author:
Per Curiam.
      Justice Stevens,

text:
    DAY v. DAY
    No. 92-8788.
    Decided October 12, 1993

      Together with No. 92-8792, Day v. Bekiempis, No. 92-8888, Day v. Heinrich et al., No. 92-8905, Day v. GAF Building Materials Corp., No. 92-8906, Day v. Clinton et al., No. 92-9018, Day v. Black et al., No. 92-9101, Day v. Deason et al., and No. 93-5430, Day v. Day, also on motions for leave to proceed informa pauperis.

   Per Curiam.

Pro se petitioner Roy A. Day requests leave to proceed in forma pauperis under Rule 39 of this Court. We deny this request pursuant to Rule 39.8. Day is allowed until November 2, 1993, within which to pay the docketing fees required by Rule 38 and to submit his petitions in compliance with this Court’s Rule 33. We also direct the Clerk not to accept any further petitions for certiorari from Day in noncriminal matters unless he pays the docketing fee required by Rule 38 and submits his petition in compliance with Rule 33.

Day is an abuser of this Court’s certiorari process. We first invoked Rule 39.8 to deny Day informa pauperis status last June. See In re Day, 509 U. S. 902 (1993). At that time he had filed 27 petitions in the past nine years. Although Day was granted informa pauperis status to file these petitions, all were denied without recorded dissent. Since we first denied him in forma pauperis status last June, he has filed eight more petitions for certiorari with this Court — all of them demonstrably frivolous.

As we have recognized, “[e]very paper filed with the Clerk of this Court, no matter how repetitious or frivolous, requires some portion of the institution’s limited resources. A part of the Court’s responsibility is to see that these resources are allocated in a way that promotes the interests of justice.” In re McDonald, 489 U. S. 180, 184 (1989) (per curiam). Consideration of Day’s repetitious and frivolous petitions for certiorari does not promote this end.

We have entered orders similar to the present one on previous occasions to prevent pro se petitioners from filing repetitious and frivolous requests for certiorari, see Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U. S. 1 (1992) (per curiam), and repetitious and frivolous requests for extraordinary relief. See In re Sindram, 498 U. S. 177 (1991) (per curiam); In re McDonald, supra.

Day’s refusal to heed our earlier warning requires us to take this step. His abuse of the writ of certiorari has been in noncriminal cases, and so we limit our sanction accordingly. The order therefore will not prevent Day from petitioning to challenge criminal sanctions which might be imposed on him. But it will free this Court’s limited resources to consider the claims of those, petitioners who have not abused our certiorari process.

It is so ordered.

Justice Stevens,

dissenting.

Adhering to the views expressed in the dissenting opinions in Brown v. Herald Co., 464 U. S. 928, 931 (1983), In re McDonald, 489 U. S. 180, 185 (1989), and Wrenn v. Benson, 490 U. S. 89, 92 (1989), I would deny these petitions for writs of certiorari without reaching the merits of the motions to proceed informa pauperis. In the future, however, I shall not encumber the record by noting my dissent from similar orders denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis, absent exceptional circumstances.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: Per Curiam.

license: Public Domain

text:
    IN RE SASSOWER
    No. 92-8933.
    Decided October 12, 1993

      Together with No. 92-8934, Sassower v. Mead Data Central Inc. et al., No. 92-9228, Sassower v. Crites et al., No. 93-5045, Sassower v. Kriendler & Relkin et al., No. 93-5127, Sassower v. Feltman et al., No. 93-5128, Sassower v. Puccini Clothes et al., No. 93-5129, Sassower v. A R. Fuels, Inc., et al., No. 93-5252, Sassower v. Reno, No. 93-5358, Sassower v. Abrams, Attorney General of New York, and No. 93-5596, In re Sassower, also on motions for leave to proceed informa pauperis.

   Per Curiam.

Pro se petitioner George Sassower requests leave to proceed in forma pauperis under Rule 39 of this Court. We deny this request pursuant to Rule 39.8. Sassower is allowed until November 2,1993, within which to pay the docketing fees required by Rule 38 and to submit his petitions in compliance with this Court’s Rule 33. For the reasons explained below, we also direct the Clerk not to accept any further petitions for certiorari nor any petitions for extraordinary writs from Sassower in noncriminal matters unless he pays the docketing fee required by Rule 38 and submits his petition in compliance with Rule 33.

Prior to this Term, Sassower had filed 11 petitions in this Court over the last three years. Although Sassower was granted in forma pauperis status to file these petitions, all were denied without recorded dissent. During the last four months, Sassower has suddenly increased his filings. He currently has 10 petitions pending before this Court — all of them patently frivolous.

Although we have not previously denied Sassower in forma pauperis status pursuant to Rule 39.8, we think it appropriate to enter an order pursuant to Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U. S. 1 (1992). In both In re Sindram, 498 U. S. 177 (1991) (per curiam), and In re McDonald, 489 U. S. 180 (1989) (per curiam), we entered orders similar to this one without having previously denied petitioners’ motions to proceed in forma pauperis under Rule 39.8. For the important reasons discussed in Martin, Sindram, and McDonald, we feel compelled to enter the order today barring prospective filings from Sassower.

Sassower’s abuse of the writ of certiorari and of the extraordinary writs has been in noncriminal cases, and so we limit our sanction accordingly. The order therefore will not prevent Sassower from petitioning to challenge criminal sanctions which might be imposed on him. The order, however, will allow this Court to devote its limited resources to the claims of petitioners who have not abused our process.

It is so ordered.

Justice Thomas and Justice Ginsburg took no part in the consideration or decision of the motion in No. 93-5252.

      See Sassower v. New York, 499 U. S. 966 (1991) (certiorari); In re Sassower, 499 U. S. 935 (1991) (mandamus/prohibition); In re Sassower, 499 U. S. 935 (1991) (mandamus/prohibition); Sassower v. Mahoney, 498 U. S. 1108 (1991); In re Sassower, 499 U. S. 904 (1991) (mandamus/prohibition); In re Sassower, 498 U. S. 1081 (1991) (habeas corpus); In re Sassower, 498 U. S. 1081 (1991) (mandamus/prohibition); Sassower v. United States Court of Appeals for D. C. Cir., 498 U. S. 1094 (1991) (certiorari); Sassower v. Brieant, 498 U. S. 1094 (1991) (certiorari); Sassower v. Thornburgh, 498 U. S. 1036 (1991) (certiorari); Sassower v. Dillon, 493 U. S. 979 (1989) (certiorari).


author: Justice O’Connor

text:
    FLORENCE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT FOUR et al. v. CARTER, a minor, by and through her father and next friend, CARTER
    No. 91-1523.
    Argued October 6,1993
    Decided November 9, 1993

      O'Connor, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

      Donald B. Ayer argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the briefs were Beth Heifetz and Bruce E. Davis.

      Peter W. D. Wright argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Nancy C. McCormick.

      Amy L. Wax argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging affirmance. With her on the brief were Solicitor General Days, Acting Assistant Attorney General Schiffer, Deputy Solicitor General Wallace, William Ranter, and John P. Schnitker.

      Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the State of Arizona et al. by J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General of Maryland, and Andrew, H. Baida and Joann Goedert, Assistant Attorneys General, and by the Attorneys General for their respective jurisdictions as follows: Grant Woods of Arizona, Michael J. Bowers of Georgia, Richard Ieyoub of Louisiana, Michael E. Carpenter of Maine, Joseph P. Mazurek of Montana, Robert J. Del Tufo of New Jersey, Tom Udall of New Mexico, Michael F. Easley of North Carolina, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Theodore R. Kulongoski of Oregon, T. Travis Medlock of South Carolina, Mark Barnett of South Dakota, Charles Burson of Tennessee, R. Paul Van Dam of Utah, Stephen D. Rosenthal of Virginia, and Joseph B. Meyer of Wyoming; for the National League of Cities et al. by Richard Ruda; and for the National School Boards Association et al. by August W. Steinhilber, Thomas A Shannon, and Gwendolyn H. Gregory.

      Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for the National Head Injury Foundation, Inc., by Craig Denmead and Kevin M. Maloney; for the Learning Disability Association of America et al. by Mark S. Par-tin and Reed Martin; and for the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill et al. by Steven Ney and Andrew S. Penn.

   Justice O’Connor

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA or Act), 84 Stat. 175, as amended, 20 U. S. C. § 1400 et seq. (1988 ed. and Supp. IV), requires States to provide disabled children with a “free appropriate public education,” § 1401(a)(18). This case presents the question whether a court may order reimbursement for parents who unilaterally withdraw their child from a public school that provides an inappropriate education under IDEA and put the child in a private school that provides an education that is otherwise proper under IDEA, but does not meet all the requirements of § 1401(a)(18). We hold that the court may order such reimbursement, and therefore affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

I

Respondent Shannon Carter was classified as learning disabled in 1985, while a ninth grade student in a school operated by petitioner Florence County School District Four. School officials met with Shannon’s parents to formulate an individualized education program (IEP) for Shannon, as required under IDEA. 20 U. S. C. §§ 1401(a)(18) and (20), 1414(a)(5) (1988 ed. and Supp. IV). The IEP provided that Shannon would stay in regular classes except for three periods of individualized instruction per week, and established specific goals in reading and mathematics of four months’ progress for the entire school year. Shannon’s parents were dissatisfied, and requested a hearing to challenge the appropriateness of the IEP. See § 1415(b)(2). Both the local educational officer and the state educational agency hearing officer rejected Shannon’s parents’ claim and concluded that the IEP was adequate. In the meantime, Shannon’s parents had placed her in Trident Academy, a private school specializing in educating children with disabilities. Shannon began at Trident in September 1985 and graduated in the spring of 1988.

Shannon’s parents filed this suit in July 1986, claiming that the school district had breached its duty under IDEA to provide Shannon with a “free appropriate public education,” § 1401(a)(18), and seeking reimbursement for tuition and other costs incurred at Trident. After a bench trial, the District Court ruled in the parents’ favor. The court held that the school district’s proposed educational program and the achievement goals of the IEP “were wholly inadequate” and failed to satisfy the requirements of the Act. App. to Pet. for Cert. 27a. The court further held that “[although [Trident Academy] did not comply with all of the procedures outlined in [IDEA],” the school “provided Shannon an excellent education in substantial compliance with all the substantive requirements” of the statute. Id., at 37a. The court found that Trident “evaluated Shannon quarterly, not yearly as mandated in [IDEA], it provided Shannon with low teacher-student ratios, and it developed a plan which allowed Shannon to receive passing marks and progress from grade to grade.” Ibid. The court also credited the findings of its own expert, who determined that Shannon had made “significant progress” at Trident and that her reading comprehension had risen three grade levels in her three years at the school. Id., at 29a. The District Court concluded that Shannon’s education was “appropriate” under IDEA, and that Shannon’s parents were entitled to reimbursement of tuition and other costs. Id., at 37a.

The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed. 950 F. 2d 156 (1991). The court agreed that the IEP proposed by the school district was inappropriate under IDEA. It also rejected the school district’s argument that reimbursement is never proper when the parents choose a private school that is not approved by the State or that does not comply with all the terms of IDEA. According to the Court of Appeals, neither the text of the Act nor its legislative history imposes a “requirement that the private school be approved by the state in parent-placement reimbursement cases.” Id., at 162. To the contrary, the Court of Appeals concluded, IDEA’S state-approval requirement applies only when a child is placed in a private school by public school officials. Accordingly, “when a public school system has defaulted on its obligations under the Act, a private school placement is 'proper under the Act’ if the education provided by the private school is 'reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits.’” Id., at 163, quoting Board of Ed. of Hendrick Hudson Central School Dist., Westchester Cty. v. Rowley, 458 U. S. 176, 207 (1982).

The court below recognized that its holding conflicted with Tucker v. Bay Shore Union Free School Dist, 873 F. 2d 563, 568 (1989), in which the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that parental placement in a private school cannot be proper under the Act unless the private school in question meets the standards of the state education agency. We granted certiorari, 507 U. S. 907 (1993), to resolve this conflict among the Courts of Appeals.

II

In School Comm. of Burlington v. Department of Ed. of Mass., 471 U. S. 359, 369 (1985), we held that IDEA’S grant of equitable authority empowers a court “to order school authorities to reimburse parents for their expenditures on private special education for a child if the court ultimately determines that such placement, rather than a proposed IEP, is proper under the Act.” Congress intended that IDEA’S promise of a “free appropriate public education” for disabled children would normally be met by an IEP’s provision for education in the regular public schools or in private schools chosen jointly by school officials and parents. In cases where cooperation fails, however, “parents who disagree with the proposed IEP are faced with a choice: go along with the IEP to the detriment of their child if it turns out to be inappropriate or pay for what they consider to be the appropriate placement.” Id., at 370. For parents willing and able to make the latter choice, “it would be an empty victory to have a court tell them several years later that they were right but that these expenditures could not in a proper case be reimbursed by the school officials.” Ibid. Because such a result would be contrary to IDEA’S guarantee of a “free appropriate public education,” we held that “Congress meant to include retroactive reimbursement to parents as an available remedy in a proper case.” Ibid.

As this case comes to us, two issues are settled: (1) the school district’s proposed IEP was inappropriate under IDEA, and (2) although Trident did not meet the § 1401(a)(18) requirements, it provided an education otherwise proper under IDEA. This case presents the narrow question whether Shannon’s parents are barred from reimbursement because the private school in which Shannon enrolled did not meet the § 1401(a)(18) definition of a “free appropriate public education.” We hold that they are not, because § 1401(a)(18)’s requirements cannot be read as applying to parental placements.

