Bazemore v. Friday United States v. Friday
| Decision Date | 01 July 1986 |
| Docket Number | 85-428,Nos. 85-93,s. 85-93 |
| Parties | P.E. BAZEMORE, et al., Petitioners, v. William C. FRIDAY et al. UNITED STATES, et al., Petitioners, v. William C. FRIDAY et al |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Carolyn B. Kuhl, Washington, D.C., for petitioners in No. 85-428,
Eric Schnapper, New York City, for petitioners in No. 85-93.
Howard E. Manning, Jr., Raleigh, N.C., for respondents in both cases.
These cases present several issues arising out of petitioners' action against respondents for alleged racial discrimination in employment and provision of services by the North Carolina Agricultural Extension Service (Extension Service). The District Court declined to certify various proposed classes and, after a lengthy trial, entered judgment for respondents in all respects, finding that petitioners had not carried their burden of demonstrating that respondents had engaged in a pattern or practice of racial discrimination. The District Court also ruled against each of the individual plaintiffs' discrimination claims. The Court of Appeals affirmed. 751 F.2d 662 (CA4 1984). We hold, for the reasons stated in the concurring opinion of Justice BRENNAN, that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 253, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., the Extension Service had no duty to eradi- cate salary disparities between white and black workers that had their origin prior to the date Title VII was made applicable to public employers; 1 that the Court of Appeals erred in disregarding petitioners' statistical analysis because it reflected pre-Title VII salary disparities, and in holding that petitioners' regressions were unacceptable as evidence of discrimination; that the Court of Appeals erred in ignoring evidence presented by petitioners in addition to their multiple regression analyses; that, on remand, the Court of Appeals should examine all of the evidence in the record relating to salary disparities under the clearly-erroneous standard; that the reasons given by the Court of Appeals for refusing to certify a class of black employees of the Extension Service do not support a decision not to certify such a class; and that the Court of Appeals was correct in refusing to certify a class of defendant counties.2 We further hold, for the reasons stated in the opinion of Justice WHITE, that neither the Constitution nor the applicable Department of Agriculture regulations require more than what the District Court and the Court of Appeals found the Extension Service has done in this case to disestablish segregation in its 4-H and Extension Homemaker Clubs. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed in part and vacated in part, and the cases are remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.3
It is so ordered.
Justice BRENNAN joined by all other Members of the Court, concurring in part.
The purpose of North Carolina's agricultural extension program, administered through the North Carolina Agricultural Extension Service (Extension Service), is to aid in the dissemination of "useful and practical information on sub- jects relating to agriculture and home economics." App. to Pet. for Cert. in No. 85-93, p. 7a (hereinafter Pet.App.). The Extension Service is a division of the School of Agriculture and Life Sciences at North Carolina State University (NCSU). It is headed by a Director who exercises authority over District Extension Chairmen responsible for administering all Extension Service programs within the State's six Extension Service districts. The District Extension Chairmen, in turn, supervise the 100 County Extension Chairmen who are responsible for developing and coordinating all Extension Service activities within their respective counties. The County Extension Chairmen also report to their respective Board of County Commissioners (Board), a unit of local government, on extension programs and on matters relating to budgeting and personnel.
The Extension Service operates in four major areas: home economics, agriculture, 4-H and youth, and community resource development. In both the home economics and 4-H areas, one of the Extension Service's methods entails the establishment of clubs to educate the club members in home economics and other useful and practical skills. The agricultural program educates and encourages farmers to adopt scientific methods and to adjust to changing economic circumstances. The community resource development program emphasizes group action through citizen groups and organizations. Each of these programs is implemented by local agents who are selected for employment jointly by the Extension Service and the county Boards. Agents are divided into three ranks: full agent, associate agent, and assistant agent. "While the three ranks of agents perform essentially the same types of tasks, when an agent is promoted his responsibilities increase and a higher level of performance is expected of him." Id., at 17a.
The salaries of all workers are determined jointly by the Extension Service and the Boards. Id., at 33a; CA App 223; DX 78, CA App. 1684.1 The federal, state, and county governments all contribute to these salaries. The Boards and the Extension Service determine jointly the proportionate share of salaries to be paid by the State and by the county. Moreover, all county extension hirings and firings are decided " 'jointly between the North Carolina Agricultural Extension Service and the Board of County Commissioners.' " Pet.App. 24a (quoting Memorandum of Understanding, DX 78).
The Extension Service has overall responsibility for establishing qualifications for employment in the Service and for screening applicants before recommending qualified applicants to the county commissioners for appointment to vacant or new positions. The Extension Service also prepares and submits an annual budget request to the Board for the county's share of funds for salaries.
Each Board reviews the budget requests from the Extension Service each year and confers with and advises the District and County Extension Chairman concerning Extension Service programs. The Board furnishes the county's share of salaries for extension personnel. In addition, it provides office space and equipment, utilities, telephone, demonstration materials, etc.
Prior to August 1, 1965, the Extension Service was divided into two branches: a white branch and a "Negro branch." Only the "Negro branch" had a formal racial designation. The "Negro branch" was composed entirely of black personnel and served only black farmers, homemakers, and youth. The white branch employed no blacks, but did on occasion serve blacks. On August 1, 1965, in response to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the State merged the two branches of the Extension Service into a single organization. However, as the District Court subsequently found, "[the] unification and integration of the Extension Service did not result immediately in the elimination of some disparities which had existed between the salaries of white personnel and black personnel. . . ." Id., at 31a.
