Rule 68 Offers of Judgment: The Practices and Opinions of Experienced Civil Rights and Employment Discrimination Attorneys Thomas A. Eaton

7/30/2019 Rule 68 Offers of Judgment: The Practices and Opinions of Experienced Civil Rights and Employment Discriminatio

1/7

Digital Commons @ Georgia Law

Popular Media Faculty Scholarship

7-1-2007

Rule 68 Oers of Judgment: Te Practices andOpinions of Experienced Civil Rights and

Employment Discrimination AorneysTomas A. EatonUniversity of Georgia School of Law, [email protected]

Tis Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Digital Commons @ Georgia Law. It has been accepted for

inclusion in Popular Media by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Georgia Law. For more information, please contact

[email protected].

Repository CitationEaton, Tomas A., "Rule 68 Oers of Judgment: Te Practices and Opinions of Experienced Civil Rights and EmploymentDiscrimination Aorneys" (2007).Popular Media. Paper 4.hp://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/fac_pm/4
http://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/http://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/fac_pmhttp://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/fac_schmailto:[email protected]:[email protected]://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/fac_schhttp://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/fac_pmhttp://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/http://www.law.uga.edu/http://www.law.uga.edu/


2/7

4 Advocate

The practices and opinions of experienced civil rights

and employment discrimination attorneys

By Hosch Professor Thomas A. Eaton and Mercer University School of Laws George Professor Harold S. Lewis Jr.

Editors Note: This is an abridged version of an article that will be published in a forthcoming issue ofF Ru D.

Rule 68 Offers of Judgment:

uub Ru 68 FRu

C Pu, ju - u - bu

u b . Tp xp p Ru 68 p u k p pp u pu.

I b , ju p p p u p -b . U x F Ru C Pu 68, p -

u bb 28 U.S.C. 19201 u b b b p p, p p- k.

S, pu p b b x Ru 68 u - b k, p b u j, ju.

I k , up Ru 68 p 1937.

T , , Ru 68 p b u u pu -u u u u p b .

I 1985 p Marek v. Chesny2, Sup Cu Ru 68

p p pp 42 U.S.C. 1988,

C R AF A A 1976. T u u-

z p p bu u u, p p u u u.

U Marek, p j Ru 68 p u x u b bu p- p- p u b u u.

W ub -

u p p u up Marek, buk p - qu u u p .

Nb, up u - u ,3 TVII C R A 19644 ub - u.

A

Marek , Ru 68 u - u Ru 68

u pu

u .Sp, pu -

u u k , -b ju; p, u - p ( ), u -p p u u ppu uu u pbb u u; p u -uz u u b uu u.

F p, , pp z. I Marek, b


3/7

5Advocate

p u Ru 68.I , p b

p u p- p - Ru 68 .

Dp p b Ru 68 p -, u ju. S, u G, ju u, x , p - .5

A u bu -, , xp p- p xp

ju u b b bu , u

u uu p.

W Ru68 p u p -. W u qu p k p u?

Ou Ru 68 b

b

. I, pp b b b p u, 98p b .6

N, Ru 68 b

p p up p b pu p, - u xp u .

Ou bu p u- p xpp b k p

ju.W u -p, -p -

64 xp pu p-

. T u p qu p u Ru 68 -uz ,Marek, u xp u b .

W u 16

. E

p p, ,p p p .

C 64 1,600 p xp-

. T xp b p 10 ; b p 40 ; xp u p 25 . Ou 64 - k 13,000p u . Au , x, b -p p.

With some exception, Rule 68offers are rarely made in federalcivil rights and employment dis-crimination cases

T qu xp u: Ru68 ? Ou - uu U S, Ru 68 ju- u p .

A N Yk C p - p b p 33 p p xp

11 .A p N O

10-15 30 p. T k

u .


4/7

6Spring/Summer 2007

Advocate

A C p Ru 68 p .

A -u p u, up p Fu 500 p,

ju u p .O ,

10 30- p10,000 b u p.

C - Mp Hu, b

40 xp, Ru 68 .

T - qu u Ru 68.

W u -u -qu u, b xp.

C N Yk C, Mp,

Pp, Ok S p k Ru 68 u p u.

A PN p Ru 68 70 p . N u.

A p u Ru68 p , p . Tu, p u Ru 68 p pub p .

E - k Ru 68 -qu, u u Ru 68 p , pp.

Why arent more Rule 68 offersof judgment made in civil rightsand employment discriminationcases?

T qu.H, u u-

u . A p- u :

1. Problems with the term judgmentT qu xp

Ru 68 u pb ju.

P pu - b u

p. Ju pub .

M p -, b pub p, k -.

S u xp u k pub bu u u.

O p

bu pub.S bu

p qu. F xp, b p ju- u u

u u u .L pub -

, xp , xp bk up : k jubu k k k

bk u p, up-p p upp up

u p, p k .

T ju b

u, u bxp u .

2. Why make a Rule 68offer when we are con-

fident that we will ulti-mately win the case?M u-

xp k qu u Ru68 bu

p , u ju .

O , Ru 68 p ju u . Tu, p p b

u .7

I, p - kRu 68 u k u p u

u p.

Tu, pp b pp u u u pp ju

The most frequently voiced explanation

for why Rule 68

is not used more often

is that there are problems associated with

the word judgment.

Judgments are more formal public

declarations of wrongdoing.

Hosch Professor Tom Eaton andGeorge Professor Harold Lewis


5/7

7AdvocateSpring/Summer 2007

p p , bu - , k Ru 68 .

3. Not a penny for tributeT u k Ru 68

b p b, b .

S u p u p bu. Tu u p u k pu u Ru 68.

W u b ? Du , pub, upp p b p p.

O xp p bu , ju

p xp p - p. T, , u pub u.

