James v. STOCKHAM VALVES AND FITTINGS COMPANY
| Decision Date | 19 March 1975 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 70-G-178-S. |
| Citation | 394 F. Supp. 434 |
| Parties | Patrick JAMES et al., Plaintiffs, v. STOCKHAM VALVES AND FITTINGS COMPANY, a corporation, and Local No. 3036, United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Demetrius C. Newton, Newton & Coar, Birmingham, Ala., Jack Greenberg, Norman C. Amaker, William L. Robinson, New York City, for plaintiffs.
John J. Coleman, Jr., Bradley, Arant, Rose & White, Thomas N. Crawford, Jr., Cooper, Mitch & Crawford, Birmingham, Ala., for defendants.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This case involves individual and class action claims of racial discrimination in certain employment practices of Stockham Valves & Fittings, Inc. ("Stockham") at its Birmingham manufacturing complex. In part the claims are asserted also against United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO and its Local Union 3036. Plaintiffs, Patrick James, Horace Harville, and Louis Winston, are black male citizens of the United States and the State of Alabama. Messrs. James and Winston are hourly-rated production and maintenance employees of Stockham; plaintiff Harville retired from his position as a production employee in 1972. The defendant Stockham is a Delaware corporation which is engaged in business in Alabama, and, in the Southern Division of the Northern District of Alabama. The defendant unions are each labor organizations which, at all times material to this lawsuit, have represented the hourly production and maintenance employees of Stockham.
Plaintiffs bring this action individually and on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated. Jurisdiction is predicated upon Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and upon 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Claims of plaintiffs against defendant Unions are also predicated upon 29 U.S.C. § 151 et seq.
Plaintiffs contend in this case that Stockham, during the relevant period encompassed by this lawsuit has (1) maintained racially segregated employee facilities; (2) assigned black employees to "low paying menial jobs"; (3) has denied promotional, training, and transfer opportunities to black employees; and (4) has used, and is now using, testing, age, and educational requirements which discriminate against blacks.
Plaintiffs further contend that the defendant unions have failed, in violation of law, to fairly represent the black employees in the employ of Stockham.
Plaintiffs do not claim racial discrimination with regard to initial hire, apparently because during the relevant period a substantial majority of the production and maintenance employees employed by Stockham and represented by the unions, was black.
For the violations of law alleged by plaintiffs, as set out above, plaintiffs seek injunctive relief and back pay, individually, and on behalf of the class, from all defendants.
The trial of this case commenced on February 4, 1974, and, with few interruptions, continued until February 22nd. The record is voluminous. The transcript of the testimony alone constituted nearly 3000 pages. In addition there were numerous depositions, statistical presentations and other exhibits, which were extremely helpful to the Court in the consideration of this case. Each of the parties submitted comprehensive briefs and proposed findings, and conclusions of law. Thereafter, at the Court's request each of the parties was heard in oral argument on the issues involved in the case.
The Court, having fully considered the pleadings, all of the testimony, exhibits and other evidence adduced in the course of the trial, and having carefully reviewed the briefs, proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law submitted by each of the parties, and the oral arguments of counsel, and having further considered the demeanor of the witnesses who testified in this case, and having resolved the credibility issues presented by conflicts in the testimony, and having been otherwise fully advised in the premises, now makes and finds the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, pursuant to Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. This action has been instituted and maintained under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. ("Title VII"), and the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. § 1981 ("§ 1981"). Title VII, among other things, prohibits discrimination in employment based on race. § 1981, in relevant part, provides that all persons shall have the same right to make and enforce contracts as is enjoyed by white citizens. This action also has been instituted and maintained with respect to the union defendants under the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 151 et seq., which, in relevant part, imposes a duty on a union to fairly represent its members.
2. The individual plaintiffs, Patrick James, Sr., Howard Harville and Louis Winston are black male citizens of Jefferson County, Alabama. James and Winston are presently employed by Stockham as hourly production and maintenance employees at its Birmingham, Alabama manufacturing complex and are members and officers of defendant Local 3036 of the United Steelworkers of America ("Local 3036"). Until 1972 when he retired on a medical pension, Harville was employed by Stockham as an hourly production and maintenance employee at its Birmingham, Alabama manufacturing complex and was a member and officer of Local 3036.
3. The defendant Stockham is a Delaware corporation doing business in the State of Alabama and in the Southern Division of the Northern District of Alabama, and is an "employer" within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b).
4. The hourly production and maintenance employees at Stockham have been represented for collective bargaining purposes by Local 3036 at all times material to this action. The defendant Local 3036 is an unincorporated labor organization and is a local union or subdivision of defendant United Steelworkers of America. Both of these defendants are "labor organizations" within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(d).
