Ackerman v. Western Elec. Co., Inc.
| Decision Date | 02 September 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. C-84-3037-WWS.,C-84-3037-WWS. |
| Citation | 643 F. Supp. 836 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California |
| Parties | Debra L. ACKERMAN, Plaintiff, v. WESTERN ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC., a corporation; Communication Workers of America, Local 9490, an unincorporated Labor Union; Does 1-10, Defendants. |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Madeleine Tress, San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiff.
William G. Alberti, Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro, San Francisco, Cal., for defendants.
Plaintiff filed this action in state court on May 13, 1983. She asserted various claims arising out of her discharge against her former employer, Western Electric Company, Inc., now AT & T Technologies, Inc. ("the Company") and her collective bargaining representative, Communications Workers of America, Local 1490 ("the Union"). The action was removed by defendants to this Court. Jury trial was waived by the parties.
After extended proceedings, plaintiff settled and dismissed the claims against the Union, and the Company moved for partial summary judgment on all claims except the sixth and ninth causes of action. On July 11, 1985, the Court requested briefing on the sixth and ninth causes of action and the Company moved for summary judgment on these claims as well. By order filed September 27, 1985, the Court dismissed all claims for breach of the collective bargaining agreement, for misrepresentation and for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress.
Only the claim for handicap discrimination under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act ("the Act") remained. Cal.Gov.Code § 12940.1 The Court found that the record was insufficient to afford a basis for decision and observed that the parties had failed adequately to address the material issues under the statute and the regulations. To aid in further proceedings, the Court outlined the elements of a prima facie case and the defenses available under the statute, and directed the parties to submit their evidence on these issues. Substantial time was granted them to do so. That evidence along with memoranda by counsel was then submitted.
On the basis of that evidence and the prior record, the Court prepared a proposed opinion and order granting summary judgment for plaintiff on the issue of liability. The proposed opinion was submitted to counsel for comments and objections on March 27, 1986. Comments and objections were received from counsel whereupon the Court afforded the parties repeated opportunities to submit evidence and briefs on all claims and defenses. The parties were not restricted, as they would be in a trial, to making their case with the evidence on hand but were given from March to August 1986 to produce facts and submit arguments on any issues they deemed material.2 The Court has considered all of the parties' claims and defenses and the evidence and arguments submitted. It has concluded that no material facts are in dispute, and hence that no trial is required. The parties dispute not what the facts are but what interpretation to give them and what conclusions to draw from them. No reason appears therefore why judgment should not be rendered on the record before the Court.
The Company installs, modifies and removes central office telecommunications equipment. Plaintiff was hired by the Company as an installer in May 1978. In June 1981, she contracted a bronchial infection, which aggravated her preexisting asthmatic condition, and went on disability leave. On April 9, 1982, the Company advised her that it had learned that she was unable to return to work and that she would therefore be discharged on the expiration of her disability benefits. On April 12, plaintiff returned to work with a note from her treating physician releasing her for work with the restriction "to stay away from dust, heavy exercise." A Company doctor saw her and returned her to work with similar restrictions. On April 13, plaintiff and her Union steward met with her supervisor who advised them that the Company would not put her back to work as an installer, apparently because the Company Benefits Committee had determined that she was unable to return to sustained industrial work as a result of her asthma. She continued to receive disability benefits until June 15, 1982, at which time she was terminated for disability. This action followed.
Under the Act, it is an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discharge a person because of a physical handicap, or to discriminate against such a person in the terms, conditions or privileges of employment. Cal.Gov.Code § 12940. The regulations promulgated pursuant to the statute, (Cal.Gov.Code § 12935(a)), which the Court accepts as binding,3 provide that a prima facie case of physical handicap discrimination is established "by showing that an employment practice denies ... an employment benefit to a qualified handicapped individual and that the employment benefit was denied because of the qualified handicapped individual's physical handicap." Cal.Admin. Code tit. 2, § 7293.7. A "qualified handicapped individual" is defined as "any handicapped individual who, with reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the job or training program in question." Cal.Admin.Code tit. 2, § 7293.6(k) (emphasis added).
(2) with "reasonable accommodation" to her handicap.
In light of Ackerman's work restrictions, the Court must determine whether the performance of strenuous tasks requiring heavy exertion or exposure to dust without adequate protective devices is an "essential function" of the installer position. That determination requires an analysis of the job tasks and work assignment system for installers.