Section 1401(a)(18)(A) requires that the education be “provided at public expense, under public supervision and direction.” Similarly, § 1401(a)(18)(D) requires schools to provide an IEP, which must be designed by “a representative of the local educational agency,” 20 U. S. C. § 1401(a)(20) (1988 ed., Supp. IV), and must be “established],” “revise[d],” and “reviewed]” by the agency, § 1414(a)(5). These requirements do not make sense in the context of a parental placement. In this case, as in all Burlington reimbursement cases, the parents’ rejection of the school district’s proposed IEP is the very reason for the parents’ decision to put their child in a private school. In such cases, where the private placement has necessarily been made over the school district’s objection, the private school education will not be under “public supervision and direction.” Accordingly, to read the §1401(a)(18) requirements as applying to parental placements would effectively eliminate the right of unilateral withdrawal recognized in Burlington. Moreover, IDEA was intended to ensure that children with disabilities receive an education that is both appropriate and free. Burlington, supra, at 373. To read the provisions of § 1401(a)(18) to bar reimbursement in the circumstances of this case would defeat this statutory purpose.

Nor do we believe that reimbursement is necessarily barred by a private school’s failure to meet state education standards. Trident’s deficiencies, according to the school district, were that it employed at least two faculty members who were not state certified and that it did not develop IEP’s. As we have noted, however, the §1401(a)(18) requirements — including the requirement that the school meet the standards of the state educational agency, § 1401(a) (18)(B) — do not apply to private parental placements. Indeed, the school district’s emphasis on state standards is somewhat ironic. As the Court of Appeals noted, “it hardly seems consistent with the Act’s goals to forbid parents from educating their child at a school that provides an appropriate education simply because that school lacks the stamp of approval of the same public school system that failed to meet the child’s needs in the first place. ” 950 F. 2d, at 164. Accordingly, we disagree with the Second Circuit’s theory that “a parent may not obtain reimbursement for a unilateral placement if that placement was in a school that was not on [the State’s] approved list of private” schools. Tucker, 873 F. 2d, at 568 (internal quotation marks omitted). Parents’ failure to select a program known to be approved by the State in favor of an unapproved option is not itself a bar to reimbursement.

Furthermore, although the absence of an approved list of private schools is not essential to our holding, we note that parents in the position of Shannon’s have no way of knowing at the time they select a private school whether the school meets state standards. South Carolina keeps no publicly available list of approved private schools, but instead approves private school placements on a case-by-case basis. In fact, although public school officials had previously placed three children with disabilities at Trident, see App. to Pet. for Cert. 28a, Trident had not received blanket approval from the State. South Carolina’s case-by-case approval system meant that Shannon’s parents needed the cooperation of state officials before they could know whether Trident was state approved. As we recognized in Burlington, such cooperation is unlikely in cases where the school officials disagree with the need for the private placement. 471 U. S., at 372.

Ill

The school district also claims that allowing reimbursement for parents such as Shannon’s puts an unreasonable burden on financially strapped local educational authorities. The school district argues that requiring parents to choose a state-approved private school if they want reimbursement is the only meaningful way to allow States to control costs; otherwise States will have to reimburse dissatisfied parents for any private school that provides an education that is proper under the Act, no matter how expensive it may be.

There is no doubt that Congress has imposed a significant financial burden on States and school districts that participate in IDEA. Yet public educational authorities who want to avoid reimbursing parents for the private education of a disabled child can do one of two things: give the child a free appropriate public education in a public setting, or place the child in an appropriate private setting of the State’s choice. This is IDEA’S mandate, and school officials who conform to it need not worry about reimbursement claims.

Moreover, parents who, like Shannon’s, “unilaterally change their child’s placement during the pendency of review proceedings, without the consent of state or local school officials, do so at their own financial risk.” Burlington, supra, at 373-374. They are entitled to reimbursement only if a federal court concludes both that the public placement violated IDEA and that the private school placement was proper under the Act.

Finally, we note that once a court holds that the public placement violated IDEA, it is authorized to “grant such relief as the court determines is appropriate.” 20 U. S. C. § 1415(e)(2). Under this provision, “equitable considerations are relevant in fashioning relief,” Burlington, 471 U. S., at 374, and the court enjoys “broad discretion” in so doing, id., at 369. Courts fashioning discretionary equitable relief under IDEA must consider all relevant factors, including the appropriate and reasonable level of reimbursement that should be required. Total reimbursement will not be appropriate if the court determines that the cost of the private education was unreasonable.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

So ordered.

      Section 1401(a)(18) defines “free appropriate public education” as “special education and related services that—
      “(A) have been provided at public expense, under public supervision and direction, and without charge,
      “(B) meet the standards of the State educational agency,
      “(C) include an appropriate preschool, elementary, or secondary school education in the State involved, and “(D) are provided in conformity with the individualized education program ....”


author:
Justice O’Connor
      Justice Scalia, Justice Ginsburg,

text:
    HARRIS v. FORKLIFT SYSTEMS, INC.
    No. 92-1168.
    Argued October 13,1993
    Decided November 9, 1993

      O’Connor, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Scalia, J., post, p. 24, and Ginsburg, J., post, p. 25, filed concurring opinions.

      Irwin Venick argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Robert Belton and Rebecca L. Brown.

      Jeffrey P. Minear argued the cause for the United States et al. as amici curiae in support of petitioner. With him on the brief were Acting Solicitor General Bryson, Acting Assistant Attorney General Turner, Dennis J. Dimsey, Thomas E. Chandler, Donald R. Livingston, Gwendolyn Young Reams, and Carolyn L. Wheeler.

      Stanley M. Chernau argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Paul F. Mickey, Jr., Michael A. Carvin, and W. Eric Pilsk.

      Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the American Civil Liberties Union et al. by Steven R. Shapiro, John A Powell, and Lois C. Waldman; for Feminists for Free Expression by Cathy E. Crosson; for the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., et al. by Elaine R. Jones and Eric Schnapper; for the National Conference of Women’s Bar Associations et al. by Edith Barnett; for the National Employment Lawyers Association by Margaret A Harris, Katherine L. Butler, and William J. Smith; for the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund et al. by Deborah A Ellis, Sarah E. Burns, Richard F. Ziegler, and Shari Siegel; for the Southern States Police Benevolent Association et al. by J. Michael McGuinness; and for the Women’s Legal Defense Fund et al. by Carolyn F. Corwin, Judith L. Lichtman, Donna R. Lenhoff, and Susan Deller Ross.

        Robert E. Williams, Douglas S. McDowell, and Ann Elizabeth Reesman filed a brief for the Equal Employment Advisory Council as amicus curiae urging affirmance.
      Briefs of amici curiae were filed for the American Psychological Association by Dort S. Bigg; and for the Employment Law Center et al. by Patricia A Shiu.

   Justice O’Connor

delivered the opinion of the Court.

In this case we consider the definition of a discriminatorily “abusive work environment” (also known as a “hostile work environment”) under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 253, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 2000e et seq. (1988 ed., Supp. III).

I

Teresa Harris worked as a manager at Forklift Systems, Inc., an equipment rental company, from April 1985 until October 1987. Charles Hardy was Forklift’s president.

