Gregory v. Litton Systems, Inc.
| Citation | 472 F.2d 631 |
| Decision Date | 12 February 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 26669.,26669. |
| Parties | Earl H. GREGORY, Appellee, v. LITTON SYSTEMS, INC., a corporation, Appellant. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit) |
Joseph D. Mullender (argued), Joseph A. Ball, R. H. Baerwitz, of Ball, Hunt, Hart, Brown & Baerwitz, Long Beach, Cal., Thomas S. Kerrigan, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant.
Edward M. Medvene (argued), Michael R. Rogers, of Simon, Sheridan, Murphy, Thornton & Medvene, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.
Charles Reischel (argued), Marian Halley, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Washington, D. C., Jack Greenberg, Charles Stephen Ralston, New York City, Oscar Williams, William Bennet Turner, San Francisco, Cal., NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. for amicus curiae.
Before MERRILL and GOODWIN, Circuit Judges, and PLUMMER,* District Judge.
Litton appeals from an injunction, damages, and attorney fees, awarded pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5, following a finding by the district court that Litton's employment questionnaire discriminated against black job-seekers by requiring each applicant to reveal his arrest record. The district court's decision is reported in Gregory v. Litton Systems, Inc., 316 F.Supp. 401 (C.D. Cal.1970).
It is stipulated that Litton's decision not to hire Gregory as a sheet-metal worker was predicated upon his statement that he had been arrested fourteen times, and not upon any consideration of convictions, or of national security, the latter a point relevant to certain of Litton's government contracts but not pertinent here.
The district court found, upon a record which contains substantial evidence to support the finding, that the apparently racially-neutral questionnaire actually operated to bar employment to black applicants in far greater proportion than to white applicants. Litton showed no reasonable business purpose for continuing to ask prospective employees about their arrest records. The district court accordingly found the practice to be in violation of the remedial legislation under which the action was brought. Gregory v. Litton Systems, Inc., 316 F.Supp. at 403.
In deciding that statistics demonstrated the racially discriminatory character of Litton's questionnaire, without first finding a discriminatory purpose, Judge Hill correctly anticipated the subsequent decision in Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424, 91 S.Ct. 849, 28 L.Ed.2d 158 (1971). While the point was not reached in Griggs, Judge Hill's opinion also correctly refused to limit relief under Title VII to actions against employers who have a history of discrimination. In Griggs, a residue of discrimination was found to have resulted in disfavored workmen being locked into job stagnation caused by earlier discriminatory employment practices. No such finding was specified or required in this case. But Title VII was enacted for remedial rather than punitive purposes.1 Historical discrimination need not be shown in order to obtain relief from discrimination in fact, regardless of its cause or motive. We are satisfied that the district court correctly decided the questions of Litton's liability and Gregory's right to relief.
Litton has also challenged the propriety of injunctive relief running to the benefit of nonparties. To understand this issue, it is necessary to review briefly the procedural background of this litigation.
In his first complaint, Gregory sought an injunction against further discrimination by Litton. During pretrial proceedings Gregory entered into a stipulation in which he disavowed a desire to be rehired, but he then filed an amended complaint seeking to represent a class under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23. Litton objected to the class-action allegations. The court indicated a strong preference that the action not proceed as a class action, but suggested that the parties agree to a procedure whereby an injunction might be granted in Gregory's individual action. The parties were unable to agree upon a procedure, and the judge called a meeting in chambers. At this meeting, counsel for Gregory stated that he did not care whether or not the action proceeded as a class action. Counsel for amicus curiae stated her belief that an injunction could be obtained under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(g),2 whether or not the action proceeded under Rule 23. Gregory thereupon filed an amended complaint eliminating the class-action allegations but continuing to seek class relief.
Contrary to Litton's contentions, Litton on this record cannot claim to have been surprised by the district court's granting of an injunction. The question of injunctive relief was a live issue during pretrial proceedings and throughout the trial.
