Alaniz v. California Processors, Inc.

• Decision Date: 01 April 1986
• Docket Number: 83-2644,Nos. 83-2246,s. 83-2246
• Parties: 40 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 768, 39 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 36,063, 54 USLW 2546 Maria ALANIZ, et al., Plaintiff, v. CALIFORNIA PROCESSORS, INC., et al., Defendants. Claim of Connie BARRIOS and Louise Lopez, Claimants-Appellants, v. CONTADINA FOODS, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

Page 1412

785 F.2d 1412

40 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 768,

39 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 36,063, 54 USLW 2546

Maria ALANIZ, et al., Plaintiff, v. CALIFORNIA PROCESSORS, INC., et al., Defendants.

Claim of Connie BARRIOS and Louise Lopez, Claimants-Appellants, v. CONTADINA FOODS, Defendant-Appellee.

Nos. 83-2246, 83-2644.

United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Oct. 2, 1984.

Decided April 1, 1986.

Alan B. Exelrod, San Francisco, Cal., for claimants-appellants.

Michael P. Riccitiello, Paula Champagne, Littler, Mendelson & Fastiff, San Francisco, Cal., for defendant-appellee.

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

Before GOODWIN, POOLE and BOOCHEVER, Circuit Judges.

POOLE, Circuit Judge:

Connie Barrios and Louise Lopez filed claims for employment discrimination under a settlement agreement stemming from a class action against 74 food processor and union defendants, including appellee Contadina Foods. The settlement agreement provided for training programs, affirmative action procedures and an Affirmative Action Fund, claims to which would be heard by a magistrate. A magistrate, appointed by the district court as special master, entered final judgment for the defendants. Appeal was taken to this court. We dismissed the appeal and remanded to the district court because it had entered final judgment without making a de novo review of the magistrate's findings. After a second appeal, the district court held a hearing, conducted a de novo review of the magistrate's findings, and thereafter entered judgment for the defendants, from which Barrios and Lopez now appeal. We affirm.

I. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW

Appellants have been seasonal employees at Contadina Foods' Woodland, California cannery since the 1940's. The majority of jobs available at Contadina were seasonal, but some workers were required for year-round work in appellee's warehouse. Such "regular" employees had seniority status over seasonal employees, even though a seasonal employee's hire date was earlier. Appellants sought to become "regular" employees, but were refused because, until 1971, women were excluded from all off- season warehouse work. Appellants claimed that denial of off-season unskilled jobs and the opportunity to learn semi-skilled jobs deprived them of the benefits of "regular" employee status.

Appellee's professed reason for excluding women from off-season warehouse work was based on California Industrial Welfare Commission (the Commission) Order 17, which prohibited assignment of female employees to any job that required as part of her regular duties that she lift more than 25 pounds. Appellee claimed, and the magistrate found, that all personnel assigned to its warehouses during the off-season were required to do heavy lifting, thereby preventing employment of women for warehouse work. The magistrate found that the Commission strictly enforced this order, even after a district court had held the order violative of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e et seq. See Rosenfeld v. Southern Pacific Co., 293 F.Supp. 1219 (C.D.Cal.1968). The Commission continued to enforce its order until June, 1971 when we affirmed Rosenfeld on appeal. Rosenfeld v. Southern Pacific Co., 444 F.2d 1219 (9th Cir.1971).

In October 1971, California Processors, Inc. (CPI), a trade association, issued a bulletin notifying its canning industry members that the Commission had ended enforcement of its weight-lifting restrictions. Contadina thereupon changed its practices and began to assign women to warehouse jobs requiring the lifting of objects over 25 pounds. Appellant Barrios was assigned to one such job in January 1972, thereby enabling her to become a "regular" employee. As a result, Barrios disclaims any sex discrimination after 1972.

Appellant Lopez was also assigned to weight-lifting work in early 1972, but "waived off" the job the same day. She subsequently waived off several other jobs involving heavy lifting, claiming back trouble. Lopez became a "regular" employee in 1977.

Appellants had been included as members in a class action filed in December 1973 pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e et seq., and 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1981. The class included past, present, and future applicants for employment at CPI member companies who are Black, Asian-American, Native American, Spanish-surnamed, or women. The class action was settled by a consent decree approved in Alaniz v. California Processors, Inc., 73 F.R.D. 269 (N.D.Cal.1976), aff'd sub nom. Alaniz v. Tillie Lewis Foods, 572 F.2d 657 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 837, 99 S.Ct. 123, 58 L.Ed.2d 134 (1978).

The Alaniz settlement created affirmative action hiring procedures and training programs, revised existing seniority lists, and established a $6 million Affirmative Action Fund in order to compensate employees with back pay and other relief from past discrimination.

Lopez and Barrios filed their back pay claims in October 1980 and January 1981, respectively. The claims were referred by the district court to the magistrate, who consolidated them for discovery and trial.

On January 15, 1982, the magistrate entered findings of fact and conclusions of law, holding that Contadina's good faith reliance on the Commission Order 17 precluded Lopez's recovery for discrimination prior to October 1971, even if she had been available, and that she had not been the subject of any actual discrimination after that time.

The magistrate further held that Contadina was entitled to judgment on Barrios' claim because Contadina was immune from damages through October 8, 1971 by virtue of its good faith reliance on the Commission's order and because Barrios had disclaimed damages subsequent to her achievement of regular seniority status in 1972. ¹

Upon remand from a prior appeal, the district court held a hearing, reviewed the magistrate's findings and conclusions de novo, and entered judgment for appellee Contadina on November 28, 1983.

On this appeal, Barrios and Lopez contend that (1) Contadina's good faith reliance on the Commission's order does not immunize it from liability against appellants' back pay claims; (2) Contadina's failure to hire women for year-round positions was not in good faith; (3) the balance of hardships favors awarding back pay to appellants; and (4) the district court erred in finding that appellant Lopez did not meet her burden of proving employment discrimination.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Validity of the "Good Faith" Defense

Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e et seq., declares unlawful discriminatory employment practices, including "discriminat[ion] against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's * * * sex." 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e-2(a)(1). In private actions under Title VII, the court may "order such affirmative action as may be appropriate, which may include * * * back pay." 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e-5(g).

The award of back pay is neither automatic nor mandatory; rather it is a remedy which courts may invoke. Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405, 415, 95 S.Ct. 2362, 2370, 45 L.Ed.2d 280 (1975). In Albemarle, the Supreme Court articulated the standard for denial of back pay claims:

[G]iven a finding of unlawful discrimination, back pay should be denied only for reasons which, if applied generally, would not frustrate the central statutory purposes of eradicating discrimination throughout the economy and making persons whole for injuries suffered through past discrimination.

422 U.S. at 421, 95 S.Ct. at 2373.

The Albemarle court did not, however, find it necessary to decide cases involving discrimination on sexual grounds in reliance on state "female protective" statutes that were inconsistent with Title VII. 422 U.S. at 423 n. 18, 95 S.Ct. at 2374 n. 18.

Our review of the district court's conclusions of law proceeds de novo, United States v. McConney, 728 F.2d 1195, 1201 (9th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 105 S.Ct. 101, 83 L.Ed.2d 46 (1984), and we base our review of the court's findings of fact under the clearly erroneous standard, McConney, 728 F.2d at 1200.

This court considered the validity of good faith reliance on a state protective statute as a defense to back pay claims in Rosenfeld v. Southern Pacific Company, 444 F.2d 1219 (9th Cir.1971). There we held that while the state protective statute involved in that case did not provide a Bona Fide Occupational Qualification defense under Title VII, good faith reliance might be relevant to back pay awards. Id. at 1227. The district court had awarded no damages in Rosenfeld; nevertheless, we observed that "[p]rior to a judicial determination such as evidenced by this opinion, an employer can hardly be faulted for following the explicit provisions of applicable state law." Id.

We further considered the issue whether an employer can be held liable for back pay when discrimination results from applicable state law in Schaeffer v. San Diego Yellow Cabs, Inc., 462 F.2d 1002 (9th Cir.1972). In Schaeffer, the female plaintiff was prevented by California Commission regulations from driving a cab for nine-hour shifts. We held that Yellow Cab intentionally engaged in unlawful employment discrimination. "The fact that the Company may have been relying on a state statute does not make their [sic] actions any less of a violation under Sec. 706(g) [of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964]." Id. at 1006. Nevertheless, we found that good faith reliance on state law was relevant to liability for back pay. We rejected both the Company's position that good faith reliance on state law should be a complete defense and the position of EEOC and of the plaintiff that such reliance should be irrelevant:

In the case of damages of this nature, a court must balance the various equities between the...