Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Martin v. Wilks

Supreme Court of the United States · 1989 · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureJoinderInterventionPreclusionConsent DecreesRule 19Rule 24joinder

Facts

Earlier class actions by black plaintiffs against the City and the Board ended in consent decrees establishing race-conscious hiring and promotion goals in the fire department. White firefighters and their association objected to the decrees and unsuccessfully sought to intervene, and the Eleventh Circuit earlier noted they could file an independent Title VII suit. A different group of white firefighters later sued, alleging they were denied promotions in favor of less qualified black firefighters because the City and Board relied on those consent decrees. The defendants argued the suit was an impermissible collateral attack on the decrees, and the District Court ultimately dismissed on that basis insofar as the promotions were required by the decrees.

Issue

Whether white firefighters who were not parties to the earlier consent-decree proceedings are barred from bringing an independent discrimination suit challenging employment decisions taken pursuant to those decrees because they failed to intervene earlier. More broadly, the question is whether failure to intervene gives preclusive effect to a consent decree against nonparties.

Rule

A person cannot be deprived of legal rights in a proceeding to which he is not a party. Under the Federal Rules, a party seeking a judgment binding on another cannot obligate that person to intervene; the proper mechanism is joinder under Rule 19, not preclusion based on failure to intervene under Rule 24.

🔒

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

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Cleveland, a group of Latino police applicants sued the city and entered a federal consent decree requiring race-conscious hiring goals for patrol officers. Ethan Cole, a white applicant, read newspaper coverage of the case, chose not to intervene, and later sued the city alleging he was denied appointment because the city followed the decree.

Is Ethan's suit barred because he knew about the earlier case and failed to intervene?

Explanation. The majority held that a nonparty is generally not bound by a judgment or consent decree. Rule 24 intervention is permissive, not compulsory, so failure to intervene does not give the decree preclusive effect against a stranger to the litigation. If the parties wanted Ethan bound, they needed to join him rather than rely on his inaction.