Williams v. Anderson

• Decision Date: 31 August 1977
• Docket Number: Nos. 76-1172 and 76-1108,s. 76-1172 and 76-1108
• Citation: 562 F.2d 1081
• Parties: 17 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 1772, 14 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 7812, 2 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 724 Herbert WILLIAMS, Virginia S. Williams, Robert Manson, Mary Manson and Donald Massey, Plaintiffs-Appellants/Cross-Appellees, v. Robert ANDERSON, Ella Mae Carroll, William Doug Grizzle, Lew Sorrels, Carl Geisler, Directors of the Brinkley School District, and Dewey Snowden, Superintendent of the Brinkley School District, Defendants- Appellees/Cross-Appellants.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

Page 1081

562 F.2d 1081

17 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 1772, 14 Empl. Prac.

Dec. P 7812,

2 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 724

Herbert WILLIAMS, Virginia S. Williams, Robert Manson, Mary Manson and Donald Massey Plaintiffs-Appellants/Cross-Appellees, v. Robert ANDERSON, Ella Mae Carroll, William Doug Grizzle, Lew Sorrels, Carl Geisler, Directors of the Brinkley School District, and Dewey Snowden, Superintendent of the Brinkley School District, Defendants- Appellees/Cross-Appellants.

Nos. 76-1172 and 76-1108.

United States Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 14, 1976.

Decided Aug. 31, 1977.

John W. Walker, Walker, Kaplan & Mays, P. A., Little Rock, Ark., for Williams, et al.; Jack Greenberg, James C. Gray, Jr., New York City, Philip E. Kaplan and Henry L. Jones, Jr., Little Rock, Ark., on brief.

G. Ross Smith, Little Rock, Ark., for Anderson, et al.; Smith, Williams, Eldredge & Clark, Little Rock, Ark., on appendix.

Before HEANEY and ROSS, Circuit Judges, and VAN PELT, Senior District Judge. ^*

HEANEY, Circuit Judge.

This appeal requires us to decide several complex and difficult questions that arose when the Brinkley School District, which had maintained separate Black and White schools, began integrating the school system. In April, 1973, the plaintiffs, ¹ Black faculty members and a Black applicant for a position as a faculty member, dissatisfied with the treatment of Blacks, brought an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. They sought individual and class relief contending that the defendants, the superintendent and individual members of the Board of Education, had discriminated against them with respect to assignment, salary, promotion and hiring.

The trial court certified a class consisting of Black applicants for faculty positions and Black faculty members employed by the School District, prior to and at the time of unitization. It determined that the plaintiffs had the burden of proving that the defendants had discriminated against Black faculty members and Black applicants. ² Finding that the defendants had discriminated against Black faculty members by paying them $100.00 per year less than White faculty members through the 1967-1968 school year, the trial court awarded each Black faculty member employed for the 1967-1968 school year the sum of $100.00. ³ It also found that the School District followed a policy during the 1971-1972, 1972-1973 and 1973-1974 school years of filling White faculty vacancies with Whites and Black faculty vacancies with Blacks, and ordered the discontinuation of this policy. ⁴ The defendants were found to have discriminated against Black faculty members by failing to use objective standards in assigning, promoting and hiring and were ordered to adopt objective standards for those purposes in accordance with the requirements set forth in Moore v. Board of Ed. of Chidester Sch. Dist. No. 59, Ark., 448 F.2d 709 (8th Cir. 1971). The Court stated that the standards set by the State Department of Education and the On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the trial court erred in failing to hold the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case of racial discrimination with respect to assignment, salary, promotion and hiring; in finding that neither the named plaintiffs nor any member of the class they represent had been adversely affected by racial considerations in their employment; in denying them further injunctive and monetary relief; and in requiring that discrimination be shown to be the sole basis for the refusal to hire Mary Manson, a Black applicant, for a teaching position. The plaintiffs also contend that the trial court erred in approving the criteria submitted by the defendants in response to the court's order that objective nonracial standards be developed.

                North Central Association should be considered in developing the objective standards.  It also ordered the School District to adopt a uniform salary schedule for administrative and specialty personnel.  5 Subsequently, the trial court approved the criteria and the salary schedule submitted by the School District and awarded attorneys' fees to plaintiffs' counsel.  Further relief to the named plaintiffs and other members of the class was denied on the ground that they had not been adversely affected by racial consideration in employment decisions
                

The defendants contend that Ark.Stat. § 37-206, a three-year statute of limitations, applies and that for this reason, the trial court erred in awarding monetary relief for the salary differentials found to exist during the 1967-1968 school year. They also contend that attorneys' fees should not have been awarded, and that School Board members and school officials are immune from damage awards under Wood v. Strickland, 420 U.S. 308, 95 S.Ct. 992, 43 L.Ed.2d 214 (1975).

