Cooper v. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond

Supreme Court of the United States · 1984 · Civil Procedure
467 U.S. 867 (1984)
Updated
Civil ProcedureClass ActionsRes JudicataCollateral EstoppelRule 23class action preclusionclaim preclusionissue preclusion

Facts

The EEOC sued the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond alleging discriminatory employment policies and practices, and four employees intervened, asserting individual race discrimination claims and seeking to represent a class of black employees. The District Court certified a class, gave opt-out notice stating that class members would be bound by the judgment, and the Baxter petitioners received notice but did not opt out. In the Cooper litigation, the courts ultimately rejected the class pattern-or-practice claim, although the District Court had separately adjudicated the intervening plaintiffs' individual claims. The Baxter petitioners later filed a separate Section 1981 action alleging that each had individually been denied promotions because of race, and the Bank argued that the prior class judgment barred those claims.

Issue

Does a judgment in a class action determining that an employer did not engage in a general pattern or practice of racial discrimination against the class preclude an absent class member from later bringing a separate individual action alleging specific racial discrimination by the employer? More specifically, what preclusive effect does the adverse class judgment have on individual claims not actually adjudicated in the class case?

Rule

A judgment in a properly entertained class action is binding on class members under ordinary principles of claim preclusion and issue preclusion. An adverse judgment rejecting a classwide pattern-or-practice discrimination claim bars later relitigation of that class claim and precludes relitigation of the issue whether the employer engaged in such a pattern or practice during the relevant period, but it does not by itself dispose of separate individual discrimination claims that were not adjudicated.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

  • The court's holding and reasoning
  • Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
  • 10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
Sign up free to see more →
Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
A certified Rule 23 class of Latino employees at Harbor Point Logistics in San Diego sued alleging the company maintained a pattern or practice of denying promotions because of race during 2019-2022. Final judgment was entered for Harbor Point, and absent class member Diego Alvarez had received notice and did not opt out.

Diego now files a new class action in federal court on behalf of the same group alleging the company maintained the same pattern or practice of discriminatory promotions during 2019-2022. What is the strongest argument for dismissal?

Explanation. A judgment in a properly entertained class action binds class members under ordinary claim-preclusion principles. When the defendant wins, that judgment extinguishes the class claim and bars a later action on that same class claim. The majority distinguished this from separate individual claims not adjudicated; it did not permit a second class action repeating the same pattern-or-practice theory for the same period.