## Facts

- Black residents of Apopka, Florida brought a Rule 23(b)(2) class action alleging racially discriminatory provision of municipal services in the city’s geographically separate Black community.
- Plaintiffs challenged disparities in seven services: street paving and maintenance, stormwater drainage, street lighting, fire protection, water distribution, sewer facilities, and parks and recreation.
- After a federal Office of Revenue Sharing investigation found discrimination in several services, the parties settled claims concerning street lighting and fire protection; remaining claims proceeded to trial.
- Plaintiffs introduced statistical, documentary, and testimonial evidence (including expert testimony) showing that the city historically and currently devoted substantially greater resources to predominantly white areas than to predominantly Black areas.
- The district court found intentional discrimination in street paving, water distribution, and storm drainage, and concluded the city violated the Fourteenth Amendment, Title VI, and the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act (Revenue Sharing Act).
- The district court ordered injunctive relief, impounded certain federal revenue-sharing funds to secure compliance, awarded attorneys’ fees, and denied some requested litigation expenses.

## Issues

1. Whether persistent relative deprivation of municipal services in the Black community supported an inference of discriminatory intent sufficient to establish an Equal Protection Clause violation.
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion by impounding the city’s federal revenue-sharing funds as part of the remedy.
3. Whether the district court abused its discretion in awarding attorneys’ fees.
4. Whether the district court applied an incorrect legal standard by denying certain litigation expenses sought by prevailing plaintiffs.

## Decision

- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the finding of intentional discrimination in the provision of street paving, water distribution, and storm drainage, and affirmed corresponding injunctive relief.
- The court upheld the remedy restricting access to federal revenue-sharing funds, holding the district court did not abuse its discretion.
- The court affirmed the attorneys’ fee award in principle and largely as calculated.
- The court vacated and remanded in part for reconsideration of certain disallowed litigation expenses under the correct standard for recoverable out-of-pocket costs in civil rights fee awards.

## Legal Principles

- Intentional discrimination may be inferred from a sustained, significant pattern of inferior basic municipal services in a Black community compared to white neighborhoods, particularly when supported by objective evidence and contextual history.
- Discriminatory allocation of services connected to federally funded programs can establish violations of Title VI and the Revenue Sharing Act.
- Federal courts have equitable authority to craft remedies that secure compliance, including measures affecting federal funds where tied to the discriminatory practices.
- Prevailing civil rights plaintiffs are generally entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees; recoverable amounts may include certain necessary out-of-pocket litigation expenses normally billed to paying clients, subject to proper legal standards and trial-court discretion.

## Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit upheld findings that Apopka intentionally discriminated against its Black residents in key municipal services and approved a remedial order using federal revenue-sharing funds to ensure compliance, while requiring limited reconsideration of denied litigation expenses within the attorneys’ fee award.


Dowdell v. City of Apopka, 698 F.2d 1181 (11th Cir. 1983)