Berger v. Iron Workers Reinforced Rodmen Local 201

• Decision Date: 29 July 1988
• Docket Number: Nos. 86-5028,86-5275,s. 86-5028
• Citation: 852 F.2d 619
• Parties: 47 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 537, 47 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 38,191, 271 U.S.App.D.C. 321 Jessie BERGER, et al. v. IRON WORKERS REINFORCED RODMEN LOCAL 201, et al., Appellants, International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, et al. to 86-5277.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

Page 619

852 F.2d 619

47 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 537,

47 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 38,191, 271 U.S.App.D.C. 321

Jessie BERGER, et al. v. IRON WORKERS REINFORCED RODMEN LOCAL 201, et al., Appellants International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, et al.

Nos. 86-5028, 86-5275 to 86-5277.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

July 29, 1988.

John L. Oberdorfer, Andrew S. Newman and John F. Dienelt were on the appellees' response to the petition.

James R. O'Connell and Sally M. Tedrow Washington, D.C., were on the Petition for Rehearing for appellants Rodmen Local 201, Apprenticeship Committee and Training Program.

Before EDWARDS, STARR and GINSBURG, Circuit Judges.

ON APPELLANTS' PETITION FOR REHEARING

PER CURIAM:

Local 201, the Apprenticeship Committee, and the Training Program have petitioned this court for rehearing on various questions. The one question to which we invited appellees to respond is whether these three entities are jointly liable for the discrimination caused by the requirement that experienced rodmen complete a Union-supervised educational program in order to be eligible to take the journeyman examination, and thus, to obtain union membership. Because we believe that our earlier opinion is unclear on this issue, and that the petitioners' position is well-founded, we grant the appellants' petition for rehearing.

In our opinion we said:

The parties have assumed, and we do not question their assumption, that Local 201, the Apprenticeship Committee, and the Training Program, although all separately named defendants, are jointly liable for any discriminatory conduct in the operation of the Apprenticeship and Training Program.

Berger v. Iron Workers Reinforced Rodmen, Local 201, 843 F.2d 1395, 1414 n. 11 (D.C.Cir.1988) (emphasis added). We also noted, however, that "there were no allegations of discrimination in the administration of the programs" by the Apprenticeship Committee and the Training Program, id. at 1417-18 (emphasis in original), and thus we had no occasion to pass upon the issue of their joint liability for operations. We upheld the district court's conclusion that Local 201 violated Title VII and section 1981 by requiring experienced rodmen to complete a Union-supervised educational program, id. at 1422, but we did not go on to address the question raised in the petition for rehearing--i.e., whether the Apprenticeship Committee and the Training Program may be held jointly liable with Local 201 for the effects of that threshold requirement imposed by the union. On this issue, our opinion is silent.

The Apprenticeship Committee and the Training Program argue that the decision to require experienced rodmen to complete an educational program was made solely by the local (with, as we concluded, the approval of the International), and as joint labor management committees established pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Secs. 2000e(b), (d), they had no authority to determine who must complete the programs they administer, or otherwise set standards for union membership. In any event, the record contains no evidence that either of them participated with the union in imposing the educational requirement. As a result, they maintain that neither joint committee may be held liable unless Local 201 was acting as their agent when it established the educational prerequisite to the...