COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES et al. v. DAVIS et al.
No. 77-1553.
Argued December 5, 1978
Decided March 27, 1979
BreNNAN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which White, Marshall, BlackmtjN, and Stevens, JJ., joined. Stewart, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which RehNQUist, J., joined, post, p. 634. Powell, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Burger, C. J., joined, post, p. 636.
William F. Stewart argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the briefs was John H. Larson.
A. Thomas Hunt argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief were Timothy B. Flynn and Walter Cochran-Bond.
Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed by Qeorge Agnost, Burk E. Delventhal, and Diane L. Hermann for the City and County of San Francisco; by Stephen Warren Solomon and Ralph B. Saltsman for the California Organization of Police and Sheriffs; and by Robert E. Williams, Douglas S. McDowell, and Jeffrey A. Norris for the Equal Employment Advisory Council.
Briefs of afnici curiae urging affirmance were filed by Bruce J. Ennis, Burt Neuborne, E. Richard Larson, Fred Okrand, and Paul Hoffman for the American Civil Liberties Union et ah; by Charles A. Bane, Thomas D. Barr, Norman Redlich, Robert A. Murphy, Norman J. Chachkin, Richard T. Seymour, and Richard S. Kohn for the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law; and by Jack Greenberg, 0. Peter Sherwood, and Eric Schnapper for the N. A. A. C. P. Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.
Briefs of amici curiae were filed by Robert A. Helman, Arnold Forster, 'Jeffrey P. Sinensky, and Richard A. Weisz for the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith; by Vilma S. Martinez, Morris J. Bailer, and Joel G. Contreras for the Incorporated Mexican American Government Employees et al.; and by Ronald A. Zumbrun and John H. Findley for the Pacific Legal Foundation.
Mr. Justice Brennan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The District Court for the Central District of California determined in 1973 that hiring practices of the County of Los Angeles respecting the County Fire Department violated 42 U. S. C. § 1981. The District Court in an unreported opinion and order permanently enjoined all future discrimination and entered a remedial hiring order. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case for further consideration. 566 F. 2d 1334 (1977). We granted certiorari to consider questions presented as to whether the use of arbitrary employment criteria, racially exclusionary in operation, but not purposefully discriminatory, violates 42 U. S. C. § 1981 and, if so, whether the imposition of minimum hiring quotas for fully qualified minority applicants is an appropriate remedy in this employment discrimination case. 437 IT. S. 903 (1978). We now find that the controversy has become moot during the pend-ency of this litigation. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals and direct that court to modify its remand so as to direct the District Court to dismiss the action.
I
In 1969, persons seeking employment with the Los Angeles County Fire Department were required to take a written civil service examination and a physical-agility test. Applicants were ranked according to their performance on the two tests and selected for job interviews on the basis of their scores. Those who passed their oral interviews were then placed on a hiring-eligibility list. Because blacks and Hispanics did poorly on the written examination, this method of screening job applicants proved to have a disparate impact on minority hiring.
The County of Los Angeles has not used the written civil service examination as a ranking device since 1969. The county desisted, prior to the commencement of this litigation, because it felt that the test had a disparate adverse impact on minority hiring, because it feared that this impact might violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 253, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 2000e et seq., and because it wished, in any event, to increase minority representation in the Fire Department. See App. to Brief for Respondents 1-4.
In 1971, the county replaced the 1969 procedure with a new method of screening job applicants. A new written test was designed expressly to eliminate cultural bias. The test was to be given and graded on a pass-fail basis for the sole purpose of screening out illiterates. Five hundred of the passing applicants were to be selected at random for oral interviews and physical-agility tests. Passing applicants were to be ranked solely on the basis of the results of the physical-agility test and the oral interview. See 566 F. 2d, at 1346 (Wallace J., dissenting).
An examination was conducted, pursuant to this plan, in January 1972. Ninety-seven percent of the applicants passed the written test. There was no disparate adverse impact on minorities and this use of the written examination has not been challenged in this litigation.
