finding that the city officials should be “directed to . . . allow the farmworkers’ housing project to tie into the City’s water and sewer system”
How later courts described this case
- finding that the city officials should be “directed to . . . allow the farmworkers’ housing project to tie into the City’s water and sewer system”
- declining to find district court's refusal to certify a class to be erroneous because even without class certification, "the requested injunctive and declaratory relief will benefit not only the individual appellants .. . but all other persons subject to the practice under attack"
- explaining that a district court may properly deny class certification where a class is not needed to achieve the same result
- noting that the plaintiff presented a prima facie case of racial discrimination because “minority citizens’ requests [for government services] were refused while white citizens’ requests were granted”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
CLARK, Circuit Judge
(concurring):
I agree with the majority that the district court’s finding of “no satisfactory evidence of discrimination” was clearly erroneous. As Judge Thornber-ry’s opinion ably documents, the record demands the conclusion that the City of Delray Beach dealt with persons living outside of its boundaries on a discriminatory basis which was unsupported by any rational relationship to a valid municipal purpose. Such a course of conduct denies equal protection. I conceive it to be unnecessary and unwise to apply the stringent principles of Hawkins v. Town of Shaw to a case such as this. Many constitutionally healthy municipal actions treating with those residing outside its boundaries may have the effect of benefiting one race. The application of the irrebuttable statistical presumption and compelling interest test rationales of Hawkins are unwarranted in such a nonresident context.
I concur in the result.