*1 alienage ment discrimination based on status,
non-citizen Committee is of EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNI- legislation the view that the instant must COMMISSION, TY do so. Plaintiff-Appellant, 682, Sess., H.R.Rep. Cong., No. pt. 99th 2d v. I reprinted at Cong. U.S.Code COMPANY, INC., The ERECTION & Admin. News 5674. Defendant-Appellee. The reasoning only reported other case, decision of relevance 89-35131. LU- I.S.D., LAC Pasadena does not material- United States Appeals, Court of petitioners F.Supp. assist here. 662 Ninth Circuit. subsequent as modified in opinion declining grant permanent injunction, F.Supp. Argued and Submitted March 1990. (S.D.Tex.1987). The district Decided March preliminarily enjoined LULAC employer terminating from employees alien who had
supplied security false social numbers on employment applications
their and who irreparable
would suffer harm in their abil-
ity to find employment if they were they
terminated applica- before could file
tions for temporary resident status. 662
F.Supp. at 446-52. The court observed
that there would have been no need for the
false social security numbers if plain-
tiffs had been United States citizens. Id.
at 448. The district court in LULAC did
not discuss plaintiffs whether the were citi-
zens or “intending citizens” as defined in 1324b(a)(3)(B)
section of the Act. That is
the issue in this case. holding
Our in this case is limited to the
availability of remedies for discrimination
on the basis citizenship provided status Immigration
under the Reform and Control
Act of 1986. All parties agree that
petitioner properly pursued has other reme-
dies for discrimination on the basis of na- origin
tional under Title ofVII the Civil Act,
Rights 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2 seq. el §§
AFFIRMED.
*2
for an
the motion
granting
I am ...
Washing-
So
E.E.O.C.,
Franklin,
D.
Estelle
and or-
consent decree
sealing the
order
D.C.,
plaintiff-appellant.
ton,
for
der.
Rink-
Oles,
Sales,
Morrison &
M.
Michel
of October
Order
The court’s
RT at 6.
defendant-appellee.
Wash.,
Seattle,
er,
the decree
sealing of
the
that
1988 stated
justice” and
the
of
the interests
“in
part:
in relevant
stated
Con-
access to
may have
person
[the
No
of
order
further
without
sent Decree]
WRIGHT, REINHARDT
Before
seeking
party
Any interested
this Court.
Judges.
O’SCANNLAIN, Circuit
contents
or its
of the Decree
inspection
to The
days written notice
give 21
must
ORDER
the
Company and
Commission
sealing of a
challenges the
file and dem-
appeal
the
to review
This
the desire
of
court
the district
parties
to the
Because
decree.
Court
to the
consent
onstrate
sealing
the
any
supporting
articulate
adequate
failed
full and
RE-
decree,
REVERSE
we
the
request.
of
the
the court
instructions
MAND
at 1-2.
Order
findings.
reasoning and
articulate its
the
to amend
then moved
EEOC
The
59(e),
to Fed.R.Civ.P.
judgment
FACTS
On
decree.
the consent
unseal
seeking
Em-
Equal
the
appellant,
May,
In
the
denied
court
December
(EEOC),
Commission
Opportunity
ployment
explana-
order
by minute
motion
action
discrimination
employment
filed
tion.
under
appellee
against
1964,42
Act of
Rights
Civil
of the
VII
Title
ANALYSIS
alleged
EEOC
The
seq.
et
2000e
U.S.C. §
name
misused
had
employer
appeal that
contends
that
EEOC
The
its collective
in
procedures
referral
consent
quest
court’s
with Ironworkers
agreement
right of
bargaining
law
public’s common
violates
discriminating
issue
Local Union
cannot determine
We
access.
any
workers.
against black
to articulate
failure
court’s
given the
underlying its deci
findings
reasoning or
following
substantial
October
In
decision
Our
decree.
seal the
sion to
parties
negotiations,
settlement
v. United
Broadcasting Co.