After administration of the written test, but before the random selection could be made, an action was filed in state court against the county charging that the random-selection process violated provisions of the county charter and civil service regulations. The county was enjoined from using the random-selection method pending trial on the merits. See ibid.
For a time the hiring process came to a halt. The eligibility list drawn from the 1969 examination had been exhausted. The county was unable to devise a nonrandom method of screening job applicants and the county lacked the resources to interview all of the applicants who had passed the 1972 examination.
As a consequence of this unintended hiring freeze, vacancies in the County Fire Department increased and the manpower needs of the Department became critical. Finally, to break the logjam, the County Department of Personnel proposed to interview those applicants who had received the top 544 scores on the 1972 written test. Of this number, 492 were white, 10 black, and 33 Mexican-American. The applicants were not to be ranked on the basis of the test results, however, and the interviews were not intended to eliminate the remaining applicants from consideration. The purpose was solely to expedite the hiring of sufficient firefighters to meet the immediate urgent requirements of the Fire Department. See ibid. But when minority representatives objected to the plan, it was abandoned, uneffectuated, prior to the commencement of this litigation.
In January 1973, respondents, representing present and future black and Mexican-American applicants to the Fire Department, brought a class action against the County of Los Angeles, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles, and the Civil Service Commission of the County of Los Angeles (petitioners). Respondents charged that petitioners’ 1969 hiring procedures violated 42 U. S. C. § 1981. Respondents also charged that petitioners’ plan to interview those applicants who had received the top 544 scores on the 1972 written test violated 42 U. S. C. § 1981.
The District Court found that petitioners had acted without discriminatory intent. Nonetheless, the District Court held that because the 1969 and 1972 written examinations had not been validated as predictive of job performance, petitioners’ employment practices had violated 42 U. S. C. § 1981. The court permanently enjoined all future discrimination and mandated good-faith affirmative-action efforts. The court also entered a remedial hiring order whereby at least 20% of all new firefighter recruits were required to be black and another 20% were required to be Mexican-American until the percentage of blacks and Mexican-Amerieans in the Los Angeles County Fire Department was commensurate with their percentage in Los Angeles County.'
The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court with respect to the 1969 examination: The Court of Appeals held that respondents did not have standing to seek relief on account of the 1969 civil service examination because the plaintiff class, as certified by the District Court, consisted only of present and future job applicants and did not include any persons who had in any way been affected by the 1969 test.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, however, the District Court’s holding with respect to the 1972 proposal to use ah unvalidated civil service examination.
II
The only question remaining in this case, then, concerns petitioners’ 1972 plan to interview the top 544 scorers on the 1972 written examination in order to fill temporary emergency manpower needs. We find that this controversy became moot during the pendency of this litigation.
“Simply stated, a case is moot when the issues presented are no longer 'live’ or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.” Powell v. McCormack, 395 U. S. 486, 496 (1969). We recognize that, as a general rule, “voluntary cessation of allegedly illegal conduct does not deprive the tribunal of power to hear and determine the case, i. e., does not make the case moot.” United States v. W. T. Grant Co., 345 U. S. 629, 632 (1953). But jurisdiction, properly acquired, may abate if the case becomes moot because
(1) it can be said with assurance that “there is no reasonable expectation . . .” that the alleged violation will recur, see id., at 633; see also SEC v. Medical Committee For Human Rights, 404 U. S. 403 (1972), and
(2) interim relief or events have completely and irrevocably eradicated the effects of the alleged violation. See, e. g., DeFunis v. Odegaard, 416 U. S. 312 (1974); Indiana Employment Security Div. v. Burney, 409 U. S. 540 (1973).
When both conditions are satisfied it may be said that the case is moot because neither party has a legally cognizable interest in the final determination of the underlying questions of fact and law.
The burden of demonstrating mootness “is a heavy one.” See United States v. W. T. Grant Co., supra, at 632-633. Nevertheless, that burden is fully met on this record.
