# Edward L. KIRKLAND, Etc., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. the NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, Etc., Defendants-Appellants

> Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · December 10, 1975 · 531 F.2d 5

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9462515

## Case

- **Full name:** 11 Fair empl.prac.cas. 1253, 10 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 10,547 Edward L. Kirkland, Etc. v. the New York State Department of Correctional Services, Etc.
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
- **Decided:** December 10, 1975
- **Citations:** 531 F.2d 5; 10 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 10,547; 11 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1253; 1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 11530
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Kaufman
- **Judges:** Mansfield, Kaufman, Feinberg
- **Cited by:** 25 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9462515

## Opinion text

KAUFMAN, Chief Judge
(dissenting):
I concur in my brother Mansfield’s scholarly opinion. I should like to add the following thoughts, however. As Judge Mansfield’s opinion makes clear, this Court has traveled too far along the road of temporary “goals” as a remedy for past discrimination to permit a single panel to appear to reverse the course consistently followed. It is my view that we can retrace the steps *11 taken by previous panels of this Court only by an en banc, F.R.A.P. 35(a), or by a Supreme Court holding that our earlier decisions have been in error. I am still of the view that the en banc device is often cumbersome and unproductive of the definitive resolution for which it is invoked, see, e. g., Rodriguez v. McGinnis, 456 F.2d 79 (2d Cir. 1972) (en banc), rev’d sub nom. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 407 U.S. 919 , 92 S.Ct. 2459 , 32 L.Ed.2d 805 (1973). But, the issues in the present case are so sharply defined and our prior holdings so clearly applicable that an en banc would have achieved the goal of “maintaining] uniformity of [our] decisions.” F.R.A.P. 35(a).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9462515. Public record. Not legal advice.