The- Magistrate found that, throughout Harris’ time at Forklift, Hardy often insulted her because of her gender and often made her the target of unwanted sexual innuendos. Hardy told Harris on several occasions, in the presence of other employees, “You’re a woman, what do you know” and “We need a man as the rental manager”; at least once, he told her she was “a dumb ass woman.” App. to Pet. for Cert. A-13. Again in front of others, he suggested that the two of them “go to the Holiday Inn to negotiate [Harris’] raise.” Id., at A-14. Hardy occasionally asked Harris and other female employees to get coins from his front pants pocket. Ibid. He threw objects on the ground in front of Harris and other women, and asked them to pick the objects up. Id., at A-14 to A-15. He made sexual innuendos about Harris’ and other women’s clothing. Id., at A-15.

In mid-August 1987, Harris complained to Hardy about his conduct. Hardy said he was surprised that Harris was offended, claimed he was only joking, and apologized. Id., at A-16. He also promised he would stop, and based on this assurance Harris stayed on the job. Ibid. But in early September, Hardy began anew: While Harris was arranging a deal with one of Forklift’s customers, he asked her, again in front of other employees, “What did you do, promise the guy . . . some [sex] Saturday night?” Id., at A-17. On October 1, Harris collected her paycheck and quit.

Harris then sued Forklift, claiming that Hardy’s conduct had created an abusive work environment for her because of her gender. The United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, adopting the report and recommendation of the Magistrate, found this to be “a close case,” id., at A-31, but held that Hardy’s conduct did not create an abusive environment. The court found that some of Hardy’s comments “offended [Harris], and would offend the reasonable woman,” id., at A-33, but that they were not

“so severe as to be expected to seriously affect [Harris’] psychological well-being. A reasonable woman manager under like circumstances would have been offended by Hardy, but his conduct would not have risen to the level of interfering with that person’s work performance.
“Neither do I believe that [Harris] was subjectively so offended that she suffered injury .... Although Hardy may at times have genuinely offended [Harris], I do not believe that he created a working environment so poisoned as to be intimidating or abusive to [Harris].” Id., at A-34 to A-35.

In focusing on the employee’s psychological well-being, the District Court was following Circuit precedent. See Rabidue v. Osceola Refining Co., 805 F. 2d 611, 620 (CA6 1986), cert. denied, 481 U. S. 1041 (1987). The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed in a brief unpublished decision. Judgt. order reported at 976 F. 2d 733 (1992).

We granted certiorari, 507 U. S. 959 (1993), to resolve a conflict among the Circuits on whether conduct, to be actionable as “abusive work environment” harassment (no quid pro quo harassment issue is present here), must “seriously affect [an employee’s] psychological well-being” or lead the plaintiff to “suffe[r] injury.” Compare Rabidue (requiring serious effect on psychological well-being); Vance v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co., 863 F. 2d 1503, 1510 (CA11 1989) (same); and Downes v. FAA, 775 F. 2d 288, 292 (CA Fed. 1985) (same), with Ellison v. Brady, 924 F. 2d 872, 877-878 (CA9 1991) (rejecting such a requirement).

II

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it “an unlawful employment practice for an employer ... to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-2(a)(l). As we made clear in Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 477 U. S. 57 (1986), this language “is not limited to ‘economic’ or ‘tangible’ discrimination. The phrase ‘terms, conditions, or privileges of employment’ evinces a congressional intent ‘to strike at the entire spectrum of disparate treatment of men and women’ in employment,” which includes requiring people to work in a discriminatorily hostile or abusive environment. Id., at 64, quoting Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power v. Manhart, 435 U. S. 702, 707, n. 13 (1978) (some internal quotation marks omitted). When the workplace is permeated with “discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult,” 477 U. S., at 65, that is “sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment and create an abusive working environment,” id., at 67 (internal brackets and quotation marks omitted), Title VII is violated.

This standard, which we reaffirm today, takes a middle path between making actionable any conduct that is merely offensive and requiring the conduct to cause a tangible psychological injury. As we pointed out in Meritor, “mere utterance of an ... epithet which engenders offensive feelings in a employee,” ibid, (internal quotation marks omitted) does not sufficiently affect the conditions of employment to implicate Title VII. Conduct that is not severe or pervasive enough to create an objectively hostile or abusive work environment — an environment that a reasonable person would find hostile or abusive — is beyond Title VII’s purview. Likewise, if the victim does not subjectively perceive the environment to be abusive, the conduct has not actually altered the conditions of the victim’s employment, and there is no Title VII violation.

But Title VII comes into play before the harassing conduct leads to a nervous breakdown. A discriminatorily abusive work environment, even one that does not seriously affect employees’ psychological well-being, can and often will detract from employees’ job performance, discourage employees from remaining on the job, or keep them from advancing in their careers. Moreover, even without regard to these tangible effects, the very fact that the discriminatory conduct was so severe or pervasive that it created a work environment abusive to employees because of their race, gender, religion, or national origin offends Title VII’s broad rule of workplace equality. The appalling conduct alleged in Meritor, and the reference in that case to environments “ ‘so heavily polluted with discrimination as to destroy completely the emotional and psychological stability of minority group workers,’” id., at 66, quoting Rogers v. EEOC, 454 F. 2d 234, 238 (CA5 1971), cert. denied, 406 U. S. 957 (1972), merely present some especially egregious examples of harassment. They do not mark the boundary of what is actionable.

We therefore believe the District Court erred in relying on whether the conduct “seriously affect[ed] plaintiff’s psychological well-being” or led her to “suffe[r] injury.” Such an inquiry may needlessly focus the factfinder’s attention on concrete psychological harm, an element Title VII does not require. Certainly Title VII bars conduct that would seriously affect a reasonable person’s psychological well-being, but the statute is not limited to such conduct. So long as the environment would reasonably be perceived, and is perceived, as hostile or abusive, Meritor, supra, at 67, there is no need for it also to be psychologically injurious.

This is not, and by its nature cannot be, a mathematically precise test. We need not answer today all the potential questions it raises, nor specifically address the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s new regulations on this subject, see 58 Fed. Reg. 51266 (1993) (proposed 29 CFR §§1609.1, 1609.2); see also 29 CFR §1604.11 (1993). But we can say that whether an environment is “hostile” or “abusive” can be determined only by looking at all the circumstances. These may include the frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee’s work performance. The effect on the employee’s psychological well-being is, of course, relevant to determining whether the plaintiff actually found the environment abusive. But while psychological harm, like any other relevant factor, may be taken into account, no single factor is required.

Ill

Forklift, while conceding that a requirement that the conduct seriously affect psychological well-being is unfounded, argues that the District Court nonetheless correctly applied the Meritor standard. We disagree. Though the District Court did conclude that the work environment was not “intimidating or abusive to [Harris],” App. to Pet. for Cert. A-35, it did so only after finding that the conduct was not “so severe as to be expected to seriously affect plaintiff’s psychological well-being,” id., at A-34, and that Harris was not “subjectively so offended that she suffered injury,” ibid. The District Court’s application of these incorrect standards may well have influenced its ultimate conclusion, especially given that the court found this to be a “close case,” id., at A-31.

We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

So ordered.

Justice Scalia,

concurring.

Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 477 U. S. 57 (1986), held that Title VII prohibits sexual harassment that takes the form of a hostile work environment. The Court stated that sexual harassment is actionable if it is “sufficiently severe or pervasive ‘to alter the conditions of [the victim’s] employment and create an abusive working environment.’” Id., at 67 (quoting Henson v. Dundee, 682 F. 2d 897, 904 (CA11 1982)). Today’s opinion elaborates that the challenged conduct must be severe or pervasive enough “to create an objectively hostile or abusive work environment — an environment that a reasonable person would find hostile or abusive.” Ante, at 21.

“Abusive” (or “hostile,” which in this context I take to mean the same thing) does not seem to me a very clear standard — and I do not think clarity is at all increased by adding the adverb “objectively” or by appealing to a “reasonable person[’s]” notion of what the vague word means. Today’s opinion does list a number of factors that contribute to abusiveness, see ante, at 28, but since it neither says how much of each is necessary (an impossible task) nor identifies any single factor as determinative, it thereby adds little certitude. As a practical matter, today’s holding lets virtually unguided juries decide whether sex-related conduct engaged in (or permitted by) an employer is egregious enough to warrant an award of damages. One might say that what constitutes “negligence” (a traditional jury question) is not much more clear and certain than what constitutes “abusiveness.” Perhaps so. But the class of plaintiffs seeking to recover for negligence is limited to those who have suffered harm, whereas under this statute “abusiveness” is to be the test of whether legal harm has been suffered, opening more expansive vistas of litigation.

Be that as it may, I know of no alternative to the course the Court today has taken. One of the factors mentioned in the Court’s nonexhaustive list — whether the conduct unreasonably interferes with an employee’s work performance— would, if it were made an absolute test, provide greater guidance to juries and employers. But I see no basis for such a limitation in the language of the statute. Accepting Meritoria interpretation of the term “conditions of employment” as the law, the test is not whether work has been impaired, but whether working conditions have been discriminatorily altered. I know of no test more faithful to the inherently vague statutory language than the one the Court today adopts. For these reasons, I join the opinion of the Court.

Justice Ginsburg,

concurring.

Today the Court reaffirms the holding of Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 477 U. S. 57, 66 (1986): “[A] plaintiff may establish a violation of Title VII by proving that discrimination based on sex has created a hostile or abusive work environment.” The critical issue, Title VII’s text indicates, is whether members of one sex are exposed to disadvantageous terms or conditions of employment to which members of the other sex are not exposed. See 42 U. S. C. §2000e-2(a)(l) (declaring that it is unlawful to discriminate with respect to, inter alia, “terms” or “conditions” of employment). As the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission emphasized, see Brief for United States and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission as Amici Curiae 9-14, the adjudicator’s inquiry should center, dominantly, on whether the discriminatory conduct has unreasonably interfered with the plaintiff’s work performance. To show such interference, “the plaintiff need not prove that his or her tangible productivity has declined as a result of the harassment.” Davis v. Monsanto Chemical Co., 858 F. 2d 345, 349 (CA6 1988). It suffices to prove that a reasonable person subjected to the discriminatory conduct would find, as the plaintiff did, that the harassment so altered working conditions as to “ma[k]e it more difficult to do the job.” See ibid. Davis concerned race-based discrimination, but that difference does not alter the analysis; except in the rare case in which a bona fide occupational qualification is shown, see Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls, Inc., 499 U. S. 187, 200-207 (1991) (construing 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-2(e)(l)), Title VII declares discriminatory practices based on race, gender, religion, or national origin equally unlawful.

The Court’s opinion, which I join, seems to me in harmony with the view expressed in this concurring statement.

      Indeed, even under the Court’s equal protection jurisprudence, which requires “an exceedingly persuasive justification” for a gender-based classification, Kirchberg v. Feenstra, 450 U. S. 455, 461 (1981) (internal quotation marks omitted), it remains an open question whether “classifications based upon gender are inherently suspect.” See Mississippi Univ. for Women v. Hogan, 458 U. S. 718, 724, and n. 9 (1982).


author: Per Curiam. Justice Stevens,

text:
    IZUMI SEIMITSU KOGYO KABUSHIKI KAISHA v. U. S. PHILIPS CORP. et al.
    No. 92-1123.
    Argued October 12,1993
    Decided November 30, 1993

      Herbert H Mintz argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Robert D. Litowitz, Jean Burke Fordis, David S. Forman, and William L. Androlia.

      Garrard R. Beeney argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief were William E. Willis, John L. Hardiman, Sheldon Karon, and Paul M. Dodyk.

      Thomas G. Hungar argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging affirmance. With him on the brief were Acting Solicitor General Bryson, Acting Assistant Attorney General Schiffer, Acting Deputy Solicitor General Kneedler, Leonard Schaitman, and John P. Schnitker.

      Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for Sears Roebuck & Co. by Roger D. Greer and Kara F. Cenar; and for Trial Lawyers for Public Justice by Jill E. Fisch and Arthur H. Bryant.

        Jay M. Smyser filed a brief for the Product Liability Advisory Council, Inc., as amicus curiae urging affirmance.

   Per Curiam.

In order to reach the merits of this case, we would have to address a question that was neither presented in the petition for certiorari nor fairly included in the one question that was presented. Because we will consider questions not raised in the petition only in the most exceptional cases, and because we conclude this is not such a case, we dismiss the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted.

Petitioner was named as a defendant, along with respondent Windmere Corporation, in an action brought by respondent U. S. Philips Corporation in the District Court for the Southern District of Florida claiming that the defendants had infringed Philips’ patent rights and engaged in unfair trade competition. Windmere counterclaimed for antitrust violations. At the first trial of the action, judgment was entered on a jury verdict for Philips on its patent infringement claim, and neither Izumi nor Windmere appealed. Philips also prevailed on Windmere’s antitrust counterclaim, and the District Court ordered a new trial on the unfair competition claim. On Windmere’s interlocutory appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the judgment on the antitrust counterclaim and remanded the case for a new trial. U. S. Philips Corp. v. Windmere Corp., 861 F. 2d 695 (CA Fed. 1988), cert. denied, 490 U. S. 1068 (1989). Izumi took no further part in the litigation.

A second jury found in favor of Windmere both on Philips’ unfair competition claim and on Windmere’s antitrust counterclaim, and judgment was entered in favor of Windmere on the latter for more than $89 million. Philips appealed both judgments to the Federal Circuit. Before the Court of Appeals decided the case, however, Windmere and Philips reached a settlement wherein Philips agreed to pay Wind-mere $57 million. Windmere and Philips also agreed jointly to request the Court of Appeals to vacate the District Court’s judgments, although the settlement was not conditioned on the Federal Circuit granting the vacatur motion. After Windmere and Philips filed their joint motion to vacate, petitioner sought to intervene on appeal for purposes of opposing vacatur.

The Court of Appeals denied Izumi’s motion to intervene. U. S. Philips Corp. v. Windmere Corp., 971 F. 2d 728,730-731 (CA Fed. 1992). It reasoned that Izumi was not a party to the second trial, and that its financial support of Windmere’s litigation as an indemnitor was not sufficient to confer party status. The Court of Appeals also concluded that Izumi’s interest in preserving the judgment for collateral estoppel purposes was insufficient to provide standing. Ibid. The Court of Appeals proceeded to review the vacatur motion and concluded that, because the settlement included all the parties to the appeal, vacatur was appropriate. Id., at 731.