The first condition is met because there can be no reasonable expectation that petitioners will use an unvalidated civil service examination for the purposes contemplated in 1972. Petitioners have not used an unvalidated written examination to rank job applicants since 1969. Petitioners considered employing such a procedure in 1972 only because of a temporary emergency shortage of firefighters and only because petitioners then had no alternative means of screening job applicants. Those conditions were unique, are no longer present, and are unlikely to recur because, since the commencement of this litigation, petitioners have succeeded in instituting an efficient and nonrandom method of screening job applicants and increasing minority representation in the Fire Department. The new procedures are as follows:
To fill each group of vacancies petitioners interview 500 applicants who passed their written examination, including the highest scoring 300 whites, 100 blacks, and 100 Mexican-Americans. The number interviewed is several times the number of actual vacancies. The interviewers rate each of these applicants on his or her merits without regard to race or national origin. Thereafter applicants are hired solely on the basis of the score given by the interviewer, again without regard to race or national origin. Those hired are not hired from separate lists, no quotas are used, and the same rating standards are applied to all applicants. The interviewers are not authorized to give extra points because of an applicant’s race or national origin, but are directed only to be alert for talented minority applicants. This procedure has resulted every year since 1972 in a minority hiring level which consistently, though by varying amounts, exceeded 50%.
There has been no suggestion by any of the parties, nor is there any reason to believe, that petitioners would significantly alter their present hiring practices if the injunction were dissolved. See also Brief for N. A. A. C. P. Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., as Amicus Curiae 7. A fortiori, there is no reason to believe that petitioners would replace their present hiring procedures with procedures that they regarded as unsatisfactory even before the commencement of this litigation. Under these circumstances we believe that this aspect of the case has “lost its character as a present, live controversy of the kind that must exist if '[the Court is] to avoid advisory opinions on abstract propositions of law.” Hall v. Beals, 396 U. S. 45, 48 (1969).
The second condition of mootness is met because petitioners’ compliance during the five years since 1973 with the District Court’s decree and their hiring of over 50% of new recruits from minorities has completely cured any discriminatory effects of the 1972 proposal. Indeed, it is extremely doubtful, from this record, that the 1972 proposal had any discriminatory effects to redress. The plan, it must be remembered, was never carried out. As a consequence, there has been no finding that any minority job applicant was excluded from employment as a result of the proposal. Cf. Franks v. Bowman Transportation Co., 424 U. S. 747 (1976). Nor has there been a finding that any prospective minority job applicant was deterred from applying for employment with the Fire Department as a result of the proposed application of the examination. Cf. Teamsters v. United States, 431 U. S. 324, 365-367 (1977). Nor has there been a finding that the 1972 proposal reflected a racial animus that might have tainted other employment practices. Cf. Keyes v. School Dist. No. 1, Denver, Colo., 413 U. S. 189 (1973). On the contrary the District Court expressly found:
“Neither Defendants nor their officials engaged in employment practices with a willful or conscious purpose of excluding blacks and Mexican-Americans from employment at the Los Angeles County Fire Department. To the contrary, several of Defendants’ officials engaged in efforts designed to increase the minority representation in the Los Angeles County Fire Department.” App. 41.
All of these circumstances, taken together, persuade us that, whatever might have been the case at the time of trial, the controversy has become moot during the pendency of this litigation. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand to that court for entry of an appropriate order directing the District Court to dismiss the action as moot. See United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U. S. 36, 39 (1960).
So ordered.
Revised Stat. § 1977, 42 U. S. C. § 1981, provides:
“All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.”
Despite the fact that the Mexican-American population of Los Angeles County was approximately double the size of the black population, the District Court ordered identical accelerated hiring for both groups due to its finding that the Fire Department’s 5'7"' height requirement for job applicants was a valid requirement for employment and that this height requirement had the effect of eliminating 41% of the otherwise eligible Mexican-American applicants from consideration. See 566 F. 2d 1334, 1337 (1977). The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court in this respect and ordered a relative increase in the Mexican-American hiring quota. In light of our disposition on grounds of mootness we do not consider this issue.
