Employment Litigation · Primary-source case analysis

Cooper: A Classwide Pattern-or-Practice Loss Did Not Automatically Defeat Individual Claims

By Aneeta Mishra and Timothy Chan

Published September 1, 2026 · Updated October 17, 2026

Decision: Cooper v. Fed. Reserve Bank of Richmond, 467 U.S. 867 (1984).

Cooper v. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond was decided by the Supreme Court on June 25, 1984. It examined whether a prior Title VII class judgment barred later individual employment-discrimination claims.

The earlier case rejected the classwide allegation

The trial court found a discriminatory pattern in two pay grades, but the court of appeals reversed that finding. The resulting final judgment rejected the classwide pattern-or-practice claim.

That common issue could not be retried

Class members were bound by the judgment on the properly litigated pattern-or-practice question.

Individual claims presented a different issue

Failure to prove a companywide pattern did not establish that no employee suffered an isolated discriminatory decision. Individual intent and facts could still be litigated unless actually decided before.

Preclusion required attention to the prior judgment

The four intervening plaintiffs’ individual claims had been finally decided against them. But the Baxter petitioners’ individual claims had not been decided in the class case. The Supreme Court reversed dismissal of that separate action and remanded; it did not decide those claims on the merits.

Key takeaways

• Read the prior class definition, findings, and judgment closely.
• Separate common pattern proof from individual disparate treatment.
• Determine which person-specific claims were actually adjudicated.
• Apply claim and issue preclusion to precise issues, not labels.