The private petitioners include employees of the Extension Service, recipients of its services, members of Extension Homemaker Clubs, and parents of 4-H Club youths. Complaint 12. They brought this action in 1971 alleging racial discrimination in employment and in the provision of services on the part of the Extension Service in violation of the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983 and 2000d, and 7 U.S.C. § 341 et seq. The defendants, respondents here, were William C. Friday, President of NCSU, and various officials associated with the University and its school of Agriculture. In addition, County Commissioners from Alamance, Edgecomb, and Mecklenburg Counties were also named as defendants.
On April 7, 1972, the United States intervened under § 902 of Title IX and §§ 601 and 602 of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000h-2, 2000d, and 2000d-1. The United States subsequently amended its complaint in intervention to include allegations that defendants had also violated §§ 703 and 706 of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2, and 2000e-5. The United States' complaint essentially tracked the claims made by the private petitioners. The private petitioners were permitted on the eve of trial to amend their complaint to add a claim under Title VII as well.
On two occasions prior to trial the District Court was asked, but declined, to certify the action as a class action. Near the close of trial the plaintiffs again requested the court to certify four classes of plaintiffs and one class of defendants.2 However, the District Court once again declined to do so, and this decision was subsequently upheld by the Court of Appeals. On the merits, the trial court explored allegations of racial discrimination in virtually every aspect of the Extension Service's employment practices and provision of services.3 The District Court ruled in favor of respondents in all respects. On most issues it concluded that peti- tioners had failed to carry their burden of proof. As a general proposition, the District Court was of the view that the Extension Service had conducted itself in a nondiscriminatory manner since it became subject to Title VII and since the merger of the black and white branches in 1965. Both the private petitioners and the United States limited their appeals to the claims that the District Court erred in considering the evidence before it regarding salaries and promotions to County Chairmen, and in concluding that the Extension Service had not discriminated against blacks with respect to salaries and promotions to County Chairmen. The United States also claimed that the system used to determine merit pay increases violated Title VII. The private petitioners also appealed the rejection of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carroll v. City of S.F.
...and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ( 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. ) to interpret FEHA].)In Bazemore v. Friday (1986) 478 U.S. 385, 395–396, 106 S.Ct. 3000, 92 L.Ed.2d 315 (per curiam ), the United States Supreme Court recognized that when an employer adopts a facially discriminatory pa......
-
Daniel v. American Bd. of Emergency Medicine
...by common proof). The court finds Dr. Carlton's model capable of performing this function. Bazemore v. Friday, 478 U.S. 385, 400-401, 106 S.Ct. 3000, 92 L.Ed.2d 315 (1986) (concurring op.) (multiple regression analysis which accounts for "major factors" need not account for all variables; o......
-
Lee v. Dep't of Children & Families
...130, 134–35 (2d Cir.2003). The Second Circuit also noted that the Supreme Court's analysis in Morgan and Bazemore v. Friday, 478 U.S. 385, 106 S.Ct. 3000, 92 L.Ed.2d 315 (1986) (holding that each time an employer paid an employee less than other employees for a discriminatory reason constit......
-
Ellis v. Salt River Project Agric. Improvement & Power Dist.
..."applies with equal force ... to actions arising under" section 1983 ); RK Ventures , 307 F.3d at 1059. In Bazemore v. Friday , 478 U.S. 385, 106 S.Ct. 3000, 92 L.Ed.2d 315 (1986), for example, the Supreme Court held that each paycheck issued under a racially discriminatory pay structure is......
-
Supreme Court Restricts Time Frame For Bringing Discriminatory Pay Suits
...The Ledbetter decision is significant because many lower courts had interpreted an earlier Supreme Court decision, Bazemore v. Friday, 478 U.S. 385 (1986) (per curiam), as permitting employees to recover for pay discrimination under Title VII even when the alleged discriminatory pay-setting......
-
Sex Discrimination Claims Under Title Vii of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
...alone may in a proper case constitute prima facie proof of a pattern or practice of discrimination.”). 129. See Bazemore v. United States, 478 U.S. 385, 400 (1986) (“A plaintiff in a Title VII suit need not prove discrimination with scientific certainty; rather, his or her burden is to pro......
-
Table of Cases
...(5th Cir. 1984), §595 Baughman v. Walt Disney World Co. , 217 Cal. App. 4th 438, 115 Cal. Rptr. 3d 825 (2013), §570.1 Bazemore v. Friday , 478 U.S. 385, 92 L.Ed. 315, 106 S.Ct. 3000 (1986), §614 Beaulieu v. Elliot , 434 P.2d 665 (Alaska 1967), §551.1.6 Bednar v. Bassett Furniture Mfg. Co .,......
-
Sex Discrimination
...gender-based wage discrepancies, even if the discrepancies began prior to coverage of the workgroup by Title VII. See Bazemore v. Friday, 478 U.S. 385 (1986). The case of Ricci v. DeStefano , 557 U.S. ___, 129 S. Ct. 2658, 174 L. Ed. 2d 490 (2009), highlights the interplay between disparate......
-
Commonly Used Experts
...lower paying jobs, whereas a small percentage of non-minority employees held jobs in the lower paying categories. In Bazemore v. Friday , 478 U.S. 385, 92 L.Ed. 315, 106 S.Ct. 3000 (1986) the Supreme Court discussed the acceptance of expert statistical evidence as proof of discrimination. T......