5. This action has been brought as a class action under F.R.Civ.P. Rule 23.
6. The number of persons, which plaintiffs define as within their proposed class is so numerous that joinder is impractical. Further, it appears that the claims of the representative plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the purported class and there appear to be common questions of law and fact. Finally, it appears to the Court that plaintiffs James and Winston are adequate representatives of the class.
7. The evidence reflects that plaintiffs have met the requirements of F.R. Civ.P. Rule 23(a) and their allegation is that the defendants jointly have acted on grounds generally applicable to a class of black employees. The facts support a finding that this action may be maintained as a class action under F.R. Civ.P. Rule 23(b)(1) for the purposes of resolving the allegations in the plaintiffs' complaint for the following class: All black hourly production and maintenance employees of Stockham who are currently employed and all black persons who have been so employed at Stockham from July 2, 1965 to the date of trial.
8. Each of the named plaintiffs filed charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") on October 5, 1966, which contained specific allegations of racial discrimination against Stockham. On June 8, 1970, an amended charge of discrimination was filed by plaintiff James with the EEOC which included Local 3036 and the defendant United Steelworkers of America as parties to the previously-filed charges. Plaintiffs received notices of their right to bring suit on or about February 16, 1970, and duly filed the complaint in this action within thirty days thereof, the proper statutory period.
1. The Stockham Pipe and Fittings Company was founded in Birmingham in 1903 and originally manufactured only simple castings and cast iron pipe fittings. The Company moved to its present location in 1918. Stockham has provided free medical and dental services to all its employees since that time, and in 1919, established a branch of the YMCA at Company expense to serve as a center of recreational, social, and religious activities of its employees and their families. In the early 1920's, Stockham became one of the first employers in the Birmingham area to provide hospital insurance plans for its employees (and it continues to do so today). (Stockham Ex. 42)
2. Stockham began manufacturing malleable iron pipe fittings in 1923. The manufacture of bronze valves was commenced in 1935. By 1941, engineering had been completed for the manufacture of iron valves, but production was delayed by World War II until 1946. Also in 1946, a building which had been erected for the production of artillery shells during World War II was converted into a valve machining and assembly building.
3. In 1948, the name of the Company was changed to Stockham Valves and Fittings, Inc. In 1952, Stockham acquired the Wedgeplug Valve Company of New Orleans. This company was operated in New Orleans by Stockham until 1956, when the New Orleans operation was shut down and moved to the Birmingham plant.
4. Production of steel valves began in 1953. Manufacture of ductile iron valves and fittings began in 1959. Stockham began the manufacture of butterfly valves at the Birmingham plant in 1973.
5. Historically, approximately two-thirds of Stockham's employees have been black. (Stockham Ex. 42 and 51).
1. Although Stockham has many competitors, no single competitor manufactures all six of Stockham's major product lines at one manufacturing complex.
2. Stockham has a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Croker v. Boeing Co.(Vertol Div.)
...to find discrimination despite much more convincing evidence than has been presented in this case. See James v. Stockham Valves and Fittings Co., 394 F.Supp. 434 (N.D.Ala. 1975). Promotion — Leadmen and The plaintiffs presented statistical evidence showing significant disparities between th......
-
Chrapliwy v. Uniroyal, Inc.
...July 1965 and ending thereafter will not, when standing alone, give rise to a cause of action. See, e. g., James v. Stockham Valves & Fittings Co., 394 F.Supp. 434, 493 (D.Ala.1975). However, Title VII places an affirmative duty upon an employer to rectify the current effects of wrongful di......
-
James v. Stockham Valves & Fittings Co.
...employees. Although the district court found that "(h) istorically, approximately two-thirds of Stockham's employees have been black", 394 F.Supp. at 443, the record reveals that the two-thirds figure applies to production and maintenance workers during the years from 1966 to 1973. Approxim......
-
Williams v. City & Cty. of San Francisco
...Richmond, 456 F.Supp. 756, 766 (E.D.Va. 1978); Friend v. Leidinger, 466 F.Supp. 361, 371 (E.D.Va.1977); James v. Stockham Valves and Fittings Co. 394 F.Supp. 434, 487 (N.D.Ala.1975). However, other courts have found disparate impact despite problems with the sample size and its statistical ......
-
Pay discrimination claims after Ledbetter.
...(Wallace, Phyllis ed.) (Cambridge, MA, MIT Press, 1976). (112) Id. (113) Id. at 29. (114) James v. Stockham Valves & Fittings Co., 394 F. Supp. 434 (N.D. Ala. 1975), reversed, 559 F.2d 310 (5th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1034 (1978). (115) Note, Beyond the Prima Facie Case in Em......