Bailey v. Ryan Stevedoring Co., Inc., Civ. A. No. 71-79-B.

• Decision Date: 08 July 1986
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 71-79-B.
• Parties: Alton J. BAILEY v. RYAN STEVEDORING COMPANY, INC., et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Louisiana

678 F. Supp. 1247

Alton J. BAILEY v. RYAN STEVEDORING COMPANY, INC., et al.

Civ. A. No. 71-79-B.

United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana.

July 8, 1986.

William R. D'Armond, Baton Rouge, La., Kean, Miller, Hawthorne, D'Armond, McCowan & Jarman, James C. Lopez, Opelousas, La., for defendants: Rogers Terminal & Shipping Corp., Louisiana Stevedores, Inc., Ramsay Scarlett Co., Inc., and Baton Rouge Marine Contractors, Inc.

C. Paul Barker, New Orleans, La., Robert H. Urann, Mietairie, La., for defendant, Locals 1830 and 1833.

Johnnie A. Jones, Baton Rouge, La., for plaintiff.

George Mathews, Dale, Owen, Richardson, Taylor & Mathews, Baton Rouge, La., for defendant Baton Rouge Marine Contractors, Inc., and Ryan Stevedoring Co., Inc.

Joseph W. Cole, Jr., Port Allen, La., for defendant, Local 1830 of General Longshore Workers, International Longshoremen's Ass'n, AFL-CIO.

POLOZOLA, District Judge:

This matter is before the court for a determination of whether plaintiff is entitled to attorney's fees as the prevailing party in this action. For reasons which follow, the court finds plaintiff was not the prevailing party herein and, therefore, is not entitled to attorney's fees.

The facts of this case were previously set forth in opinions written by Judge E. Gordon West, 443 F.Supp. 899 (M.D.La.1978), and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, 613 F.2d 588 (5th Cir.1980), and will not be repeated in detail here.¹ Alton Bailey filed this suit individually and as a class action claiming the defendants discriminated against him and the class he purported to represent because of his race. Judge West dismissed the class action after 204 of the approximate 230 members of the class objected to Bailey representing the class. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the class action stating:

It appears, therefore, the views of a majority of the black longshoremen are antagonistic with those of appellant, the would-be standard bearer for the proposed class.

* * * * * *

In the instant case we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the class action.

* * * * * *

We perceive no reversible error pertaining to the district court's ruling on appellant's attempt to make a class action out of a grievance which is clearly individual in nature.

528 F.2d at 553-554.

Both the district court and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals also found there had been no discrimination and dismissed plaintiff's suit.

The Fifth Circuit stated:

The trial court, however, found that although it is undisputed that appellant has averaged fewer work hours per year than other longshoremen, the evidence does not support a contention of employment discrimination. An analysis of appellant's employment record supports the trial court's conclusion:

Also relating to appellant's availability for job assignment, president of Local 1830, Mark Young, testified that "Bailey was more or less motivated by politics. If he had something pending in the court, and he felt a decision was going to be made, or he got some communication or felt like an election was about to come around, he came around. But right after the election or after he lost a case, Bailey was out of sight for as much as a month or a year.... Bailey showed up less than the average longshoreman." It is apparent that neither the stevedoring companies nor the union locals discriminated against appellant; rather, it is clear that work was assigned when appellant made himself available. Appellant worked fewer hours than the average longshoreman because he voluntarily elected not to work by absenting himself from the daily shape-ups.

Similarly, the employment decision to exclude appellant from positions of responsibility and special skill (e.g., foreman, pusher and operator) was rationally based. Appellant never applied for admission to the available training programs necessary to qualify for placement in the skilled positions such as crane operator, winch operator and dozer operator. Furthermore, high absenteeism and erratic, antagonistic behavior contributed to the job placement chosen by the stevedoring companies. (Footnotes omitted.)

528 F.2d at 555-556.

However, even though the Fifth Circuit found the record totally void of any evidence of discrimination, the appellate court feared a possible future threat of discrimination if there was not a merger between the white and black longshoremen unions. Thus, the case was remanded to the district court in order for the district court to oversee a merger of the unions. Despite objections made by the plaintiff, Alton Bailey,² the leaders of the black and white unions successfully and in an equitable and constitutional manner merged the two...