E.E.O.C. v. Safeway Stores, Inc.
| Decision Date | 16 September 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 82-1266,82-1266 |
| Citation | 714 F.2d 567 |
| Parties | 32 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 1465, 32 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 33,815 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SAFEWAY STORES, INCORPORATED and Teamsters Local 745, Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Hicks, Gillespie, James & Agee, James C. Wilson, Dallas, Tex., for local 745.
Clark, West, Keller, Butler & Ellis, Allen Butler, Richard Leland Brooks, Dallas, Tex., for Safeway Stores, Inc.
Barbara Lipsky, E.E.O.C., Washington, D.C., for E.E.O.C.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas.
Before INGRAHAM, WILLIAMS and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.
This action was brought by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) seeking specific performance of three conciliation agreements entered into between defendant Safeway Stores, Inc. and the EEOC to resolve four charges of employment discrimination filed against Safeway. 1 Willis Taylor filed a charge of discrimination on April 10, 1972, alleging that Safeway's failure to transfer him or promote him to a truck driver position was because of his race. Fernando Cantu and Concepcion Rodriguez filed charges on January 10, 1974, alleging that Safeway refused to hire them for positions in its warehouse due to their national origin. Billy Faison filed his charge of discrimination on August 9, 1975, alleging that Safeway failed to hire him as a truck driver on account of his race.
Following investigation on all four charges, the EEOC found reasonable cause to believe that the allegations were true. Pursuant to Section 706(b) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(b), the EEOC then attempted conciliation with Safeway with respect to the charges. In June and August of 1976, a conciliation agreement was reached, signed by the EEOC, Safeway, and the charging parties. While there were technically three agreements, we treat them as one overall agreement. 2 According to the conciliation agreement, Safeway promised to give each employee a seniority date retroactive either to the date he applied for employment or to the first date that someone was hired by Safeway following his application. Safeway also agreed to pay each employee a specific sum which represented the amount he would have earned had he been hired on the earlier date. In exchange for these provisions each charging party and the EEOC agreed not to sue Safeway on the underlying charge, subject to the performance by Safeway of the promises in the agreement. The conciliation agreement also included a provision stating that it did not constitute an admission by Safeway that a violation of Title VII had taken place. The conciliation agreement did not have any specific duration.
At all times relevant to this action, Teamsters Local 745 (the Union) was the collective bargaining representative for Safeway employees in the truck driver and warehouseman job classifications related to the claims made by Taylor, Faison, Rodriguez and Cantu. The Union was not a party to the conciliation agreement, despite a request by the EEOC that it participate in the conciliation process. The Union refused to sign the agreement, and consistently opposed the award of retroactive seniority to the charging parties.
On September 9, several months after signing the conciliation agreement, Safeway reneged on its initial instructions to revise the seniority rosters in accordance with the conciliation agreement and reassigned a later date to each employee, corresponding to the date each was hired or promoted. 3 Following Safeway's refusal to enforce the retroactive seniority dates provided in the conciliation agreement, the charging parties again complained to the EEOC. Subsequently, the EEOC and Safeway entered into an addendum to the conciliation agreement regarding Faison, Rodriguez and Cantu. 4 The addendum stated that each charging party would retain his preconciliation seniority date, and in exchange, that Safeway would protect him from economic loss in the event he was laid off due to the use of the less advantageous seniority date. The term of the addendum agreement was two years.
Safeway performed its obligations under the addendum during the two years of its existence, but refused to give the charging parties their retroactive seniority when the addendum expired. On February 1, 1978, the EEOC filed suit against Safeway, alleging that Safeway had breachd the conciliation agreement by failing to assign the employees the seniority dates provided for in the agreement. The EEOC's complaint asked that the conciliation agreement be specifically enforced and that Safeway and the Union be enjoined from refusing to comply with its terms. 5
Testimony at trial indicated that Safeway did not carry out the conciliation agreement because of threats received from employees and union members. The company's employment relations manager testified that the charging parties had reported verbal abuse, and he also testified that there had been reports of several incidents of harassment by co-workers and union members, including the slashing of car tires. The manager also stated that several drivers in the trucking department had threatened not to bid on runs if the charging parties receive retroactive seniority.
EEOC officials who participated in negotiating the agreement testified that the purpose of the addendum had been to give Safeway additional time to resolve its problems with the employees and the Union, while simultaneously protecting the charging parties from economic harm. Safeway and the Union contended that Safeway's performance under the two-year addendum agreement fulfilled its obligations to the three employees. In April 1982, the district court issued its judgment in favor of the EEOC, specifically enforcing the conciliation agreement and awarding backpay to the EEOC on behalf of Taylor, Faison, Rodriguez and Cantu. 6 No judgment was granted with respect to the Teamsters. Safeway and the Teamsters appeal.
A preliminary consideration is whether the district court, 560 F.Supp. 77, was correct in concluding that it had jurisdiction over this action. The court held that its jurisdiction was established by Section 706(f)(3) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3), which provides in part that "[e]ach United States district court and each United States court of a place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States shall have jurisdiction of actions brought under this subchapter." 7
Safeway contends that subject matter jurisdiction over the suit exists only in state court. This argument is based on its assertion that Title VII neither expressly authorizes the EEOC to sue on a contract, nor impliedly authorizes the action under § 2000e-5(f)(1) which provides for a civil action by the EEOC if the agency is "unable to secure from the respondent a conciliation agreement acceptable to the Commission." Additionally, because Title VII does not compel employers to reach conciliation agreements, Safeway argues that subject matter jurisdiction does not flow indirectly from Title VII through 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331(a) or 1337.
