 744 F.2d 1226, 1229 (6th Cir. 1984). 7 Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc., 390 U.S. 400 See Agency’s Motion to Close the Issue of Compliance and Response to Employee’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees, Cost or Related Expenses, Exhibi......
  • Chapter 3811677, HB 1247 – Recover Wages Due Attorney Fees
    • United States
    • Colorado Session Laws
    • January 1, 2007
    ...seek relief "[i]f successful plaintiffs were routinely forced to bear their own attorneys' fees." Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc., 390 U.S. 400, 402 (1968). (3)Attorney fees awarded against an employee are not intended to impose an excessive financial hardship. SECTION 2.8-4-109 (3)......

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