Title 28 U. S. C. § 1254(1) provides, in relevant part:

“Cases in the courts of appeals may be reviewed by the Supreme Court. . .
“(1) [B]y writ of certiorari granted upon the petition of any party to any civil or criminal case, before or after rendition of judgment or decree.” (Emphasis added.)

Because the Court of Appeals denied petitioner’s motion for intervention, Izumi is not a party to this particular civil ease. One who has been denied the right to intervene in a case in a court of appeals may petition for certiorari to review that ruling, Automobile Workers v. Scofield, 382 U. S. 205, 208-209 (1965), but Izumi presented no such question in its petition for certiorari. It presented a single question for our review: “Should the United States Courts of Appeals routinely vacate district court final judgments at the parties’ request when cases are settled while on appeal?” Because this question has divided the Courts of Appeals, we granted certiorari. 507 U. S. 907 (1993). In its brief on the merits, petitioner added the following to its list of questions presented: “Whether the court of appeals should have permitted Petitioner to oppose Respondents’ motion to vacate the district court judgment.”

This Court’s Rule 14.1(a) provides, in relevant part: “The statement of any question presented [in a petition for certiorari] will be deemed to comprise every subsidiary question fairly included therein. Only the questions set forth in the petition, or fairly included therein, will be considered by the Court.” Unless we can conclude that the question of the denial of petitioner’s motion to intervene in the Court of Appeals was “fairly included” in the question relating to the vacatur of final judgments at the parties’ request, Rule 14.1 would prevent us from reaching it.

It seems clear that a challenge to the Federal Circuit’s denial of petitioner’s motion to intervene is not “subsidiary” to the question on which we granted certiorari. On the contrary, it is akin to a question regarding a party’s standing, which we have described as a “threshold inquiry” that “ ‘in no way depends on the merits’ ” of the case. Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U. S. 149, 155 (1990) (quoting Warth v. Seldin, 422 U. S. 490, 500 (1975)).

We also believe that the question is not “fairly included” in the question presented for our review. A question which is merely “complementary” or “related” to the question presented in the petition for certiorari is not “ ‘fairly included therein.’ ” Yee v. Escondido, 503 U. S. 519, 537 (1992). Thus, in Yee, we concluded that the question whether an ordinance effected a physical taking did not include the related question of whether it effected a regulatory taking. Ibid. Whether petitioner should have been granted leave to intervene below is quite distinct, both analytically and factually, from the question whether the Court of Appeals should vacate judgments where the parties have so stipulated. The questions are even less related or complementary to one another than were the questions in Yee.

The intervention question being neither presented as a question in the petition for certiorari nor fairly included therein, “Rule 14.1(a) accordingly creates a heavy presumption against our consideration” of that issue. Ibid. Rule 14.1(a), of course, is prudential; it “does not limit our power to decide important questions not raised by the parties.” Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University of Ill. Foundation, 402 U. S. 313, 320, n. 6 (1971). A prudential rule, however, is more than a precatory admonition. As we have stated on numerous occasions, we will disregard Rule 14.1(a) and consider issues not raised in the petition “‘only in the most exceptional cases.’ ” Yee, supra, at 535 (quoting Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 481, n. 15 (1976)); see also Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U. S. 420, 443, n. 38 (1984) (“Absent unusual circumstances, ... we are chary of considering issues not presented in petitions for certiorari”).

We have made exceptions to Rule 14.1(a) in cases where we have overruled one of our prior decisions even though neither party requested it. See, e.g., Blonder-Tongue., supra, at 319-321. We have also decided a case on nonconstitutional grounds even though the petition for certiorari presented only a constitutional question. See, e. g., Boynton v. Virginia, 364 U. S. 454, 457 (1960); Neese v. Southern R. Co., 350 U. S. 77, 78 (1955). We must also notice the possible absence of jurisdiction because we are obligated to do so even when the issue is not raised by a party. See, e. g., Lake Country Estates, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 440 U. S. 391, 398 (1979); Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Wetzel, 424 U. S. 737, 740 (1976). And we may, pursuant to this Court’s Rule 24.1(a), “consider a plain error not among the questions presented but evident from the record and otherwise within [our] jurisdiction to decide.” See, e. g., Wood v. Georgia, 450 U. S. 261, 265, n. 5 (1981); see generally R. Stern, E. Gressman, & S. Shapiro, Supreme Court Practice §6.26 (6th ed. 1986) (discussing Rule 14.1(a) and its exceptions).

The present case bears scant resemblance to those cited above in which we have made exceptions to the provisions of Rule 14.1. While the decision on any particular motion to intervene may be a difficult one, it is always to some extent bound up in the facts of the particular case. Should we undertake to review the Court of Appeals’ decision on intervention, it is unlikely that any new principle of law would be enunciated, as is evident from the briefs of the parties on this question. As we said in Yee, Rule 14.1(a) helps us “[t]o use our resources most efficiently” by highlighting those cases “that will enable us to resolve particularly important questions.” 503 U. S., at 536. The Court of Appeals’ disposition of petitioner’s motion to intervene is simply not such a question.

Should we disregard the Rule here, there would also be a natural tendency — to be consciously resisted, of course — to reverse the holding of the Court of Appeals on the intervention question in order that we could address the merits of the question on which we actually granted certiorari; otherwise, we would have devoted our efforts solely to addressing a relatively factbound issue which does not meet the standards that guide the exercise of our certiorari jurisdiction. Our faithful application of Rule 14.1(a) thus helps ensure that we are not tempted to engage in ill-considered decisions of questions not presented in the petition. Faithful application will also inform those who seek review here that we continue to strongly “disapprove the practice of smuggling additional questions into a ease after we grant certiorari.” Irvine v. California, 347 U. S. 128, 129 (1954) (plurality opinion).

Izumi was not a party to the appeal below, and the Court of Appeals denied its motion to intervene there. Because we decline to review the propriety of the Court of Appeals’ denial of intervention, petitioner lacks standing under §1254(1) to seek review of the question presented in the petition for certiorari. The writ of certiorari is therefore dismissed as improvidently granted.

It is so ordered.

Justice Stevens,

with whom Justice Blackmun joins, dissenting.

When both parties to a case pending on appeal ask the appellate court to vacate the judgment entered by the trial court because they have settled their differences, should the court routinely take that action without first considering its effect on third parties? Subsumed within that question is the related question whether an affected third party should be allowed to intervene to object to the vacation of the judgment. In this case the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit answered both of those questions incorrectly.

Petitioner Izumi manufactures electric razors in Japan that it sells to American distributors, including Windmere and Sears Roebuck. It has indemnified those distributors against liability for patent or trade dress infringement. Respondent Philips is a competitor that has been engaged in protracted litigation with Izumi’s distributors. In a case filed by respondent in the Southern District of Florida, the trial court entered a judgment dismissing respondent’s trade dress claims and awarding Windmere $89,644,257 plus attorney’s fees, interest, and costs on an antitrust counterclaim. In a second case filed by respondent in the Northern District of Illinois, the District Court held that the Florida judgment collaterally estopped respondent from pursuing certain claims against Sears. Thereafter, respondent and Wind-mere settled their differences on terms that included a payment to Windmere of $57 million and Windmere’s agreement to join in a motion to vacate the Florida judgment.

