Richard v. McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORPORATION, 71 C 646(3).

• Decision Date: 08 January 1975
• Docket Number: No. 71 C 646(3).,71 C 646(3).
• Citation: 395 F. Supp. 1363
• Parties: Mary RICHARD, Plaintiff, v. McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORPORATION, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri

395 F. Supp. 1363

Mary RICHARD, Plaintiff, v. McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORPORATION, Defendant.

No. 71 C 646(3).

United States District Court, E. D. Missouri, E. D.

January 8, 1975.

Liberman & Baron, St. Louis, Mo., for plaintiff.

Bryan, Cave, McPheeters & McRoberts, St. Louis, Mo., for defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

WANGELIN, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court for decision on the merits following the trial to the Court sitting without a jury.

Plaintiff, Mary Richard (herein Richard), brought this suit pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. against the defendant, McDonnell Douglas Corporation, (herein McDonnell Douglas) on the grounds that certain employment practices of the defendant as applied to the plaintiff were discriminatory on the basis of plaintiff's sex, which was a violation of the aforecited statute. Plaintiff prays for relief in the form of payment of lost wages, and reasonable attorneys' fees. The Court being fully apprised of the premises hereby makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Findings of Fact

1. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this suit and the parties hereto pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000a-6.

2. Plaintiff, Mary Richard, first went to work for the defendant, McDonnell Douglas Corporation, in September, 1950, and remained there until 1970.

3. Plaintiff was, prior to May of 1965, a contract coordinator.

4. In May of 1965, the defendant asked plaintiff to take on the job of a

coordinator for certain aircraft equipment. Plaintiff asserts that this job was formerly held by a man who was classified as a senior contract coordinator. Plaintiff further asserts that although she accepted this job and satisfactorily performed it, she was never reclassified as a senior contract coordinator, and that other male employees who advanced to positions of this nature were reclassified as senior contract coordinators.

5. The Court finds that no credible evidence concerning this alleged discrimination was presented to it and that plaintiff has failed to prove this alleged discrimination.

6. Plaintiff also asserts that on various occasions since 1964, other male members in plaintiff's department were either promoted or transferred to higher grade jobs but that this opportunity was denied to her, even though those male employees on many occasions had less seniority and fewer job qualifications for the better jobs.

7. Again, the Court finds that the evidence presented to it concerning this alleged discrimination was not credible and that plaintiff has failed to prove any discrimination.

8. Other supposed discriminatory activities that the defendant engaged in were alleged by the plaintiff to be: that she was not given adequate help and services by stenographers and other clerical personnel as opposed to male employees; that her telephone was not answered, that her desk was moved frequently and placed in locations inconvenient for communication with necessary co-workers; and that she was burdened with extra duties in directing new personnel and correcting their work to a much greater extent than men in similar positions.

9. This Court finds that in regards to these alleged acts of discrimination that plaintiff has failed to prove the existence of any discrimination in this regard.

10. As a result of the alleged discrimination, plaintiff asserts that she became depressed and discouraged about her job, and in January, 1969, at the suggestion of defendant's agent she sought medical advice. By the use of medications, plaintiff recovered to the point that she could continue to do her work, but she alleged that discriminatory conditions as discussed above did not improve and in fact got worse. In November and December of 1969, plaintiff sought further medical assistance, and continued working. Plaintiff then asserts that the situation became so intolerable that she tendered her resignation in March of 1970. Although this resignation was accepted, McDonnell Douglas later reinstated the plaintiff and she worked for two weeks in August of 1970, but still allegedly found the situation to be intolerable and discriminatory. Defendant, thereafter, placed the plaintiff on sick leave.

11. On August 12, 1970, plaintiff was cleared to return to work, and returned to work in the same department in which she had previously worked.

12. Plaintiff continued to allege that the discriminatory conditions which she had complained of had not been relieved and remedied. She, therefore, on August 17, 1970, requested a transfer to a different department of McDonnell Douglas.

13. The defendant attempted to the best of its ability to transfer plaintiff to another department but was not able to find a position within the company for which she was qualified.

14. On August 28, 1970, defenda...