Albert Rauls and Trulie Hammond v. Baker County, Georgia, Board of Education, 445 F.2d 825

Albert Rauls and Trulie Hammond v. Baker County, Georgia, Board of Education

445 F.2d 825

5th Cir.

1971

Check Treatment

Albert RAULS and Trulie Hammond, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BAKER COUNTY, GEORGIA, BOARD OF EDUCATION, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 71-1271.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 29, 1971.

Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied Sept. 14, 1971.

445 F.2d 825

of interest for the time the back pay was wrongfully withheld from them is only equitable.’ * * * Both at law and equity, interest is allowed on money due. * * *

“From the inception of the discrimination American Can was unjustly enriched, and the female employees were damaged. During the entire period American Can has had the use of the money, and therefore equity and justice require payment by way of interest for its use. The interest should be allowed from the dates of the underpayment.” (Citations omitted.)

Id. at 922.

Daisy argues strenuously that American Can is not controlling here because Daisy had a good faith doubt as to its obligation to pay the men and the women the same wage rates, and because the Secretary delayed in filing and prosecuting the suit.

The short answers to these arguments are that a good faith doubt was also present in American Can, and that employees should not be penalized for the failure of the Secretary to prosecute diligently an action. The equities here lie with the employees. See,

Shultz v. Mistletoe Express Service, Inc., 434 F.2d 1267 (10th Cir. 1971); ; .

Finally, we have carefully reviewed the record and the briefs and are convinced that the trial court‘s findings of fact are amply supported by the evidence and that the conclusions drawn from these facts are in accordance with established law. See,

Shultz v. American Can Company—Dixie Products, 424 F.2d 356, 360, n.6 (8th Cir. 1970).

The judgment of the District Court is affirmed as to all issues except for the failure to award pre-judgment interest. The case is remanded to the District Court for entry of pre-judgment interest on the award of back pay. Costs will be taxed to Daisy.

C. B. Rogers, Stuart E. Eizenstat, Atlanta, Ga., for plaintiffs-appellants.

Frank Twitty, Camilla, Ga., for defendants-appellees.

Before COLEMAN, SIMPSON and RONEY, Circuit Judges.

BY THE COURT:

This appeal was taken from the refus-al of the lower court to enjoin, temporarily or permanently, the dismissal from employment, and to require reinstatement with back pay to two Negro faculty members of the appellee school system, who were refused re-employment for the 1970-71 school year under the claimed application (system-wide instead of as to each facility as the N.D.Ga. decree required) of the 50% to 150% ratio of faculty quotient approved by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia in civil action Number 12972,

United States of America v. The State of Georgia et al., by its order of December 17, 1969. The district court failed and refused to require the application of the uniform provisions of our decision in , .¹

The judgment² of the lower court is reversed and the cause is remanded with directions that the lower court forthwith require that the defendants-appellees (a) reinstate the appellants Rauls and Hammond to their former faculty positions, (b) award the appellants back pay in full for the 1970-71 school year, and (c) to implement fully the uniform provisions of our decision in

Singleton, supra, insofar as said uniform provisions relate to desegregation of faculty and other staff. Any future reduction in force involving these appellants or any other faculty or staff in the Baker County, Georgia School System shall be accomplished in accordance with the uniform provisions of Singleton and not otherwise.

The mandate shall issue forthwith.

Reversed in part and remanded with directions.

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC

PER CURIAM:

The Petition for Rehearing is denied and no member of this panel nor Judge in regular active service on the Court having requested that the Court be polled on rehearing en banc, (Rule 35 Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure; Local Fifth Circuit Rule 12) the Petition for Rehearing En Banc is denied.

Notes

There was an alternative claim below and a consequent claim of error on appeal that the discharges were effected without procedural due process of law, brought under Title 42, U.S.C., Secs. 1981, 1983 and 2000d, and Title 28, U.S.C., Sec. 1343(1) (3). In addition to the relief sought for violation of Singleton standards, this claim included demands for punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and expenses. Counsel for appellants expressly stated to us at oral argument that this claimed error was in the alternative and need not be considered if we reversed for violation of Singleton.

The Baker County, Georgia Board of Education, and its school district are among the 81 counties included in and covered by proceedings in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, No. 12972, United States of America v. The State of Georgia, et al. That statewide school desegregation case was the subject of a recent appeal to this Court, , in which this Court remanded with directions that the district court require the defendants (including of course Baker County, Georgia) to implement fully the uniform provisions of the decision in , supra, insofar as said uniform provisions relate to desegregation of faculty and other staff, school construction and site selection, and attendance outside system of residence. The district court was also directed to require the defendants in No. 12972 to constitute and implement student assignment plans in compliance with the principles established in , insofar as they related to the issues there present. See also our opinion in the earlier appeal in .