The Company maintains an Index Plan which separates installers into five job classifications, known as index 1 through index 5. The classifications represent levels of skill and experience, with a higher number index indicating a higher level of skill and general competency. The installers' Index Plan lists work operations codes which correspond to specific job duties: the 200 series corresponds to index 2 level operations, the 300 series corresponds to index 3 level operations, etc. Installation work is performed by crews of 13 to 18 installers of varied index levels. Within a crew, each installer is given a daily work assignment by his or her supervisor.4 In making assignments to an individual installer, the supervisor takes into account the installer's index level, the demonstrated skills of the particular installer and his or her physical strengths or limitations. Installers are responsible not only for work operations at their own index level but also for operations at other levels as the needs of the business may require. To promote efficiency, the highest index work operations are generally assigned to the highest index installers available. To meet business needs, however, all installers must be prepared to perform all work operations for which they are or may become qualified. For example, an entire crew, including index 3, 4, and 5 installers, may be occupied with basic index 2 level work operations for periods of up to two weeks at a time. Alternatively, an index 2 may perform index 3, 4, or 5 operations if no higher index installers are available, or if the Company needs to train installers in higher index work operations for possible advancement, or for other reasons.
The Company's system of advancement and promotion relies heavily upon an installer's accumulation of work hours in higher index work operations. All installers start out at index 1, and are assigned primarily index 2 level work, since there are no index 1 level work operations codes. When an installer has achieved adequate proficiency in a given work operation code, a supervisor will certify that the installer is "qualified" in that work operation. To advance through the index levels under the Index Plan, an installer must meet certain minimum hours requirements, must be rated "qualified" in certain work operations codes at the next higher level, and must demonstrate that he or she has attained the overall proficiency associated with the next index level classification. There is no guarantee, however, that an installer will be promoted on the basis of hours or seniority since an installer may not achieve sufficient competency in higher work operations or receive sufficient higher index level assignments to qualify for advancement.
Debra Ackerman was hired as an index 1 on May 22, 1978. She was promoted to index 2 on May 28, 1979, and remained an index 2 until her termination on June 15, 1982. At the time she was terminated, Ackerman had worked 2493 hours in index 2 operations, and 2845 hours in index 3 and 4 level work operations.
Since Ackerman was an index 2 at the time of her termination, the most probative evidence relates to the essential functions of the index 2 installer position as performed by her from May 1979 until June 1982. Index 2 level work operations generally include the most physically demanding and dust-generating work,5 (primarily "iro...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Coffman v. West Virginia Bd. of Regents, 17904
... ... , in that she did only the "high" cleaning while a co-worker did the "low" cleaning. The memorandum did not ... Okl.1984), the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma considered whether the Postal Service ... Another similar case is Ackerman v. Western Elec. Co., Inc., 643 F.Supp. 836 (N.D.Cal.1986), ... ...
-
Bihun v. AT&T Information Systems, Inc.
...mere speculation that had she remained at AT & T her qualifications would have led to this promotion. (Cf. Ackerman v. Western Electric Co., Inc. (N.D.Cal.1986) 643 F.Supp. 836, 856.) There was also sufficient evidence to support a finding that but for the sexual harassment Ms. Bihun would ......
-
Stender v. Lucky Stores, Inc.
...jurisdiction to hear plaintiffs' claims under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA"). Ackerman v. Western Elec. Co., Inc., 643 F.Supp. 836, 841 n. 1 (N.D.Cal.1986), aff'd, 860 F.2d 1514 (9th 418. Venue properly lies in the Northern District of California. II. LIABILITY PERI......
-
Sennello v. Reserve Life Ins. Co., 84-1209-Civ.
...determining what a discriminatee would have earned should be resolved against the discriminating employer); Ackerman v. Western Electric Co., 643 F.Supp. 836, 854 (N.D.Cal.1986). Equitable considerations, however, prevent us from relying upon Plaintiff's "Net Loss" estimates which appear on......
-
Employment
...(2021) 11 Cal. 5th 858; Morales v. Factor Surfaces LLC (2021) 70 Cal. App. 5th 267). • Front Pay ( Ackerman v. Western Electric Co. , 643 F. Supp. 836, 856 (N.D. Cal. 1986), aff’d, 860 F.2d 1514, 1519 (9th Cir. 1988)). • Injunctive Relief ( International Union of Operating Engineers v. Fair......