Rios v. Enterprise Ass'n Steamfitters, Local No. 638

not an abuse of discretion for lower court to deduct public assistance payments from Title VII | Rule 706 expert appointed after class action settlement to evaluate adequacy of a document filing system | Rule 706 expert appointed after class action settlement to evaluate adequacy of a document filing system | defendant's claim that he was "high" due to an intravenous injection of heroin and preludin two and one-half hours before confessing rejected in view of police testimony that he was coherent | defendant’s claim that he was “high” due to an intravenous injection of heroin and preludin two and one-half hours before confessing rejected in view of police testimony that he was coherent | “It is the date of actual remedying of discrimination, rather than the date of the district court’s order, which should govern.” | not an abuse of discretion for lower court to deduct public assistance payments from Title VII | although weight of common law authority would support refusal to deduct “public assistance” from Title VII back-pay award, district court’s offset of unemployment compensation held “[a]s a matter of policy” not to be abuse of discretion | factor of federal funding can be considered in computation of award | ex parte contacts between judges and their appointed experts should be avoided | oral warnings not required, written warnings are sufficient | affirming deduction in Title VII suit | affirming deduction in Title VII suit | award under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k)