Beavers v. American Cast Iron Pipe Co.
| Decision Date | 19 October 1992 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 90-7900,91-7087,s. 90-7900 |
| Parties | 60 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 163, 60 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 41,840, 61 USLW 2290, 123 Lab.Cas. P 35,717, 1 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 256 Ray Wayne BEAVERS, Terry Chaffin, Oscar Jenkins, James Dollar, Richard L. Johnson, Charles Harmon, as representatives of a class described and composed of all male employees, former employees, and prospective employees, Plaintiffs-Appellants, Rodney Craig Rosetta, Paul Franklin Coupland, Roger Dale Miller, Intervenors-Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. AMERICAN CAST IRON PIPE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. Oscar JENKINS and James Dollar, as representatives of a class described and composed of all male employees, former employees, and prospective employees, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. AMERICAN CAST IRON PIPE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. Ray Wayne BEAVERS, Terry Chaffin, Oscar Jenkins, James Dollar, Richard L. Johnson, Charles Harmon, as representatives of a class described and composed of all male employees, former employees, and prospective employees, Plaintiffs, Rodney Craig Rosetta, Roger Dale Miller and Paul Franklin Coupland, Plaintiffs-Intervenors-Appellants, v. AMERICAN CAST IRON PIPE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. Oscar JENKINS and James Dollar, as representatives of a class described and composed of all male employees, former employees, and prospective employees, Plaintiffs, Rodney Craig Rosetta, Roger Dale Miller and Paul Franklin Coupland, Plaintiffs-Intervenors-Appellants, v. AMERICAN CAST IRON PIPE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit |
Ann K. Norton, Robert A. Wiggins, Jr., Gordon, Silberman, Wiggins & Childs, P.C., Birmingham, Ala., for appellants.
Donald R. Livingston, Gwendolyn Y. Reams, Vincent J. Blackwood, Samuel A. Marcosson, E.E.O.C., Office of General Counsel, Washington, D.C., for amicus E.E.O.C.
F.A. Flowers, III, Sue Ann R. Willis, Robert G. Tate, J. Fredric Ingram, Mark M. Lawson, Burr & Forman, Birmingham, Ala., for American Cast Iron Pipe Co.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.
Before EDMONDSON and COX, Circuit Judges, and MERHIGE *, Senior District Judge.
The plaintiffs in these consolidated class actions represent the past, present, and future male employees of American Cast Iron Pipe Co. (ACIPCO). They challenge ACIPCO's policy of denying medical and dental insurance coverage to the children of ACIPCO employees if those children do not reside full time with their employee-parent. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of ACIPCO. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm in part, reverse in part, vacate in part, and remand.
Since 1962, ACIPCO has limited the medical and dental insurance benefits it provides to its employees' dependents. In order for the children of an employee to qualify for coverage, ACIPCO requires that the children reside full time with their employee-parent. Dr. Edwin Bradley, a statistics expert, stated in an affidavit that 397 of the 400 ACIPCO employees who have been adversely affected by this policy since 1982 were men.
Ray Beavers, an ACIPCO employee, was divorced from his wife in 1975. As a result, Beavers's children no longer resided with their father and lost their ACIPCO medical and dental insurance. Beavers's children continued to be ineligible for insurance coverage on May 23, 1983, when Beavers filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Beavers charged that ACIPCO's policy violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because it had a disparate impact on male employees, who are historically less likely to have custody of their children in the event of divorce.
In 1986, Beavers filed a class action against ACIPCO in the Northern District of Alabama on behalf of "all male employees, former employees and prospective employees of the defendant, American Cast Iron Pipe Company." The complaint alleges that ACIPCO's policy is sexually discriminatory in violation of Title VII. Other male ACIPCO employees moved to intervene as additional named plaintiffs, some claiming that ACIPCO's policy was not only sexually discriminatory but also racially discriminatory. Beavers and the named plaintiffs also assert individual claims under the Equal Pay Act. After the district court refused to certify the class and denied the motions to intervene, this court reversed and remanded. Beavers v. American Cast Iron Pipe Co., 852 F.2d 527 (11th Cir.1988).
On remand, the district court certified the class action, and the intervenors were added as named plaintiffs. ACIPCO subsequently moved for summary judgment. The district court granted summary judgment dismissing with prejudice the individual and class Title VII claims on the ground that none of the plaintiffs had filed a timely charge with the EEOC. Beavers v. American Cast Iron Pipe Co., 751 F.Supp. 956 (N.D.Ala.1990). The court held that Title VII's 180-day limitations period began to run for each plaintiff as soon as he knew that his children were no longer covered under ACIPCO's policy. Id. at 963. The district court also granted summary judgment dismissing the six named plaintiffs' Equal Pay Act claims on the ground that the plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate that they were compensated less than female employees who were performing equal work. Id. at 968. The plaintiffs then appealed to this court. 1
1. Whether an EEOC charge challenging the current application of the allegedly discriminatory employment policy was timely even though it was filed more than 180 days after the policy was first imposed.
2. Whether the fact that lesser-skilled female employees receive greater compensation than male employees is sufficient to demonstrate a prima facie case under the Equal Pay Act.
The plaintiffs contend that ACIPCO's policy of limiting insurance coverage to those children who reside full time with their employee-parent has a continuous disparate impact in violation of Title VII. The violation is not simply a single event which occurs when the policy is first applied to the affected employee. Rather, ACIPCO's policy has an unlawful discriminatory effect each and every day a male employee is denied insurance coverage for his nonresident children.
