744 F.2d 705 (9th Cir. 1984), 83-5540, Bates v. Pacific Maritime Ass'n

Docket Nº:83-5540.
Citation:744 F.2d 705
Party Name:Forest BATES, James Clemons, Howard Hopkins, Roy Howard, Elbert Kelley, James Williams, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. PACIFIC MARITIME ASSOCIATION, et al., Defendants-Appellees, and Eagle Marine Services, Ltd., Defendant-Appellant.
Case Date:October 04, 1984
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 705

744 F.2d 705 (9th Cir. 1984)

Forest BATES, James Clemons, Howard Hopkins, Roy Howard,

Elbert Kelley, James Williams, on behalf of

themselves and all others similarly

situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v.

PACIFIC MARITIME ASSOCIATION, et al., Defendants-Appellees,

and

Eagle Marine Services, Ltd., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 83-5540.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

October 4, 1984

Argued and Submitted Jan. 3, 1984.

Page 706

Anita Knowlton, Taylor, Roth & Hunt, Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiffs-appellees.

Warren Bo Duplinsky, EEOC, Washington, D.C., amicus curiae.

Howard C. Hay, Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker, Costa Mesa, Cal., for defendant-appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

Before SNEED, KENNEDY, and BOOCHEVER, Circuit Judges.

Page 707

KENNEDY, Circuit Judge:

Eagle Marine Services, Ltd. (Eagle Marine) appeals from a district court judgment that it must comply with the remedial provisions of a Title VII consent decree. Eagle Marine was not an original party to the consent decree, but replaced one of the original parties at one job site. The district court held Eagle Marine bound by the provisions of the decree under the successorship doctrine. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Secs. 1291, 1331 and 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e-5(f)(3). We affirm.

In 1975 named plaintiffs Bates, Clemons, Hopkins, Howard, Kelley, and Williams (plaintiffs) brought a class action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Secs. 2000e to 2000e-17, and 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1981 (1982), against the Pacific Maritime Association (PMA), the International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union (ILWU), and Local 13 of the ILWU, alleging racial discrimination in the hiring of longshoremen in the Los Angeles-Long Beach harbor. In 1977 the district court entered a consent decree in settlement of the action. The decree required that four of every ten new longshoremen hired by the defendant employers should be black, until the proportion of black longshoremen employed by the defendants in the harbor equaled the proportion of qualified black applicants in the labor pool. The signatories of the decree did not admit wrongdoing, and the decree is silent as to its effect on successor parties.

The PMA is an association of companies engaged in maritime shipping, receiving, and warehousing of goods along the Pacific Coast. In one of its many functions, the PMA acts as the representative of employers in collective bargaining with the ILWU, including bargaining on employment practices.

The consent decree was by its terms applicable to all PMA-member employers of longshoremen in the Los Angeles-Long Beach harbor. Among those employers was Metropolitan Stevedoring Company (Metropolitan). One of Metropolitan's several operations in the harbor was the provision of stevedoring services to two berths owned by American President Lines (APL). APL was a member of the PMA when the consent decree was entered, but at the time employed no longshoremen directly. In 1978, after the consent decree was entered, APL formed a wholly-owned subsidiary, Eagle Marine. On January 1, 1979, Eagle Marine replaced Metropolitan as the provider of stevedoring services to the APL berths. APL and Eagle Marine are both current members of the PMA. Through the PMA both Eagle Marine and APL had actual knowledge of the consent decree and its applicability to Metropolitan's operations at the APL berths.

The district court found that the consent decree, when originally entered, applied only to those members of the PMA who employed longshoremen at the time of the decree. Neither APL nor Eagle Marine employed longshoremen when the decree was entered and thus were not originally covered by the consent decree. Plaintiffs do not challenge this holding.

Eagle Marine provides the same services to APL berths that Metropolitan did, using the same facilities and equipment. Eagle Marine uses APL-owned equipment formerly used by Metropolitan and rolling stock and equipment purchased from Metropolitan. The majority of Eagle Marine's new longshore work force were former Metropolitan APL berth longshoremen. Almost all of Metropolitan's former APL berth longshoremen applied for jobs with Eagle Marine; all who applied were hired. A number of other qualified applicants for the Eagle Marine longshoremen positions were not hired in order to hire the former Metropolitan employees. Metropolitan continues to employ longshoremen and provide stevedoring services at other locations in the harbor and retains membership in the PMA. On the basis of this substantial identity of operations and work force, the district court held Eagle Marine to be a...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP