Campbell v. Tennessee Valley Authority
38 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 779, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19002, 613 F. Supp. 611 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A writ of mandamus will not be issued to compel a federal agency to comply with an EEOC order when that order is legally erroneous and grants a remedy that places a plaintiff in a better position than they would have occupied absent discrimination. Re-running a discriminatory selection process for a single position provides a full and complete remedy for multiple aggrieved applicants.
Facts:
- In June 1978, the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) announced an opening for a single position of Transmission Systems Maintenance Specialist.
- Billy M. Campbell, age 48, and Walter Parks, a Black male age 43, were among 22 employees who submitted formal applications for the position.
- TVA selected Larry McPeake, a white male under the age of 40, for the position.
- Both Campbell and Parks were not selected for the job.
Procedural Posture:
- Billy M. Campbell and Walter Parks each filed separate administrative EEO complaints with the TVA alleging discrimination in their nonselection for the same position.
- An EEOC complaints examiner found age discrimination against Campbell and recommended TVA re-conduct the selection process.
- A different EEOC complaints examiner found race and age discrimination against Parks and recommended he be retroactively promoted.
- TVA issued a final agency decision accepting both findings, removing the original selectee, and re-running the selection process.
- In the second, non-discriminatory selection process, TVA chose Walter Parks for the position and granted him a retroactive promotion.
- Campbell appealed TVA's final agency decision to the EEOC Commissioners.
- The EEOC Commissioners reversed TVA's decision, finding that re-running the selection was an improper remedy, and ordered TVA to retroactively promote Campbell with back pay and benefits.
- TVA refused to comply with the EEOC's order, issuing a supplemental decision finding that Parks had superior qualifications and Campbell would not have been selected even absent discrimination.
- The EEOC notified Campbell it would take no further action to enforce its decision.
- Campbell filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus in U.S. District Court to compel TVA to comply with the EEOC's order.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a plaintiff have a clear right to a writ of mandamus compelling a federal agency to comply with an EEOC order granting retroactive promotion and back pay, when the agency has already remedied the underlying discrimination by reconducting a non-discriminatory selection process for the single available position?
Opinions:
Majority - Edgar, District Judge.
No, a plaintiff does not have a clear right to a writ of mandamus to enforce an EEOC order that provides a remedy beyond what is necessary to make the plaintiff whole. Mandamus is an extraordinary and discretionary remedy that is inappropriate where the underlying right to relief is not clear. The purpose of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) is to make victims of discrimination whole by recreating the circumstances that would have existed but for the illegal discrimination. Here, TVA's action of reconducting the selection process free from discrimination provided Campbell with the exact opportunity he was initially denied—a fair chance to compete for the position. Granting the EEOC's requested relief of retroactive promotion would place Campbell in a better position than he would have occupied otherwise, as there is no guarantee he would have been selected over Parks in a fair competition. Because Campbell's remedy was full and complete when the selection process was re-run, he has not established the clear right to relief necessary for a writ of mandamus to issue.
Analysis:
This case establishes that the 'make whole' principle of anti-discrimination law does not entitle a victim to the job itself, but rather to the non-discriminatory opportunity to compete for it. In situations with multiple victims of discrimination for a single position, a procedurally fair, re-run selection process is deemed a sufficient and complete remedy. The decision also underscores the equitable and discretionary nature of mandamus, affirming that a court can look beyond an agency's final order to assess its legal validity before compelling compliance, thereby preventing a windfall for the plaintiff at the expense of another equally wronged party.