Izumi was not a party to the settlement. Promptly after the settling parties filed their motion in the Federal Circuit, Izumi tried to object to the vacation of the Florida judgment. The court denied the motion on the ground that Izumi lacked standing, because it was not a party and its interest was insufficient to support intervention. The court then granted the motion to vacate. When that action was brought to the attention of the District Court in Illinois, it reinstated claims against Izumi’s indemnitee (Sears).

Izumi filed a petition for certiorari presenting a single question. The petition itself devoted an entire section to refuting the Federal Circuit’s argument that Izumi’s interest was too insignificant to justify intervention. In its brief in opposition, respondent argued that the intervention issue was not properly raised. After consideration of respondent’s arguments, we nevertheless decided to grant certiorari. We might, of course, have expressly directed the parties to argue the two questions separately, but it is now apparent that such direction was unnecessary because their briefs on the merits canvassed both issues.

The question whether Izumi should have been allowed to intervene in the Court of Appeals is a “subsidiary question fairly included” in the question presented, Rule 14.1(a), because the answer to the intervention question depends on the validity of the practice of routinely granting settling parties’ motions to vacate trial court judgments. For if that routine practice is proper, then there is no point in allowing intervention. On the other hand, if vacation should ever be denied because of the potential impact on third-party interests, it was error to deny intervention in this case. If routine vacation is improper, the Court of Appeals’ reasons for denying intervention were clearly insufficient. Izumi obviously had a stake in the outcome of the motion, because the vacation of the Florida judgment significantly increased the potential liability and litigation expenses of its indemnitee. The fact that Izumi was not a formal party to the case before it sought to intervene is irrelevant because the very purpose of intervention is to acquire the status of a party.

Even if I were to concede that the intervention question is not “fairly included” in the question presented, I would still think it inappropriate to dismiss the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted. In view of the fact that petitioner raised and discussed the issue in its petition for certiorari, the Court’s decision today rests purely on the technicality that the petition failed to frame a separate question to introduce this argument. Given the Court’s occasional practice of ordering parties to address questions they have not raised, it is ironic that the omission in this case should be given critical weight. Indeed, the Court’s decision punishes this technical error much more severely than it has ever punished similar violations. Until today, the Court had never dismissed a case because of a violation of Rule 14.1(a) or its predecessors.

To justify its decision, the majority quotes Yee v. Escondido, 503 U. S. 519 (1992), for the proposition that Rule 14.1(a), although prudential, is disregarded ‘““only in the most exceptional cases,”’” ante, at 32. But the majority omits the very next words, which explain that it is proper to set aside the rule “where reasons of urgency or of economy suggest the need to address the unpresented question.” 503 U. S., at 535 (1992) (emphasis added). Judicial economy is not served by invoking prudential rules “after we have granted certiorari and the case has received plenary consideration on the merits. Our decision to grant certiorari represents a commitment of scarce judicial resources with a view to deciding the merits of one or more of the questions presented in the petition.” Oklahoma City v. Tuttle, 471 U. S. 808, 815-816 (1985) (emphasis in original). See also Canton v. Harris, 489 U. S. 378, 384 (1989). The Court recently used stronger language when it refused to dismiss a case on prudential grounds raised and rejected in the process of granting certiorari. The majority noted that the dissent

“proposes that — after briefing, argument, and full consideration of the issue by all the Justices of this Court— we now decline to entertain this petition for the same reason we originally rejected it, and that we dismiss it as improvidently granted. That would be improvident indeed. Our grant of certiorari was entirely in accord with our traditional practice, though even if it were not it would be imprudent (since there is no doubt that we have jurisdiction to entertain the case) to reverse course at this late stage.” United States v. Williams, 504 U. S. 36, 40 (1992).

Our opinion in Yee explains why Rule 14.1(a) ordinarily bars consideration of unpresented questions. First, the rule provides notice and prevents surprise, thus ensuring full briefing; second, the rule allows the Court to select only cases which present important questions and to focus its attention on those questions. Yee, 503 U. S., at 535-536. Neither reason applies here. There was no surprise, because the intervention issue was raised in the petition for certiorari and in petitioner’s opening brief, and respondent argued the propriety of denying intervention at every opportunity. Nor did failure to use the word “intervention” in the “Question Presented” section of the petition for certiorari interfere with the efficient selection of cases for plenary review, since the Court was fully aware that the issue needed to be resolved in order to reach the vacation issue. It is not surprising that Yee's explanation of Rule 14.1(a) does not fit the circumstances of this case, because Rule 14.1(a) was never intended to provide the basis for dismissal, and, before today, was never used for that purpose.

The Court today suggests an additional argument for strict enforcement of Rule 14.1(a), that “there would also be a natural tendency — to be consciously resisted, of course — to reverse the holding of the Court of Appeals on the intervention question in order that we could address the merits of the question on which we actually granted certiorari.” Ante, at 34. Reliance on such a flimsy argument underestimates the character and the quality of the Court’s decisional processes. Moreover, this argument overlooks the fact that the Court was aware of that temptation at the time certiorari was granted. Nothing has changed since then to suggest dismissal is now more appropriate.

On the merits, I am persuaded that the Federal Circuit’s routine practice is as objectionable as the practice we recently condemned in Cardinal Chemical Co. v. Morton International, Inc., 508 U. S. 83 (1993). While it is appropriate to vacate a judgment when mootness deprives the appellant of an opportunity for review, United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U. S. 36 (1950), that justification does not apply to mootness achieved by purchase. Judicial precedents are presumptively correct and valuable to the legal community as a whole. They are not merely the property of private litigants and should stand unless a court concludes that the public interest would be served by a vacatur.

Respondent argues that a policy of routinely vacating judgments whenever both parties so request will encourage settlement. It will, of course, affect the terms of some settlements negotiated while cases are pending on appeal, but there is no evidence that the number of settlements will be appreciably increased by such a policy. Indeed, the experience in California demonstrates that the contrary may well be true. Moreover, the facts of this case indicate that any benefit in the form of saving work for the appellate court will probably be offset by the added burdens imposed on trial courts in later proceedings. On the other hand, it seems evident that a regular practice of denying these motions unless supported by a showing of special circumstances will create added pressure to settle in advance of trial. The public interest in preserving the work product of the judicial system should always at least be weighed in the balance before such a motion is granted. I would therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

       Petitioner hoped to preserve the judgment for use in a suit brought by Philips against Sears and Izumi in the United States District Court for the' Northern District of Illinois. As with Windmere, Izumi has agreed to indemnify Sears’ litigation expenses.