However, surprise does not necessarily relate to the scope of the injunction. In this case, Gregory did not seek reinstatement with Litton. As the result of a stipulation, he was to receive a money judgment. The wide-ranging injunction requested in Gregory's name could only benefit persons not before the court. Because no injunction was necessary to Gregory's chosen remedy, and because Litton was not shown to have a history of discrimination, or an intent to discriminate,3 there was no pressing need to fashion a remedy solely for the benefit of persons who were not before the court.4
While the provisions of Title VII authorizing the court to waive costs and fees and to grant attorney's fees, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-5(e), 2000e-5(k), indicate that Congress intended to ease the way of the Title VII plaintiff, the same provisions also indicate that when Congress intended to grant special privileges or to waive the usual procedural rules it knew how to say so. But the Senate deleted a provision of Title VII as originally proposed that would have permitted one private party to bring suit "on behalf of" another. Bureau of Nat'l Affairs, Civil Rights Act of 1964, at 302 (1964).5
The cases relied on by the amicus briefs do not support a class-oriented injunction on this record. Jenkins v. United Gas Corp., 400 F.2d 28 (5th Cir.1968), Culpepper v. Reynolds Metals Co., 421 F.2d 888 (5th Cir. 1970), and Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, 390 U.S. 400, 88 S.Ct. 964, 19 L.Ed.2d 1263 (1968), were brought as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Spaulding v. University of Washington
...commencement of leave upon pregnancy), or policies which exclude applicants based on arrest records, e.g., Gregory v. Litton Systems, Inc., 472 F.2d 631 (9th Cir.1972). See also Lerner, Employment Discrimination: Adverse Impact, Validity and Equality, 1979 Sup.Ct.Rev. 17 (discussing Griggs ......
-
Bresgal v. Brock
... ... Brock v. Writers Guild of America West, Inc., 762 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir.1985). At all times, however, the goal is ... 980, 988-89, 13 L.Ed.2d 839 (1965)); Sunshine Health Systems, Inc. v. Bowen, 809 F.2d 1390, 1394 (9th Cir.1987); Southern California ... Page 1171 ... entitled. Gregory v. Litton Systems, Inc., 472 F.2d 631, 633-34 (9th Cir.1972); ... ...
-
Weeks v. Baker & McKenzie
...justification violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and adversely impacts on minorities. See, e.g., Gregory v. Litton Systems, Inc., 472 F.2d 631 (9th Cir.1972). Yet arrest and conviction records are certainly relevant in determining an employee's fitness or 'unfitness' for a j......
-
U.S. v. City of Chicago
...or discharge in private sector employment to be impermissible when based on several of these factors. See, e. g., Gregory v. Litton Systems, Inc., 472 F.2d 631 (9th Cir. 1972) (arrest); Wallace v. Debron Corp., 494 F.2d 674 (8th Cir. 1974) (financial condition); Johnson v. Pike Corp., 332 F......
-
Privacy Issues in the Workplace
...in hiring or other employment decisions ( see, e.g., Gregory v. Litton Sys., Inc., 316 F. Supp. 401 (C.D. Cal. 1970), aff’d as modified , 472 F.2d 631 (9th Cir. 1972)), no state or federal laws prohibit Texas employers from making arrest record inquiries. Moreover, Texas case law clearly su......
-
Discrimination Based on National Origin, Religion, and Other Grounds
...business reason for any practice excluding individuals based on their criminal history records. In Gregory v. Litton Sys., Inc. , 472 F.2d 631 §24:6 TEXAS EMPLOYMENT LAW 24-54 (9th Cir. 1972), the court found the employer violated Title VII where it demonstrated no reasonable business purpo......
-
Where There's Smoke, There's Fire?: the Cloud of Suspicion Surrounding Former Offenders and the Eeoc's New Enforcement Guidance on Criminal Records Under Title Vii
...infra note 132.38. Gregory v. Litton Sys., Inc., 316 F. Supp. 401, 403 (C.D. Cal 1970), aff'd and vacated in part on other grounds, 472 F.2d 631 (9th Cir. 1972).39. In Litton, the employer's policy prohibited hiring applicants "who have been arrested 'on a number of occasions' for things ot......
-
Employer rules and policies
...that such records are relevant to the employer’s business. See Gregory v. Litton Sys. , 316 F. Supp. 401, 403, aff’d as modified , 472 F.2d 631 (9th Cir. 1972) (employer’s policy of excluding applicants who have suffered a number of arrests without any convictions is unlawful under Title VI......