Valley
agreement
reached
tentative
(9th Cir.
Court, 798 F.2d
District
That
a consent
of
form
in the
remand.
1986), compels us
provision.
a nondisclosure
contained
addressed
Broadcasting, we
Valley
unac-
provision
nondisclosure
The
trial.
of a criminal
context
in the
this issue
of the General
Office
EEOC
ceptable
pro-
civil
argued that
might be
Although it
parties
Washington, D.C.
Counsel
different
considerations
present
ceedings
and have
provision
agreed to strike
case
prosecutions,
in criminal
than those
on motion
sealing decided
of
question
enlightenment
provides
authority
court.1
the district
Accordingly,
distinction.
this
argu-
following oral
27,1988,
October
On
Valley
reasoning set forth
apply
we
granted
issue,
on the
Broadcasting.
stated:
to seal.
motion
addressed
Broadcasting, we
Valley
appropriate
is an
agree
I ...
in a
to records
access
public’s
suggestion
accepting
case
copying
purposes
trial for
criminal
entered.
confidentiality be
the order
and the
motion
denied
The court
tion.
de-
agreed to have
parties also
1. The
ruling.
appeal that
now
does
EEOC
mo-
hearing
necessity
fairness
for a
cide
videotaped
findings.
panel
various audio
exhibits from and
juris-
This
will retain
appeals
a criminal trial. Id. After consideration
diction over
this case.
access,
denying
the court’s reasons for
Attorney’s
requested by
fees
the Erec-
concluded that
the articulated concerns
tion
are denied.
*3
were
strong
insufficient to overcome the
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
presumption in
copying
favor of
access.
(citing
Id. at 1294
Nixon v. Warner Com
REINHARDT,
Judge,
Circuit
munications,
Inc.,
589, 599,
435 U.S.
98 concurring
part
dissenting
part:
and
1306, 1312,
(1978)).
S.Ct.
pany’s
justify the
serve to
significant”
icies cannot
important
“very
litigation
all
order.
“the
end
serve
would
difficulties,”
all of
animosity and
made
Second,
sealing the con-
issued
harm
potential
references
vague
its
reason for
It offered
sent
of the terms
knowledge
which
any factual
there
Nor
actions.
“competitive
to its
cause
could
supported
have
could
record
59(e)
the Rule
response to
advantage.” In
*4
announcing its
In
action.
court’s
district
that
Company stated
Erection
motion, The
merely
judge
decision, the district
infor-
specific
more
of
“any dissemination
case
appropriate
is an
“this
that
stated
nonmonetary
monetary
the
on
mation
of
the order
that
suggestion
the
accepting
the distinct
has
of the
aspects
Subsequently,
entered.”
confidentiality be
The
consequences for
of adverse
possibility
judg-
amend
or
to alter
moved
EEOC
the
could become
Company, and
Erection
59(e). The district
Rule
to
ment
be
to
lawsuits
for additional
grounds
order,
the motion
denied
court, minute
by
Compa-
However,
Erection
The
brought.”
any additional
judgment
amend
to
support
to
any rationale
to offer
ny failed
comment.
argu-
oral
At
claim,
any facts.
let alone
its
nor
its initial
time of
at the
Neither
on
to
responded
questioning
ment, counsel
59(e)
did
motion
the Rule
of
its
of
denial
competition
if its
stating
by
this issue
seal-
a
indicate reason
district
the
an
Company had
The Erection
knew that
However,
not the
was
it
ing the
what
program and
action
affirmative
do
it failed to
fault
court’s
district
company
place the
costs, it would
program
no factual
simply contained
record
so—the
However,
disadvantage.
competitive
at a
sealing order.
of a
issuance
the
as-
a
merely
flat
made
again counsel
once
of
in favor
strong presumption
the
Given
explana-
logical
no
presented
She
sertion.
ad-
disclosure, “the considerations
full
adoption
linkage
between
tion for
justify
not
do
by the district
vanced
a
program
action
an affirmative
of
right
public’s
placed
on
restraint
advantage and,
competitive
in
decline
—
Id.