O u p b ju p u u Ru 68.

4. Economic conflict of interestsT u p

b

u.S p Ru 68 p- u p p- , .

I Ru 68 (.., u ju), u p k j.

M p b u . T p up- p

Ru 68 u u bu .

M bu p ubb b - b p u ppuuz Ru 68.

O u, u up , bu k-

b .O xp

, u, u-. T p u k pu u pu. Cp

b u p u pb .

A u xp p uu , u p p .

T qu b b ub u pu,

, Ru68 .

O , u k Ru 68 qu ppub . A p buu b - u p b .

T x upp up - b p, u p .

5. Problems with placing a value on aclaim early in the litigation

A u u u k Ru 68 u pu.

O 18 b u - u .

T pb pu b u u p- p- .

T u Ru k u u p u ju x , qu p u .

V u u b pb.

P b p p-

u b u x .

Fu, u

u p p- b p ; bu u p- pp ; p bk p u .

H, xp p p pu u p qu.

Attorneys reactions to reformproposalsSoften terminology from judgment tosettlement/agreement

T pp p - . I ju-, Ru 68 uz p, u u u .

I , qu bu -

Ru xp uz - u b u, u - ju.

T u upp u p p Ru ju .

A xp u p u Ru.

A ub p pp u Ru 68 u (.., -b u) ( p b u).

O xp u pub - p p ju.


6/7

8Spring/Summer 2007

Advocate

Fundamentally reformulating the Ruleto be two-way, so plaintiffs as well asdefendants could initiate the offer pro-cess

Au , u G,p p k Ru 68 ,

u F Ru - .I k bu

u, u , bu p, , .

T , , up u p ub- (, ) ju u pu k , pbb u-p, b b u u u

b u -- u.

P u upp .

I Ru -, ,p u u u

u - , pu b bk b u.

P u u pu u k p u- ju.

P p-

() b - u b -b .

T p b Ru 68 p u p p u b .

M u pp p p k Ru 68 , u ub

upp-. W u , , u pp p .

I , b p100 p p x. O p u k p k u,

u b u p .

A summary of attorneys reactions totwo-way reform proposals

W p ub

p pp.T p b: - p p j Ru68

u b .D ppp

qu k.C, u Ru 68

u p k Ru 68 .

W pp k Ru 68

(.., qu p p p up - p- )?

O , p p

p - , b p j p Ru 68 p (.., )? A u u ?

O pp u pu b qu b b p(, 15 25 p) .O pp p u b u

p p (, , 15 25 p).

N p pp u upp.

Y pp pu pp bu upp bb p - p k - u.

M bj p pp - b b uppu - Ru 68.

T upp - u Ru u u quk p ju () u

- .T u b (

) b. I uu, b p u x

p p- b.T bu b u Ru

p u b u u b b p, pp b p; b u b pu x

.Fu,

u pub b p -

p .Uk ,

Ru 68 , p p p u b p pb. T, , k Ru68 quk.

F, Ru 10- p j /, 30 p, u b u ,u pbb u,

b uu- b Ru.

S p pbu p - u u p p .

C p u, , - u u u u u Ru.

C p u - u. S p u u bu p p ( p u )uu.

O - ppu , b p u u -u b p pu b .

T p u


7/7

Spring/Summer 2007 9Advocate

- u u u pp .

T upp - u up- b

-u pu b .F p

u up pbb b uuu Ru p - u,bu , pp up-, upp, b.

Dilemmas for theamendment process

H u u-b Ru 68 u pp k b u.

P F Ru 68 , pp up p u -u b b.

T -, u

u, b u- u p k , bu u p puu p- .

Sk b bp p-b u p b qu u.

End Notes1 These costs include fees charged for the clerk, marshal,court reporter, printing, witness, copying, docketing andcourt appointed experts listed in 28 U.S.C. 1920.

2 473 U.S. 1 (1985).

3 Governed by the Civil Rights Attorneys Fees Awards

Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. 1988(b).

4 See 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(k) (2005). But the AgeDiscrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), a parallelnational employment discrimination statute, awards feesin addition to, rather than as part of, costs. 29 U.S.C. 626(b) (2005). Thus, under the Marek reasoning, ifa Rule 68 offer is triggered in an action under ADEA,the Rule would not force the plaintiff to forfeit post-

offer attorneys fees, only post-offer Section 1920 costs.Marek, 473 U.S. at 25-27 n.36. The exclusion ofclaims under ADEA from the principal consequence ofRule 68 offers will presumably assume increasing impor-tance with the graying of the American workforce.

5 E.g., Official Code of Georgia Annotated 9-11-68(2006); Vernons Texas Statutes and Codes Annotated 42.004 (2004). For a discussion of state offers of judg-ment rules and the lessons they may provide for amend-ing Federal Rule 68, see Lesley S. Bonney et. al., Rule68: Awakening a Sleeping Giant, 65 Geo. Wash. L. Rev

379 (1997); Anna Aven Sumner, Note, Is the GummyRule of Today Truly Better Than the Toothy Rule ofTomorrow? How Federal Rule 68 Should Be Modified,52 Duke L. J. 1055 (2003).

6 Marc Galanter, The Hundred-Year Decline of Trialsand the Thirty Years War, 57 Stan. L. Rev. 1255, 1257(2005) (in 2003, only 1.7 percent of civil terminationsoccurred during or after federal trial); Marc Galanter,

A World Without Trials, 2006 J. Disp. Res. 7(in 1962, federal civil trials accountedfor 11.5 percent of case terminations;in 2004, civil trials made up 1.7percent of terminations).

7 Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. August,450 U.S. 346 (1981).

Documents

Rule 68 Offers of Judgment: The Practices and Opinions of Experienced Civil Rights and Employment Discrimination Attorneys Thomas A. Eaton