I

Unlike the trial court, we may examine the issues relating to requisite intent in light of recent decisions of the United States Supreme Court. Hazelwood School District v. United States, --- U.S. ----, 97 S.Ct. 2736, 53 L.Ed.2d 768 (1977); International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324, 97 S.Ct. 1843, 52 L.Ed.2d 396 (1977); Arlington Heights v. Metro. Housing Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 97 S.Ct. 555, 50 L.Ed.2d 450 (1977); Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229, 96 S.Ct. 2040, 48 L.Ed.2d 597 (1976). These and other decisions establish that the plaintiffs must prove an intent to discriminate on the part of the defendants to prevail in a § 1983 action. The opinions recognize that admission of discriminatory intent is unlikely, and that intent will ordinarily have to be found by "a sensitive inquiry into such circumstantial and direct evidence of intent as may be available," Arlington Heights v. Metro. Housing Corp., supra, 429 U.S. at 465, 97 S.Ct. at 564, including the impact of the challenged official action, ⁶ its historical background ⁷ and its legislative or administrative The use of rebuttable presumptions is not new in civil rights cases where intentional discrimination must be shown. See Keyes v. School District No. 1, 413 U.S. 189, 209-210, 93 S.Ct. 2686, 37 L.Ed.2d 548 (1973). In Arlington Heights v. Metro. Housing Corp., supra, the Supreme Court recognized the validity of rebuttable presumptions in actions under § 1983. While the Court held the plaintiffs had not established a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination by the Village of Arlington Heights, it indicated that when the requisite threshold showing is made, the burden will shift to the defendants to establish "that the same decision would have resulted even had the impermissible purpose not been considered." Id. 429 U.S. at 468, n. 21, 97 S.Ct. at 566.

history. Id. at 465-466, 97 S.Ct. 555. The Supreme Court has made it clear that "official action will not be held unconstitutional (in a § 1983 action) solely because it results in a racially disproportionate impact. 'Disproportionate impact is not irrelevant, but it is not the sole touchstone of an invidious racial discrimination.' " Arlington Heights v. Metro. Housing Corp., supra at 464, 97 S.Ct. 555, 563, quoting Washington v. Davis, supra 426 U.S. at 242, 96 S.Ct. 2040. See generally Perry, The Disproportionate Impact Theory of Racial Discrimination, 125 U.Pa.L.Rev. 540 (1977). The decisions recognized that in some instances, discriminatory impact may be so great that a discriminatory purpose can be inferred. See Hazelwood School District v. United States, supra, --- U.S. at ----, 97 S.Ct. 2736; International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States, supra 431 U.S. at 324, 97 S.Ct. 1843; Castaneda v. Partida,430 U.S. 482, 489-491, 97 S.Ct. 1272, 1277-1278, 51 L.Ed.2d 498 (1977). They further recognize that evidence of discriminatory intent may be sufficient to establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination and to create a rebuttable presumption in favor of individual relief.

This Circuit has often applied the concept of a prima facie case in teacher discrimination cases brought under § 1983. Lyons v. Board of Ed. of Charleston, Etc., 523 F.2d 340 (8th Cir. 1975) (prima facie case not established); United States v. Cotton Plant School Dist. No. 1, 479 F.2d 671 (8th Cir. 1973); Moore v. Board of Ed. of Chidester Sch. Dist. No. 59, Ark., supra; Haney v. County Board of Education of Sevier County, 429 F.2d 364 (8th Cir. 1970).

The concept that establishment of a prima facie case of racial discrimination creates a rebuttable presumption in favor of individual relief is developed in civil rights cases brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000-e et seq. ⁸ (t)he holding in Franks that proof of a discriminatory pattern and practice creates a rebuttable presumption in favor of individual relief is consistent with the manner in which presumptions are created generally. Presumptions shifting the burden of proof are often created to reflect judicial evaluations of probabilities and to conform with a party's superior access to the proof. See C. McCormick, Handbook of the Law of Evidence §§ 337, 343 (E. Cleary ed. 1972); James, Burdens of Proof, 47 Va.L.Rev. 51, 61 (1961). See also Keyes v. School Dist. No. 1, 413 U.S. 189, 208-209(, 93 S.Ct. 2686) (.) These factors were present in Franks. Although the prima facie case did not conclusively demonstrate that all of the employer's decisions were part of the proven discriminatory pattern and practice, it did create a greater likelihood that any single decision was a component of the overall pattern. Moreover, the finding of a pattern or practice changed the position of the employer to that of a proven wrongdoer. Finally, the employer was in the best position to show why any individual employee was denied an employment opportunity.

International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324, supra at 351, 97 S.Ct. 1843; Franks v. Bowman Transportation Co., 424 U.S. 747, 772-773, 96 S.Ct. 1251, 47 L.Ed.2d 444 (1976). See...