Adolph Coors Co. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 71--360

• Decision Date: 08 November 1972
• Docket Number: No. 71--360,71--360
• Citation: 502 P.2d 1113,31 Colo.App. 417
• Parties: , 5 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 256, 5 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 8029 ADOLPH COORS COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. COLORADO CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION, Defendant-Appellant, and Booker T. Mays, Intervenor. . II
• Court: Colorado Court of Appeals

Page 1113

502 P.2d 1113

31 Colo.App. 417, 5 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 256,

5 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 8029

ADOLPH COORS COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. COLORADO CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION, Defendant-Appellant and Booker T. Mays, Intervenor.

No. 71--360.

Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. II.

Nov. 8, 1972.

Bradley, Campbell & Carney, Leo N. Bradley, Earl K. Madsen, Golden, for plaintiff-appellee.

Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., John P. Moore, Deputy Atty. Gen., Jeffrey I. Sandman, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for defendant-appellant.

Edward J. Scheunemann, Denver, for intervenor.

PIERCE, Judge.

This appeal involves the disputed discharge of an employee of the Adolph Coors Company (Coors). The following facts are condensed from specific findings adopted and supplemented by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission from hearings before a hearing officer appointed by the Commission.

Booker T. Mays, Sr. was first hired in 1962, by Coors, in the company's construction department. He was the first black man to be employed by Coors. In November 1963, after the company waived its policy of not hiring convicted felons in its brewery operation, he was transferred to the brewery.

From time to time, during his employment, Mays encountered racial prejudice and harassment perpetrated by some white hourly employees. He was also involved in several incidents in which he was charged by his supervisors with infractions of company rules. With the exception of one reprimand, however, the company overlooked these infractions. The company hired his son as an employee, and at one time provided Mays with additional education at Emily Griffith Opportunity School, which he was later forced to discontinue due to a change in his work schedule. Once, after a dispute with the company, Mays tendered his resignation, which the company refused to accept. On February 18, 1969, Mays was permanently discharged from his job at Coors for defying a company order.

Mays contends that his discharge was motivated by racial prejudice, contrary to the provisions of the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, and offers the following specific incidents as evidence thereof:

1. In 1964, during the pendency of the passage of the Civil Rights Act, William Coors, president of the corporation, stated his views at an employees' meeting regarding the pending legislation. It was his opinion that the proposed law contained a quota hiring system for minority persons and that this might cause unemployment for some of the non-white employees. This legislation did not contain such a quota provision.

2. In 1966, at the request of a union official, a vice president of the company called a meeting of all black employees. Although there is dispute as to exactly what was discussed at the meeting, it did concern racial discrimination.

3. In 1968, Mays brought to the attention of William Coors the fact that, on several occasions in 1964, his supervisor had requested that Mays get him a 'nice colored girl' for a date. A conference was held with Mr. Coors, Mays, and the supervisor. The supervisor denied having made the remark. Mr. Coors informed both Mays and the supervisor that, if they both submitted to polygraph examinations, the one found to be prevaricating would be summarily discharged. It was later determined that the supervisor was not telling the truth, but he was not discharged by the company at that time. He was, however, discharged at a later time for having made a racist statement to fellow employees.

4. After the polygraph incident and a work regulation reprimand in 1968, Mays filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission against the supervisor involved in the polygraph incident and the company, alleging discrimination. This action was dropped, however, by Mays after he and the company reached an agreement which stated, among other things, that all past grievances between the parties were a result of misunderstanding, and that all reprimands against Mays were to be removed from his personnel folder.

5. In August 1968, Mays received another reprimand for violation of work rules which he briefly protested.

6. Finally, in February 1969, the series of events transpired which culminated in the termination of Mays' employment. These occurrences were:

A. On February 10, 1969, after noting a substantial decline in the number of beer cartons being handled at Mays' work station, investigation indicated that Mays had overstayed a relief break for seven minutes, which he did not deny. Several days later, he stated that the reason for this infraction was that he had had a nosebleed. However, he had not mentioned this to his supervisor or the investigator at any time on February 10th.

B. On February 12, 1969, he was again investigated and found to be away from his work station three minutes beyond his relief break privilege. At this time, he stated that he had been on different floors in the building, searching for medicine to relieve a headache. He was then informed by his supervisor that disciplinay action would be taken because of the February 10th and 12th violations. For the following two days, Mays called in sick and did not report for work. Upon his return, he filed a grievance with his union, charging that he was being harassed by the company, without justification, because of the February 10th and 12th incidents.

C. On February 17th, a meeting between Mays, his supervisor, and a union representative was held. Mays was advised that he was being given a five-day disciplinary layoff because of his abuses of relief breaks on February 10th and 12th. Mays stated that he would refuse to accept the disciplinary action unless it...