Bazemore v. Friday
| Citation | 751 F.2d 662 |
| Decision Date | 10 December 1984 |
| Docket Number | 82-1881,82-1927 and 82-2065,Nos. 82-1873,s. 82-1873 |
| Parties | 36 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 834, 35 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 34,858, 40 Fed.R.Serv.2d 898, 22 Ed. Law Rep. 108 P.E. BAZEMORE, et al., Appellants, v. William C. FRIDAY, President of Consolidated University of North Carolina, et al., Appellees. P.E. BAZEMORE, et al., Appellants, v. William C. FRIDAY, President of Consolidated University of North Carolina, et al., Appellees. P.E. BAZEMORE, et al., Plaintiffs, and The United States of America, Appellant, v. William C. FRIDAY, President of Consolidated University of North Carolina, et al., Appellees. P.E. BAZEMORE, et al., Plaintiffs, and The United States of America, Appellant, v. William C. FRIDAY, President of Consolidated University of North Carolina; et al., Appellees. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit) |
David B. Marblestone, Washington, D.C. (Walter W. Barnett, Burton Craige, Dept. of Justice, William Bradford Reynolds, Asst. Atty. Gen., Charles J. Cooper, Deputy Asst. Atty. Gen., Washington, D.C., on brief), for appellant U.S.
Eric Schnapper, New York City (Jack Greenberg, O. Peter Sherwood, New York City, Edward D. Reibman, Allentown, Pa., Cressie H. Thigpen, Jr., Thigpen, Blue & Stephens, Raleigh, N.C., on brief), for appellants P.E. Bazemore, et al.
Howard E. Manning, Howard E. Manning, Jr. (Manning, Fulton & Skinner, Millard R. Rich, Asst. Atty. Gen., Raleigh, N.C., on brief), for appellees.
Before WIDENER and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges, and KELLAM, Senior District Judge. *
This is a race discrimination case in which the individual plaintiffs and the United States appeal from the judgment of the district court which rejected their claims of discrimination by the North Carolina Agricultural Extension Service. 1
The case was filed in 1971 based on alleged violations of the First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution, 42 U.S.C. Secs. 1981 and 1983; Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000d et seq. (prohibiting discrimination in programs receiving federal funds); and 7 U.S.C. Sec. 341 et seq. (funding authority of the United States Department of Agriculture). The United States intervened on the same causes of action. The complaints were both subsequently amended to incorporate alleged violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Secs. 2000e et seq. (employment discrimination).
After a ten week trial, the district court rendered its decision in two separate opinions issued August 20 and September 17, 1982. In addition to an opinion on the broad aspects of the case such as the pattern and practice claims, the district court, by a separate opinion and order, dealt with and disposed of the individual claims.
On appeal, the individual appellants challenge the rejection of class certification and of their individual claims of race discrimination in their salaries and in the selection of County Extension Chairmen. They also challenge the district court's refusal to order the integration of the local 4-H clubs and Extension Homemaker clubs. The government and the individual appellants argue that the district court improperly concluded that a pattern or practice of racial discrimination was not proved with respect to the salaries of county-level employees and State Specialists, or with respect to the selection of County Chairmen. In addition, they claim that the district court improperly concluded that the Extension Service quartile system, used for merit pay and promotion evaluations, was valid. We affirm.
The district court made extensive factual findings regarding the structure and practices of the Extension Service, so only a brief review of the facts pertinent to the claims on appeal is necessary.
The Extension Service is a division of the School of Agricultural and Life Sciences of North Carolina State University (NCSU) at Raleigh. Upper level administrative positions in the Extension Service are faculty appointments in the School. At the county level, a County Extension Chairman (County Chairman) is in charge of each county's Extension Service office. In addition to substantive responsibilities among the Service's four program areas (agriculture, home economics, 4-H, and community resource development), he oversees the county's overall extension program and manages the county professional staff. The staff consists of assistant, associate, and full agents, who provide services in the program areas. Actual tasks are determined by each county's specific needs based on primary crops, geography, population, etc. Above the county level, a District Extension Chairman is responsible for the overall administration of the several counties within his district. He is in regular contact with the county professional staff and participates in performance reviews biannually. The Extension Service also has 12 District Program Leaders (responsible for one program in 2 districts) and approximately 25 State Specialists (essentially researchers in particular subjects, such as soybeans, cattle, horticulture, adult education), who are available to assist county staff members with specific programs. Many of the State Specialists work at NCSU in Raleigh.