Respondents contend that their failure to include past applicants in the class was a “mere oversight” which should not be used to vitiate the District Court’s decree. But respondents did not cross petition for modification of the judgment of the Court of Appeals reversing the District Court with respect to the 1969 test. The issue of oversight, as a consequence, is not properly before us. See FEA v. Algonquin SNG, Inc., 426 U. S. 548, 560 n. 11 (1976). We intimate no view whether respondents may seek, despite the oversight, to bring a new lawsuit with new and proper parties. See Gibson v. Supercargoes & Checkers, 543 F. 2d 1259, 1264 (CA9 1976).
The parties stipulated that approximately 100 vacancies occur in the ranks of firemen each year, and testimony at trial established that 187 applicants were placed on an eligibility list following the 1969 test. Based on this evidence the Court of Appeals concluded that the 1969 list had been exhausted before plaintiffs applied for employment as firefighters in October 1971. See 566 F. 2d, at 1338.
Moreover, there appears to be no possibility that persons hired pursuant to the District Court’s order will be terminated in consequence of our vacation of the Court of Appeals’ judgment as moot. Cf. DeFunis v. Odegaard, 416 U. S. 312 (1974).
Of necessity our decision “vacating the judgment of the Court of Appeals deprives that court’s opinion of precedential effect . . . .” O’Connor v. Donaldson, 422 U. S. 563, 577-578, n. 12 (1975). See also A. L. Mechling Barge Lines v. United States, 368 U. S. 324, 329-330 (1961).
U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals U.S. Court of International Trade U.S. Court of Claims, Court of Federal Claims U.S. Court of Military Appeals, renamed as Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces U.S. Court of Military Review U.S. Court of Veterans Appeals U.S. Customs Court U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit U.S. Tax Court Temporary Emergency U.S. Court of Appeals U.S. Court for China U.S. Consular Courts U.S. Commerce Court Territorial Supreme Court Territorial Appellate Court Territorial Trial Court Emergency Court of Appeals Supreme Court of the District of Columbia Bankruptcy Court U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit (includes the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia but not the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, which has local jurisdiction) Alabama Middle U.S. District Court Alabama Northern U.S. District Court Alabama Southern U.S. District Court Alaska U.S. District Court Arizona U.S. District Court Arkansas Eastern U.S. District Court Arkansas Western U.S. District Court California Central U.S. District Court California Eastern U.S. District Court California Northern U.S. District Court California Southern U.S. District Court Colorado U.S. District Court Connecticut U.S. District Court Delaware U.S. District Court District Of Columbia U.S. District Court Florida Middle U.S. District Court Florida Northern U.S. District Court Florida Southern U.S. District Court Georgia Middle U.S. District Court Georgia Northern U.S. District Court Georgia Southern U.S. District Court Guam U.S. District Court Hawaii U.S. District Court Idaho U.S. District Court Illinois Central U.S. District Court Illinois Northern U.S. District Court Illinois Southern U.S. District Court Indiana Northern U.S. District Court Indiana Southern U.S. District Court Iowa Northern U.S. District Court Iowa Southern U.S. District Court Kansas U.S. District Court Kentucky Eastern U.S. District Court Kentucky Western U.S. District Court Louisiana Eastern U.S. District Court Louisiana Middle U.S. District Court Louisiana Western U.S. District Court Maine U.S. District Court Maryland U.S. District Court Massachusetts U.S. District Court Michigan Eastern U.S. District Court Michigan Western U.S. District Court Minnesota U.S. District Court Mississippi Northern U.S. District Court Mississippi Southern U.S. District Court Missouri Eastern U.S. District Court Missouri Western U.S. District Court Montana U.S. District Court Nebraska U.S. District Court Nevada U.S. District Court New Hampshire U.S. District Court New Jersey U.S. District Court New Mexico U.S. District Court New York Eastern U.S. District Court New York Northern U.S. District Court New York Southern U.S. District Court New York Western U.S. District Court North Carolina Eastern U.S. District Court North Carolina Middle U.S. District Court North Carolina Western U.S. District Court North Dakota U.S. District Court Northern Mariana Islands U.S. District Court Ohio Northern U.S. District Court Ohio Southern U.S. District Court Oklahoma Eastern U.S. District Court Oklahoma Northern U.S. District Court Oklahoma Western U.S. District Court Oregon U.S. District Court Pennsylvania Eastern U.S. District Court Pennsylvania Middle U.S. District Court Pennsylvania Western U.S. District Court Puerto Rico U.S. District Court Rhode Island U.S. District Court South Carolina U.S. District Court South Dakota U.S. District