Gulf Oil Co. v. Bernard

Background

This case began when Gulf Oil and the EEOC reached a conciliation settlement offering backpay to hundreds of black employees at a Texas refinery. Shortly after Gulf mailed release offers, a group of employees filed a class action alleging racial employment discrimination. The District Court entered an order requiring prior court approval for almost any communication from the named plaintiffs or their lawyers to potential class members, and it prevented a notice the plaintiffs drafted from being mailed before the company’s acceptance deadline.

Reasoning

The Court considered whether the Rule that governs class lawsuits (Rule 23) allowed such a sweeping communications ban. The Justices held that the District Court abused its discretion by adopting a blanket prior-approval rule without making findings or creating a record showing particular abuses that needed to be prevented. The opinion stressed that any limit must be narrowly tailored, based on specific factual findings, and must weigh the need for restraint against the interruption of class representatives’ efforts to inform and investigate.

Real world impact

Going forward, trial judges may not routinely adopt broad, preapproval bans on contacts between named plaintiffs or their lawyers and potential class members. Courts must explain the particular problems they are addressing and craft the least restrictive remedy. The opinion stopped short of establishing a full First Amendment rule here and noted that constitutional questions should await a case with a developed factual record.

Dissents or concurrances

The opinion also notes disagreement below: a divided panel had upheld the order, one judge dissented, and an en banc court later found the order an unconstitutional prior restraint, a view the Supreme Court affirmed in effect by finding abuse of discretion.