judicial records.”
copy
inspect
to
any factual
to
reference
no
again, made
at
reality,
record.
matter,
in or out
ar-
two
presents
Company
The Erection
Company’s
Erection
The
knowledge by
posi-
its
of
appeal
guments
training
hiring goals
its
competitors of
be sealed.
should
the settlement
tion that
impact
absolutely
have
would
program
a
reached tenta-
that it had
First, it asserts
en-
ability to
Company’s
on The
counsel
local
with
agreement
tive
argu-
The
bidding.
competitive
gage in
when
surprised
was
the EEOC
Company
The Erection
by
presented
ment
fi-
Washington denied
Counsel
General
to frivolous.
close
is
tentative
nature
The
approval.
nal
ais
consent
EEOC
Finally, an
course,
is, of
level
lower
at the
agreement
only because
not
public business
matter
irrelevant.
wholly
which
a court
approved
it is a judgment
agree-
final
that the
times
at all
aware
be
but also
continuing jurisdiction,
retains
by EEOC’s
authorized
only be
could
ment
mechanism
effective
an
constitutes
cause it
ob-
Counsel
The General
Counsel.
General
agency’s
public
monitor
public to
for the
object
provi-
right to
viously had
See,
public task.
a vital
performance
fact,
agreement.
in the
sion
Manage
Financial
v. Standard
e.g., FTC.
not
provision, he
nondisclosure
spect
(1st
Cir.
830 F.2d
Corp.,
object, but he
right to
only had
making
(“The appropriateness
1987)
According to
to do so.
entirely correct
is accentuated
files accessible
prohibits
policy
counsel, EEOC
EEOC’s
party:
is a
government
cases where
de-
consent
provisions
nondisclosure
circumstances,
public’s
decision,
right
such
but dissent from the order of re-
know what the
branch is about
executive
mand.
right
coalesces with
concomitant
of citi
I should add that there is another issue
zenry
appraise
judicial branch.”);
before us. This case
growing
illustrates a
Corp.
Brown & Williamson Tobacco
v.
process
abuse of the
sanctions
counsel.
FTC,
(6th Cir.1983),
710 F.2d
1178-79
The Erection
asked for attorneys
denied,
cert.
465 U.S.
S.Ct.
fees under Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of
(1984) (noting
mandate to civil and whether obtaining it is appropriate remedies when Similarly,
the law is violated.
has a to know whether the courts are
properly resolving discrimination claims. important it people
Since is be able to the conduct of institutions,
assess presumption weighs even more heavily in favor of access than in the ordi MARCIA, Plaintiff-Appellant, Lee R. nary civil case. remand, judge On the district will have no choice but to reverse order sealing SULLIVAN,* Louis W. Secretary of
the consent decree. In Valley Broadcast- Services, Health Human ing, proper we established procedure Defendant-Appellee. addressing cases of this nature. We No. 88-15504. permit did not remand to judge the district articulate specific additional or more rea- United Court of Appeals, access; denying simply sons Ninth Circuit. his order. versed The Erection Com- Submitted Dec. 1989.** pany opportunities had explain several desiring its reasons for the decree to be April 1990. Decided sealed, apparent, explanations and as is Moreover, offered were without merit. noat time did the offer company any factu- support
al material in request. of its Un- circumstances,
der these possi- there is no
ble for remanding the ease. simply
The record cannot a sealing short, only procedure
order. is the unwarranted, here
used but it is contrary binding precedent. reasons, For these I
concur the reversal of the district court’s * Louis W. 34(a); Dr. Sullivan Fed.R.App.P. has been substituted See 4; Ninth Circuit Rule 34- Otis R. Bowen 43(c)(1). Fed.R.App.P. Advisory Circuit Committee Note to Rules 34-4, (2). 34-1 to ** panel granted Appellant’s motion to submit argument without oral on December