Court Tennessee Eastern U.S. District Court Tennessee Middle U.S. District Court Tennessee Western U.S. District Court Texas Eastern U.S. District Court Texas Northern U.S. District Court Texas Southern U.S. District Court Texas Western U.S. District Court Utah U.S. District Court Vermont U.S. District Court Virgin Islands U.S. District Court Virginia Eastern U.S. District Court Virginia Western U.S. District Court Washington Eastern U.S. District Court Washington Western U.S. District Court West Virginia Northern U.S. District Court West Virginia Southern U.S. District Court Wisconsin Eastern U.S. District Court Wisconsin Western U.S. District Court Wyoming U.S. District Court Louisiana U.S. District Court Washington U.S. District Court West Virginia U.S. District Court Illinois Eastern U.S. District Court South Carolina Eastern U.S. District Court South Carolina Western U.S. District Court Alabama U.S. District Court U.S. District Court for the Canal Zone Georgia U.S. District Court Illinois U.S. District Court Indiana U.S. District Court Iowa U.S. District Court Michigan U.S. District Court Mississippi U.S. District Court Missouri U.S. District Court New Jersey Eastern U.S. District Court (East Jersey U.S. District Court) New Jersey Western U.S. District Court (West Jersey U.S. District Court) New York U.S. District Court North Carolina U.S. District Court Ohio U.S. District Court Pennsylvania U.S. District Court Tennessee U.S. District Court Texas U.S. District Court Virginia U.S. District Court Norfolk U.S. District Court Wisconsin U.S. District Court Kentucky U.S. Distrcrict Court New Jersey U.S. District Court California U.S. District Court Florida U.S. District Court Arkansas U.S. District Court District of Orleans U.S. District Court State Supreme Court State Appellate Court State Trial Court Eastern Circuit (of the United States) Middle Circuit (of the United States) Southern Circuit (of the United States) Alabama U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Alabama Arkansas U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Arkansas California U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of California Connecticut U.S. Circuit for the District of Connecticut Delaware U.S. Circuit for the District of Delaware Florida U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Florida Georgia U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Georgia Illinois U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Illinois Indiana U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Indiana Iowa U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Iowa Kansas U.S. Circuit for the District of Kansas Kentucky U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Kentucky Louisiana U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Louisiana Maine U.S. Circuit for the District of Maine Maryland U.S. Circuit for the District of Maryland Massachusetts U.S. Circuit for the District of Massachusetts Michigan U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Michigan Minnesota U.S. Circuit for the District of Minnesota Mississippi U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Mississippi Missouri U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Missouri Nevada U.S. Circuit for the District of Nevada New Hampshire U.S. Circuit for the District of New Hampshire New Jersey U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of New Jersey New York U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of New York North Carolina U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of North Carolina Ohio U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Ohio Oregon U.S. Circuit for the District of Oregon Pennsylvania U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Pennsylvania Rhode Island U.S. Circuit for the District of Rhode Island South Carolina U.S. Circuit for the District of South Carolina Tennessee U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Tennessee Texas U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Texas Vermont U.S. Circuit for the District of Vermont Virginia U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Virginia West Virginia U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of West Virginia Wisconsin U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Wisconsin Wyoming U.S. Circuit for the District of Wyoming Circuit Court of the District of Columbia Nebraska U.S. Circuit for the District of Nebraska Colorado U.S. Circuit for the District of Colorado Washington U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Washington Idaho U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Idaho Montana U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Montana Utah U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Utah South Dakota U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of South Dakota North Dakota U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of North Dakota Oklahoma U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Oklahoma Court of Private Land Claims United States Supreme Court