Woodson v. Fulton
| Decision Date | 07 February 1980 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 79-1003,79-1009,s. 79-1003 |
| Citation | 614 F.2d 940 |
| Parties | 22 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 59, 22 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 30,625 Jimmie H. WOODSON, Appellant, v. Jack M. FULTON, etc., et al., Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
George Wm. Warren, IV, Richmond, Va. (Francis, Hubard, Tice & Warren, Richmond, Va., on brief), for appellant.
D. Eugene Webb, Jr., Richmond, Va. (Andrew J. Ellis, Jr., Barbara Tessin Jones, Mays, Valentine, Davenport & Moore, Richmond, Va., on brief), for appellee Jack M. Fulton.
Matthew N. Ott, Jr., Ott, Morchower, Thompson & McMullan, Richmond, Va., on brief, for appellee Col. Frank S. Duling.
Michael Morchower, Ott, Morchower, Thompson & McMullan, Richmond, Va., on brief, for appellee Cap. S. J. Wood.
Before WINTER and HALL, Circuit Judges, and PERRY, * District judge.
We must decide if a suit filed by Jimmie Woodson, a black former police officer of the city of Richmond, Virginia, alleging various forms of racial discrimination in employment is barred in whole or in part by an earlier decree in a class action suit. To the extent relevant here, the district court ruled that the decree in the class action suit was res judicata of the individual suit. We reverse in part and remand for further proceedings.
Woodson filed two suits against Richmond police bureau officials, which were later consolidated, alleging that disciplinary actions taken against him while he was employed by the bureau violated, inter alia, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. His complaint also alleged that he was discriminatorily fired from the bureau. Before Woodson's suit could progress to trial, a consent decree was entered in a civil rights class action brought by Richmond's black police officers.
On a defense motion for summary judgment made after the entry of the class action consent decree, the district court dismissed Woodson's individual suit. The court ruled that some of Woodson's claims were moot, that some were barred by the statute of limitations, and that the consent decree was res judicata of the rest. Woodson does not seriously challenge the district judge's rulings on mootness and the statute of limitations. 1
Woodson does contend, however, that he was not bound by the class action consent decree, which settled the claims of "all present Black employees" and "all future employees and applicants" of the bureau. He points out that he was fired and ceased to be a "present employee" before the class was defined. Woodson therefore insists that he was excluded from the class and that consequently his remaining claims are not barred by the res judicata effect of the consent decree.
We agree with the district judge that Woodson was a member of the class, because he was not dismissed from the bureau until after the class action was filed and thus at the time of filing was a "present employee." 2 Nevertheless, for the reasons that follow, we think that one important aspect of Woodson's individual suit, the claim based upon his dismissal, was not litigated in the class action and it may therefore be asserted in the individual suit.
Woodson's complaint may be broken into two parts. First, he raises a number of alleged violations of his civil rights and due process based upon his treatment while he was a Richmond police officer. He asserts that he was subject to discriminatory disciplinary actions and that his professional advancement was illegally hindered.
This aspect of his suit was fully litigated in the class action. The class action charged the bureau with discriminating against blacks in hiring, discipline, and promotions. The consent decree awarded class members damages for this discrimination and set up departmental procedures to avoid similar employment discrimination in the future. Although Woodson has thus far refused to accept an award under the decree, Woodson, according to its terms, is entitled to receive $800.
Second, Woodson charged that his discharged violated a variety of his constitutional rights. On its face, the consent decree seems to extinguish this discriminatory discharge claim, in addition to Woodson's other claims. The decree recites that "all existing claims for pecuniary relief of any kind against the defendants . . . are hereby dismissed with prejudice" and that class members will receive their cash payments "upon execution of releases of liability against defendants by all such members."
However, when the district court defined the class, it explicitly ruled that the class action would not address issues arising from allegedly discriminatory discharges. In its memorandum opinion articulating its views, the court stated:
Any possible injunctive or declaratory relief the Court may order with respect to hiring, promotion, placement, and the like would naturally affect present and future employees of the Richmond Bureau of Police. Such relief would not affect the former employees or applicants since their interest must naturally be confined to the possible recovery of back pay. This Court, mindful of the narrow ancillary interest of former employees and applicants for employment and concerned with fair and adequate protection of that interest, must limit the proposed class by excluding such persons. 3
Thus, under the terms of the district court's ruling, while the class representatives could adequately represent Woodson's interests as a bureau employee who had been subject to allegedly discriminatory disciplinary actions, the class representatives could not adequately represent him as to his discriminatory discharge claim. The effect of the district judge's ruling was to exclude claims based upon illegal discharges, including Woodson's from the subject matter of the suit.
In our view, this definition of the scope of the class action prevents the consent decree from settling Woodson's claim of discriminatory discharge. Therefore, Woodson may press his claim that he was fired in a manner which violated federal civil rights statutes and the constitution. 4 At the same time, since his other statutory and constitutional claims were settled by the class action, Woodson may accept the $800 he was awarded under the decree, but he may not relitigate those claims.
In addition to appealing the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Engineered Products Co. v. Donaldson Co., Inc.
... ... that the tribe failed to cure deficiencies in earlier amendments, denial of the tribe's motion to amend was not an abuse of discretion); see Woodson v. Fulton, 614 F.2d 940, ... Page 1085 ... 943 (4th Cir.1980) (leave to amend "may be denied for undue delay") ... * * * * * * ... ...
-
E.E.O.C. v. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond
...Employment Sec. Com'n. of N.C., 671 F.2d 835 (4th Cir.1982), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 103 S.Ct. 138, 74 L.Ed.2d 117; Woodson v. Fulton, 614 F.2d 940 (4th Cir.1980); Dorsey v. Smith, 91 F.R.D. 261 (D.Md.1981); see also, Kemp v. Birmingham News Co., 608 F.2d 1049 (5th Cir.1979). The class......
-
McNeil v. Guthrie
...Spears v. Johnson, 859 F.2d 853, 855 (11th Cir.1988), vacated in part on other grounds, 876 F.2d 1485 (11th Cir.1989); Woodson v. Fulton, 614 F.2d 940, 941 (4th Cir.1980). Second, class members may bring individual actions when they seek money damages. Spears, 859 F.2d at 854; Norris v. Slo......
- Loudermilk v. Lafayette Springs Enterprise