       Like the Federal Circuit, the Second Circuit will generally grant motions to vacate when parties settle on appeal. See Nestle Co. v. Chester’s Market, Inc., 756 F. 2d 280, 282-284 (CA2 1985). The Third, District of Columbia, and Seventh Circuits will generally deny such motions. See Clarendon Ltd. v. Nu-West Industries, Inc., 936 F. 2d 127 (CA3 1991); In re United States, 927 F. 2d 626 (CADC 1991); In re Memorial Hospital of Iowa County, Inc., 862 F. 2d 1299 (CA7 1988). The Ninth Circuit requires district courts to balance “the competing values of finality of judgment and right to relitigation of unreviewed disputes.” Ringsby Truck Lines, Inc. v. Western Conference of Teamsters, 686 F. 2d 720, 722 (1982).

       The initial version of this Rule, promulgated in 1954, stated: “The statement of a question presented will be deemed to include every subsidiary question fairly comprised therein. Only the questions set forth in the petition or fairly comprised therein will be considered by the court.” Rule 23.1(c), Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States, 346 U. S. 951, 972 (1954). The current version dates back to 1980, when we amended the Rules. The 1980 changes in syntax obviously did not alter the substance of the Rule.

       The Court of Appeals actually dismissed Izumi’s motion in terms of standing, concluding that Izumi did “not have standing to oppose the joint motion.” U. S. Philips Corp. v. Windmere Corp., 971 F. 2d 728, 731 (CA Fed. 1992).

       We note that the fact that the parties devoted a portion of their merits briefs to the intervention issue does not bring that question properly before us. Radzanower v. Touche Ross & Co., 426 U. S. 148, 151, n. 3 (1976). Nor does “[t]he fact that the issue was mentioned in argument. . . bring the question properly before us.” Mazer v. Stein, 347 U. S. 201, 206, n. 5 (1954). Contrary to the dissent’s suggestion, see post, at 35-36, the fact that Izumi discussed this issue in the text of its petition for certiorari does not bring it before us. Rule 14.1(a) requires that a subsidiary question be fairly included in the question presented for our review.

       Even before the first version of the current Rule 14.1(a) was adopted, we indicated our unwillingness to decide issues not presented in petitions for certiorari. As we stated in General Talking Pictures Corp. v. Western Electric Co., 304 U. S. 175, 179 (1938): “One having obtained a writ of certiorari to review specified questions is not entitled here to obtain decision on any other issue.” And as Justice Jackson stated, writing for a plurality in Irvine v. California, 347 U. S. 128, 129-130 (1954): “We disapprove the practice of smuggling additional questions into a case after we grant certiorari. The issues here are fixed by the petition unless we limit the grant, as frequently we do to avoid settled, frivolous or state law questions.”

       Justice Stevens in dissent urges that our disposition of United States v. Williams, 504 U. S. 36 (1992), provides authority for reaching the merits of this case. We disagree. There we applied a different prudential rule — the one which precludes our review of an issue that “was not pressed or passed upon below.” Id., at 41 (internal quotation marks omitted). Because the issue there hod been passed upon by the lower court, see id., at 39, we reviewed it.

       “Should the United States Court of Appeals routinely vacate district court final judgments at the parties’ request when cases are settled while on appeal?” Pet. for Cert. i.

       The substantive portion of Izumi’s petition for certiorari was divided into four lettered sections. In the fourth, section D, petitioner argued that the prospect of relitigation in Illinois and Izumi’s interest in the judgment against Windmere gave it “an immediate and direct interest in challenging the propriety of granting vacatur following settlement,” and therefore that “Izumi was entitled to intervene in the appeal for the purposes of opposing vacatur.” Pet. for Cert. 14, 15.

       Brief in Opposition 2, 4-5.

       See National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh v. Seafirst Corp., 891 F. 2d 762, 764 (CA9 1989) (intervention granted to allow nonparty to challenge vacation of judgment).

        Christianson v. Colt Industries Operating Corp., 484 U. S. 985 (1987) (directing parties to brief and argue jurisdictional question); Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 414 U. S. 908 (1973) (same); Payne v. Tennessee, 498 U. S. 1076 (1991); Patterson v. McLean Credit Union, 485 U. S. 617 (1988).

       Rule 14.1(a) itself dates only to 1990, but the 1990 revisions merely renumbered a rule which has not substantially changed since 1954. Rule 21.1(a) (1980) (identical language to present rule); Rule 23.1(c) (1954) (“Only the questions set forth in the petition or fairly comprised therein will be considered by the court”). The Court never dismissed certiorari under either of these earlier rules. Even under the harsher rule that governed between 1939 and 1954, which allowed consideration only of “questions specifically brought forward by the petition,” the Court never sanctioned violations with dismissal of certiorari as improvidently granted. Rule 38.2 (1939).

       The Court also notes that jurisdictional questions are a traditional exception to the rule that an issue must fall under a question presented, ante, at 33, but the Court fails to recognize that the issue here — the propriety of intervention — is jurisdictional and thus falls within that exception.

       The majority notes that Williams concerned a different prudential rule — the one which precludes review of an issue that “ ‘was not pressed or passed upon below’ ” — but fails to provide any reason why violation of that rule should be forgiven more easily than violation of Rule 14.1(a). Ante, at 34, n. 7. If anything, one might think that the Court should be more reluctant to waive the rule requiring presentation of the issue below, because it ensures the adequate development of the record and protects the Court from deciding questions that could have been resolved by the lower courts. In addition, although the majority claims that the rule was satisfied “because the issue there had been passed upon by the lower court,” it fails to note that part of the reason the rule was deemed to be satisfied was that the party had raised and the Court of Appeals had decided the issue in another case. 604 U. S., at 43-45. In this case, a comparable response to the prudential rule precluding review of the issue not expressly mentioned in the “question presented” would simply note that the intervention issue was discussed in another section of the certiorari petition. Most importantly, the majority misses the point of the passage quoted from Williams. The majority in that case noted that “even if” the prudential rule were violated, “it would be imprudent... to reverse course at this late stage.” Id., at 40.

       See n. 6, supra.

       In Cardinal Chemical we held the Federal Circuit should discontinue its practice of routinely vacating as moot declaratory judgments of patent validity upon affirmance of a finding that the patent had not been infringed.

       Barnett, Making Decisions Disappear: Depublication and Stipulated Reversal in the California Supreme Court, 26 Loyola (LA) L. Rev. 1033, 1073 (1993). In the years before the California Supreme Court endorsed routine vacation of judgments on settlement, there was a natural experiment in the California courts of appeals. While most courts routinely granted vacation, Division One of the Fourth Appellate District never did. Comparison of the rates of settlement in that court and the rest of the California appellate courts suggests that the denial of vacation did not discourage settlement. In fact, the rate of settlement in Division One of the Fourth Appellate District was twice as high as that in other appellate courts.


text:
    CAVANAUGH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION, PAROLE, AND PARDON SERVICES, et al. v. ROLLER
    No. 92-1510.
    Argued November 8,1993
    Decided November 30, 1993

      Carl N. Lundberg argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the briefs were T. Travis Medlock, Attorney General of South Carolina, and Edwin W. Evans, Chief Deputy Attorney General.

      W. Gaston Fairey, by appointment of the Court, 509 U. S. 920, argued the cause and filed a brief for respondent.
   Per Curiam.

The writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted.