AM. FED. OF ST., CTY. & MUN. EMP. v. State of Wash., C82-465T.
Decision Date | 14 December 1983 |
Docket Number | No. C82-465T.,C82-465T. |
Parties | AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY, AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, et al., Plaintiffs, v. STATE OF WASHINGTON, et al., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Washington |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Winn Newman, Lisa Newell, Washington, D.C., Edward Earl Younglove, III, Olympia, Wash., for plaintiffs.
Richard A. Heath, Clark J. Davis, Chris Gregoire, Olympia, Wash., for defendants.
OPINION AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
On September 16, 1981, Plaintiff's filed charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).1 The EEOC took no action on Plaintiff's charges. On April 31, 1982, the U.S. Department of Justice issued Notices of Right to Sue to Plaintiffs.
On July 20, 1982 two Unions, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) and the Washington Federation of State Employees (WFSE), on behalf of some 15,500 workers in jobs held primarily by females, filed the complaint initiating this Class Action against the State of Washington. Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment and money damages pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, concerning Defendant's discriminatory implementation and application of its compensation system, and injunctive relief to provide enforcement of a nondiscriminatory compensation system as it previously has been or herein may be judicially determined.
Venue is properly laid in this Court under Title 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). This Court has jurisdiction in this matter by virtue of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended on March 24, 1972, Title 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., and Title 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
By order of the Court, dated April 1, 1983, this case was bifurcated into two phases (i.e., liability and remedy). By later order of the Court dated November 2, 1983, the remedy phase was bifurcated into two more phases (i.e., injunctive relief and back pay). Pretrial conferences were held prior to each trial to clarify the issues in the case. Unfortunately the parties were never able to agree upon a pretrial order at any phase of this litigation. The Court proceeded to try each phase of the case on two proposed pretrial orders, as submitted by the parties.
In the liability phase, or Stage I of this litigation, both pretrial orders were remarkedly similar in content as to the ultimate issues. The liability phase was tried to the Court commencing August 30, 1983, and continued over a period of eight days, concluding on September 14, 1983, with oral argument by counsel for both parties.
The injunctive relief phase of this litigation was tried to the Court commencing November 14, 1983 and concluding on November 17, 1983, again with oral arguments. Following the Court's determination that injunctive relief was appropriate and would issue herein, the back pay hearing was scheduled for and commenced on November 30, 1983. The back pay hearing, the last phase of this lengthy and complex lawsuit, concluded on December 1, 1983, with the Court's determination that back pay was appropriate and would be so awarded.
Throughout the course of this litigation several witnesses were called by both parties, more than 200 exhibits comprising several thousand pages were offered into evidence, and numerous depositions and affidavits were submitted to the Court. At the conclusion of each phase of the litigation, both parties submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.
The ultimate objective of this decision is to determine every issue of fact and law presented and thereby finally settle the divisive problems of gender-based discrimination in compensation in the State of Washington.
1. Class Certification:
On November 1, 1982, Plaintiffs moved the Court for Class Certification. The Class sought to be certified included male and female employees under the jurisdiction of the Department of Personnel (DOP), and the Higher Education Personnel Board (HEPB), who have worked or do work in positions that are or have ever been 70% or more female. This Court, by order dated March 31, 1983, found that the prerequisites to certification of a Class were satisfied, Fed.R.Civ.P. 23, and the Class above described was certified.
There are seven (7) prerequisites that a Plaintiff seeking to maintain a Class Action must meet, two implicit and five explicit. See Southern Snack Foods v. J & J Snack Foods, 79 F.R.D. 678, 680 (D.N. J.1978). The implicit prerequisites are that a Class exist and the Class representatives be members of that Class. Defendant, State of Washington, argued that the Class definition the Plaintiffs were requesting would create a Class whose membership probably could not be ascertained. It was Defendant's contention that the certified definition should be limited to include only classifications that are currently 70% or more female, thereby excluding employees in jobs which were formerly predominately female but have since been integrated. Plaintiffs responded that employees in job categories which were predominately female during the period covered by this action had suffered the same discrimination as employees in jobs which are still predominately female. Because the employees in the jobs that were both currently 70% or more female and were at one time 70% or more female, were readily identifiable in Defendant's records, the Court found there was no reason why they should be excluded from the Class. There was no question that the Class representatives were members of the Class. Accordingly, this court found that the implicit prerequisites were met.
The explicit prerequisites are that the Plaintiff Class meet all four requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a)—numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation, —and that the Class fulfill the conditions of any one of the three subsections of Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b). See Davis v. Avco Corporation, 371 F.Supp. 782, 790 (N.D.Ohio 1974); see also Williams v. New Orleans Steamship Association, 341 F.Supp. 613, 617 (E.D.La.1972).
Defendants conceded that the Class the Plaintiffs sought to certify met the requirements of subsection (b)(2) of Rule 23, and did not oppose such maintenance of this action.
In summary, having found the Plaintiffs met the seven prerequisites to maintenance of a Class action, this court found this case appropriate for certification under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23.
Subsequent to the litigation of Phase I, (i.e., the liability trial), this Court modified the Class definition in accordance with facts elicited at trial. The Class, as redefined, is as follows:
Male and female employees of all job classifications under the jurisdiction of DOP and HEPB which were 70% or more female as of November 20, 19802 or anytime thereafter.
2. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies:
Plaintiff's EEOC claims and complaint were based on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended on March 24, 1972. Title VII requires Plaintiffs to file their claims with the EEOC as a jurisdictional prerequisite to filing suit in District Court. In September of 1981 the individual Plaintiffs3 in this Class Action each filed claims with...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Niece v. Fitzner
...v. Puerto Rico Fire Serv., 715 F.2d 694 (1st Cir.1983) (Age Discrimination in Employment Act); American Fed. of State, County & Mun. Employees v. Washington, 578 F.Supp. 846 (W.D.Wash.1983) (gender discrimination in employment), rev'd on other grounds, 770 F.2d 1401 (9th Cir. The Rehabilita......
-
AFSCME, AFL-CIO v. County of Nassau
...forms of evidence used to prove intentional discrimination. For example, in the well-publicized case of AFSCME v. State of Washington, 578 F.Supp. 846 (W.D.Wash.1983), involving allegations of wage discrimination that are substantially similar to those presented here, the court noted that a......
-
Schatz v. State
...to a 1982 Title VII suit by a group of state employees. Laws of 1983, 1st Ex. Sess., ch. 75, § 6; see Am. Fed'n of State, Cnty. and Mun. Emps. v. Wash., 578 F.Supp. 846 (W.D.Wash.1983). The litigation continued, so, in 1985, the legislature provided more than $40 million for settlement of t......
-
Danielson v. DuPage Area Vocational Educ. Auth.
...this difficult concept, County of Washington v. Gunther, 452 U.S. 161, 101 S.Ct. 2242, 68 L.Ed.2d 751 (1981), and AFSCME v. State of Washington, 578 F.Supp. 846 (W.D.Wash.1983). The court deems a discussion of this issue is premature at this stage. Plaintiffs' complaint alleges that they we......