Even though Ray Beavers was subject to ACIPCO's discriminatory policy as early as 1975, the charge he filed with the EEOC in 1983 was timely as to the application of that policy within the 180 days preceding the charge. Moreover, even if Beavers's charge were deemed to be untimely, the other named plaintiffs and class members relied upon Beavers's suit to protect their rights. Because ACIPCO did not challenge the timeliness of Beavers's charge until 1990, it should be equitably estopped from asserting the limitations period against the other plaintiffs. Also, the 180-day period for the plaintiffs to file charges with the EEOC should be considered tolled while Beavers's suit was pending. Given this toll, the subsequent EEOC charges were clearly filed within the limitations period.
The plaintiffs also object to the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of ACIPCO on the Equal Pay Act claim. First, James Dollar has demonstrated that he is paid less than comparable female employees despite having greater skills and responsibility. Second, ACIPCO treats all of its employees the same for the purpose of providing insurance coverage, thereby satisfying the statute's equal work requirement. Finally, the district court erred in failing to notify class members of their right to opt into the Equal Pay Act suit.
ACIPCO argues that it was entitled to summary judgment because none of the named plaintiffs filed a timely charge with the EEOC. In order to be timely, a charge must be filed within 180 days of the alleged violation. Assuming ACIPCO's insurance coverage limitation was contrary to Title VII, the violation occurred when the plaintiffs first knew that the policy adversely affected them. Any "continuing" effect of the policy is simply the result of their failure to file a timely charge. Furthermore, because Beavers's charge was not timely, the remaining plaintiffs may not rely upon his lawsuit to toll the application to them of the 180-day limitations period.
With respect to the Equal Pay Act claim, ACIPCO maintains that the plaintiffs have failed to establish a prima facie case because none of the named plaintiffs can identify a female employee who is paid more for performing equal work with equal skills, effort, and responsibility under similar working conditions. The fact that ACIPCO treats all of its employees the same for the purpose of insurance coverage does not eliminate the statute's equal work requirement. Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to notify class members of their right to opt into the Equal Pay Act action more than four years after the suit was filed and just shortly before trial.
The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission was given permission to file an amicus curiae brief. Like the plaintiffs, the EEOC argues that each application of ACIPCO's policy regarding insurance coverage for its employees' children constituted an independent violation of Title VII. Accordingly, the initial charge filed with the EEOC in 1983 was timely even though the policy was first implemented in 1962. Also, the charges filed by other named plaintiffs were timely since the pending lawsuit tolled the 180-day limitations period. The EEOC did not express an opinion regarding the other issues raised by the parties.
District court orders granting summary judgment are reviewed de novo. See, e.g., Tackitt v. Prudential Ins. Co., 758 F.2d 1572, 1574 (11th Cir.1985).
The threshold question is whether Beavers filed a timely charge with the EEOC....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McGuire v. Marshall
...Circuit held that each week in which a discriminatory insurance policy was in effect constituted a new Title VII violation. 975 F.2d 792, 798 (11th Cir. 1992) ; cf. also Montin v. Estate of Johnson , 636 F.3d 409, 416 (8th Cir. 2011).Plaintiffs allege they are bound in perpetuity by discrim......
-
Saville v. Houston County Healthcare Authority
...It is undisputed that the discharge itself fell within the 180-day period. The court agrees with Saville. In Beavers v. American Cast Iron Pipe Co., 975 F.2d 792 (11th Cir.1992), the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that "Where an employee charges an employer with continuously maintai......
-
Gonzales v. Garner Food Services, Inc.
...qualify as a continuing violation, and the continuation of the violation into the present, which would. See Beavers v. American Cast Iron Pipe Co., 975 F.2d 792, 796 (11th Cir.1992). As did the district court, we will assume for purposes of our analysis that the denial of AIDS-related healt......
-
Welch v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.
...act in the case of a continuing violation) to file a charge of discrimination. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e); Beavers v. American Cast Iron Pipe Co., 975 F.2d 792, 796 (11th Cir.1992). Plaintiff filed his charge of discrimination on January 30, 1995. Thus, if the last act which comprises Plaintiff......
-
Sex Discrimination
...argued they are entitled to equal pay based upon the comparable “worth” of their jobs. See, e.g., Beavers v. American Cast Iron Pipe Co., 975 F.2d 792, 801 (11th Cir. 1992) (male employees suing for child EEOC v. Madison Community Unit Sch. Dist., 818 F.2d 577, 580 (7th Cir. 1975) (female c......
-
Sex Discrimination
...argued they are entitled to equal pay based upon the comparable “worth” of their jobs. See, e.g., Beavers v. American Cast Iron Pipe Co., 975 F.2d 792, 801 (11th Cir. 1992) (male employees suing for child benefits); EEOC v. Madison Community Unit Sch. Dist. , 818 F.2d 577, 580 (7th Cir. 197......
-
Table of cases
...F.2d 768 (8th Cir. 1987), §21:7.H.2.b Beaumont v. Bouillion , 896 S.W.2d 143 (Tex. 1995), §34:2.B Beavers v. American Cast Iron Pipe Co. , 975 F.2d 792 (11th Cir. 1992), §19:3.B Beavers v. Northrop Worldwide Aircraft Servs., Inc. , 821 S.W.2d 669 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1991, writ denied), §18:......
-
Table of cases
...F.2d 768 (8th Cir. 1987), §21:7.H.2.b Beaumont v. Bouillion , 896 S.W.2d 143 (Tex. 1995), §34:2.B Beavers v. American Cast Iron Pipe Co. , 975 F.2d 792 (11th Cir. 1992), §19:3.B Beavers v. Northrop Worldwide Aircraft Servs., Inc. , 821 S.W.2d 669 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1991, writ denied), §18:......