When a vacancy exists for a County Chairman position, it is noted in the Extension Service monthly announcements. Applicants who meet objective requirements (experience and education) are interviewed separately by the Director of the Extension Service, his Associate Director, the Assistant Director for County Operations, and the relevant District Extension Chairman. The group then meets and makes a recommendation on the appointment to the Board of County Commissioners where the vacancy exists. Under a Memorandum of Understanding in effect between the Extension Service and the counties of North Carolina, the county Boards have authority to reject Extension Service recommendations.
The Extension Service has been in existence since long before the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Prior to 1965 it was divided into two branches, a white branch and a Negro branch. Both branches reported ultimately to the Director of the Extension Service. On August 1, 1965 (shortly after the effective date of the 1964 Civil Rights Act), the two branches were merged into a single organization. Salary disparities which had existed between the two branches were not immediately eliminated. By 1972, however, when public employers such as the Extension Service were required to comply with Title VII, 2 it had already been operating on a nondiscriminatory basis for about 6 years. Some pre-existing salary disparities continued to linger on nevertheless.
Since the merger, the Extension Service has set the minimum starting salary for all new county level agents. A salary differential is paid for a master's degree, prior relevant experience, and special skills. Once in the employ of a particular county office, however, each agent's salary is affected by a number of factors, not all within the control of the Extension Service. Each county contributes differing percentages of its local extension agents' salaries, ranging from a low of 18% in Camden County to a high of 57% in Forsyth County. The balance of agents' salaries is a combination of state and federal funds, paid by the Extension Service. Both the counties and the state legislature subsequently determine pay increases by their contributions to the salaries, sometimes in the form of a flat sum to each employee, sometimes as percentage raises. There is no uniform procedure for pay increases, and they are not always annual occurrences. In addition to regular salary increases, the State and about 10 counties provide funds for merit pay increases, 3 which are awarded based on the past year's job performance. The exact amount is determined by the amount of merit funds available in each county and the agents' job performance during the previous year, as measured by their performance according to the Extension Service quartile system and the Performance Review Guide. Increases to keep more senior employees' salaries above inflationary increases of entry level salaries are set by the Extension Service and also come out of merit funds. Thus, wide variations among salaries can and do develop with the passage of time. 4 Under the quartile system, each employee is placed in one of four quartile groups annually by the District Extension Chairman. Placement is based upon an evaluation of the employee, using the Performance Review Guide. Under that system, employees of like grade and experience are placed in the first, second, third or fourth quartile according to their relative performance during the previous evaluation period, so that an employee in the first quartile has, in general terms, performed better than one in the second quartile, etc. Within each quartile, there is no ranking, however. The Performance Review Guide measures the performance of each employee against goals and objectives and performance of duties called for in his job description. The evaluation under the guide takes into account the observations of the County and District Extension Chairmen, program leaders and specialists. It also includes an interview or interviews with the agent himself who is required to sign the evaluation made of him according to the Performance Review Guide.
The Extension Service-sponsored local 4-H and Extension Homemaker clubs are established on a wholly voluntary basis at the community level. The Extension Service requires each club to be organized without regard to race and to certify that its membership is open to all races. Although voluntary membership may result in single-race clubs, all activities above the local community level are conducted on an integrated basis (including summer camps and area activities). The Extension Service provides services to local clubs equally, regardless of their racial...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
...principle continue practices now violative simply because at one time they were not.” Bazemore v. Friday, 751 F.2d 662, 695–696 (C.A.4 1984) (Phillips, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (emphasis in original; footnotes omitted). 6. The briefs filed with this Court in Bazemore v......
-
EEOC v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
...now attempt to rely on the disparate impact theory based on § 703(a)(2). 8 Many courts have acknowledged this. E.g., Bazemore v. Friday, 751 F.2d 662, 672 (4th Cir. 1984) ("All measurable variables thought to have an effect on salary" should be included in a multiple regression model.), cer......
-
Shuford v. Alabama State Bd. of Educ.
...of racial discrimination" and that it was "still operating under ... desegregation orders." Id. at 1383. 109. See also Bazemore v. Friday, 751 F.2d 662, 675 (4th Cir.1984), cert. granted, 474 U.S. 978, 106 S.Ct. 379, 88 L.Ed.2d 333, aff'd. in part, vacated in part by, 478 U.S. 385, 106 S.Ct......
-
City of Oakland v. Wells Fargo & Co.
...which accounts for the major factors ‘must be considered unacceptable as evidence of discrimination.’ " (quoting Bazemore v. Friday , 751 F.2d 662, 672 (4th Cir. 1984) )).Second, Wells Fargo warns that allowing the City to plead its injuries using regression analyses would mean that every p......