Trout v. Webb, Civ. A. No. 73-55.

• Decision Date: 12 October 1988
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 73-55.
• Citation: 708 F. Supp. 358
• Parties: Yvonne TROUT, et al., Plaintiffs, v. James H. WEBB, Jr., Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Columbia

708 F. Supp. 358

Yvonne TROUT, et al., Plaintiffs, v. James H. WEBB, Jr., Defendant.

Civ. A. No. 73-55.

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

October 12, 1988.

Bradley G. McDonald, John E. Karl, Jr., McDonald & Karl, Washington, D.C., for plaintiffs.

Wilma A. Lewis, Asst. U.S. Atty., Washington, D.C., for defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

HAROLD H. GREENE, District Judge.

Following the remand of this case from the United States Supreme Court, this Court entered its determination reaffirming defendant's liability toward the plaintiff class. Trout v. Lehman, 652 F.Supp. 144 (D.D.C.1986). Except for attorneys' fee issues, all that remains to be resolved is the question of proper relief for individual class members, the question to which the Court turns today.

On October 20, 1981 the Court issued its original relief opinion requiring individual hearings for the class members in order to determine their entitlement to relief. Trout v. Lehman, slip op. (D.D.C. Oct. 20, 1981) (Relief Opinion). Due to the expected number and complexity of these hearings, the individual claims were to be heard by a United States Magistrate or a Special Master. In addition, the Magistrate or Special Master was to determine which statistical methodology was most appropriate for use in determining backpay, and was granted authority to require briefing and hearings on that question if necessary. The Court has now reviewed the record in the light of its post-remand ruling on liability, and after consideration of the parties' recent filings it has determined that there is no reason to depart from the framework established in the initial Relief Opinion. Therefore, with one minor exception, the previous conclusions and procedures will be adopted.

The Court had previously determined that class members would not be entitled to recover backpay for periods prior to 1972, because the proceedings in the case were not pending as of March 24, 1972, the effective date of the statutory provision under which defendants liability was established. Relief Opinion at 7-8. Subsequent to that determination, the Court of Appeals for this Circuit ruled that Congress did not intend to prohibit Title VII backpay periods from extending before 1972, where defendant's violation is "continuing" throughout the period prior to the filing of the administrative complaint, Thompson v. Sawyer, 678 F.2d 257, 288-89 (D.C.Cir.1982), a position contrary to that of this Court. Because Thompson is of course controlling on this Court, the Court hereby reverses its determination as to pre-1972 backpay.

Yvonne Trout filed her administrative complaint on June 21, 1972. The Court will therefore amend its Memorandum and Order of October 20, 1981 to allow the Magistrate or Special Master to include in his final awards backpay for the two year period prior to that date, or June 21, 1970.

The parties have raised a variety of other matters in their post-remand briefs on the subject of...