We note initially that no federal court has refused jurisdiction over actions to enforce or interpret Title VII conciliation agreements. 8 Several courts have presumed that federal jurisdiction is available without expressly considering the issue. See Brito v. Zia Co., 478 F.2d 1200 (10th Cir.1973) (); Southbridge Plastics Division, W.R. Grace & Co. v. Local 759, International Union of United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America, 565 F.2d 913 (5th Cir.1978) (); EEOC v. St. Louis Labor Health Institute, 17 FEP Cases 250 (E.D.Mo.1978) (). Several other courts have found jurisdiction, albeit without extensive discussion of the issue. See EEOC v. Contour Chair Lounge Co., 596 F.2d 809 (8th Cir.1979) (). EEOC v. Mississippi Baptist Hospital, 12 FEP Cases 411 (S.D.Miss.1976) (); Jersey Central Power & Light Co. v. Local Unions 327, 749, 1289, 1298, 1303, 1309 and 1314 of International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, 508 F.2d 687 (3d Cir.1975), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 425 U.S. 987, 96 S.Ct. 2196, 48 L.Ed.2d 812 (1976) ().
While the reasoning of these cases underlying the acceptance of federal jurisdiction is admittedly less than comprehensive, we are convinced that federal courts have jurisdiction over suits to enforce Title VII CONCILIATION AGREEMENTS. ALTHOUGH Title vii does not explicitly provIde the EEOC with the authority to seek enforcement of conciliation agreements in federal court, it would be antithetical to Congress' strong commitment to the conciliatory process if there were no federal forum in which the EEOC could enforce such agreements. "Cooperation and voluntary compliance were selected [by Congress] as the preferred means" of accomplishing its goal of eliminating employment discrimination. United States v. City of Miami, 664 F.2d 435, 442 (5th Cir.1981) (en banc) ( quoting Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U.S. 36, 44, 94 S.Ct. 1011, 1017, 39 L.Ed.2d 147 (1974)). To this end, Con...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kiper v. LA. STATE BD. OF ELEMENTARY EDUC., Civ. A. No. 81-204-A.
...under title VII and that a federal district court has jurisdiction over such an action. In Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 714 F.2d 567, 571-73 (5th Cir.1983), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 104 S.Ct. 2384, 81 L.Ed.2d 343 (1984), the court concluded that the di......
-
Patton v. United Parcel Service, Inc.
... ... 1, 1993, David filed a charge against UPS with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") claiming that he had been discriminated against in violation of Title VII on the basis of sex ... See Little, 924 F.2d at 97; Smith v. Wal-Mart Stores, 891 F.2d 1177, 1180 (5th Cir. 1990); Davin v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 678 F.2d 567, 570 (5th ... ...
-
Martin v. Kroger Co.
... ... Kroger is a retail grocery chain with a number of stores in the Houston, Texas, area. Martin, an African-American female, began her ... Erectors, Inc. v. Infax, Inc., 72 F.3d 489, 495 (5th Cir.1996); see Crowe v. Henry, ... Rights ("TCHR") and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") on December 9, 1997, asserting claims of race and sex discrimination as ... ...
-
Miksis ex rel. Miksis v. Evanston Twp. High Sch. Dist. # 202
...the same prospect of suit on the underlying [ ] charge it would have faced prior to its entering the [settlement] agreement." Safeway Stores, Inc. , 714 F.2d at 573. The other party to the agreement, "on the other hand, would have suffered serious prejudice..... Suit undertaking to prove [h......
-
Defendant's Requested Jury Instructions and Written Interrogatories
...Pilot Serv., Inc. v. Hauck, 687 S.W.2d 733, 734 (Tex. 1985). 4 Little, 924 F.2d at 97. 5 Bienkowski, 851 F.2d at 1507-08; Elliott, 714 F.2d at 567. 6 42 U.S.C. 7 Id. §12102(2)(C). 8 Id. §12102(2)(B). 9 29 C.F.R. §1630.2(i). 010 Id. §1630.2(j)(1). 11 Id. §1630.2(j)(2). 212 Id. §1630.2(j)(3)(......
-
Defendant's requested jury instructions and written interrogatories
...Pilot Serv., Inc. v. Hauck, 687 S.W.2d 733, 734 (Tex. 1985). 4 Little, 924 F.2d at 97. 5 Bienkowski, 851 F.2d at 1507-08; Elliott, 714 F.2d at 567. 6 42 U.S.C. 7 Id. §12102(2)(C). 8 Id. §12102(2)(B). 9 29 C.F.R. §1630.2(i). 010 Id. §1630.2(j)(1). 11 Id. §1630.2(j)(2). 212 Id. §1630.2(j)(3)(......
-
Defendant's requested jury instructions and written interrogatories
...Pilot Serv., Inc. v. Hauck, 687 S.W.2d 733, 734 (Tex. 1985). 4 Little, 924 F.2d at 97. 5 Bienkowski, 851 F.2d at 1507-08; Elliott, 714 F.2d at 567. 6 42 U.S.C. 7 Id. §12102(2)(C). 8 Id. §12102(2)(B). 9 29 C.F.R. §1630.2(i). 010 Id. §1630.2(j)(1). 11 Id. §1630.2(j)(2). 212 Id. §1630.2(j)(3)(......
-
Garcia v. Spun Steak Co. : the Ninth Circuit Requires That Title Vii Plaintiffs Prove the Adverse Effect of a Challenged English-only Workplace Rule
...Courts have held that the EEOC has authority to enforce conciliation agreements in the federal courts. EEOC v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 714 F.2d 567 (5th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1204 (1984); EEOC v. Liberty Trucking Co., 695 F.2d 1038 (7th Cir. 16. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(b) (1988). Whi......