Brady v. Thurston Motor Lines

Citation532 F. Supp. 893
Decision Date24 February 1982
Docket NumberNo. C-C-76-343-M.,C-C-76-343-M.
PartiesRandy BRADY; James Williams; Michael Fox; Jerry Hunter; Francis Pendergrass; Lacy Monds; and Chris Watkins, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, and Curtiss Crawford and Lorenzo Mosely, Plaintiffs-Intervenors, v. THURSTON MOTOR LINES, a corporation, Defendant.
CourtUnited States District Courts. 4th Circuit. Western District of North Carolina

Michael A. Sheely, Sheely & Brooks, Bart William Shuster, Plumides & Plumides, Charlotte, N. C., for plaintiffs.

J. W. Alexander, Jr., Blakeney, Alexander & Machen, Charlotte, N. C., for defendant.

JUDGMENT

McMILLAN, District Judge.

This case is back before the court upon the January 11, 1982, remand from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The court has again reviewed its lengthy notes taken during the trial, and has repeated the separate analysis of each individual claim, under which several claims were found to have merit, several claims were found to have no merit, and relief for some individuals, and for the class, was ordered.

As the file will show, the court filed a memorandum of decision on the 16th day of July, 1979; findings of fact, conclusions of law, order and judgment in accord with that memorandum were drafted by the plaintiffs; and they were revised at least twice in many significant particulars by the court before final drafts were entered.

The case was tried and decided in the district court before the Burdine decision was ever rendered. The district court perhaps did not in semantic perfection "articulate" the precise litany now apparently required. However, the court did not put any burden of proof upon the defendant, but did require the plaintiff to sustain the burden of proof as to every essential element of the claim of each plaintiff and the claims of the class.

That process has been followed in every Title VII case I have ever tried, since long before Burdine; it has required the plaintiffs to prove every element necessary to support their claims; it has put no burden upon the defendant to prove anything; it has accepted the fact that in several instances the defendant has "articulated" reasons for its actions; in some cases those reasons were found legitimate and rulings were made in favor of the defendant; in other cases, those reasons were found pretextual; and a notation was made that the plaintiffs had carried their burden of rebutting defendant's evidence.

The individual claims and the class questions were in fact decided under the most rigorous strictures of McDonnell Douglas, as later re-stated by Burdine.

For the record, however, and in repetition of the principles previously followed in the original findings of fact and conclusions of law, this court reiterates:

1. The plaintiffs on every issue in this case have always had the burden of proof to satisfy the court that each plaintiff was treated in a discriminatory fashion and that the patterns and practices found to be discriminatory were such, in fact, and that the reasons, if any, advanced by defendant in explanation were pretextual.

2. The defendant has had no burden of persuasion and has only been saddled with the "burden" of Burdine, which is simply to say words which, if taken at face value, explain its allegedly discriminatory actions.

3. Considering all the evidence, those plaintiffs who have won (and the class of plaintiffs on those issues where class relief was ordered) have had the burden at all times and have satisfied the burden of proving that the defendant did discriminate as alleged.

Additions to the language of specific paragraphs of the findings of fact, the conclusions of law, the order and the judgment to repeat the above litany, wherever it may be appropriate, are hereafter made, and the findings of fact, conclusions of law, order and judgment are hereby amended accordingly, as follows:

ADDITIONAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AS TO THE CLAIMS OF THE INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS AND CLASS MEMBERS, BY NAME.

Lorenzo Mosely.Paragraph 5 of the findings of fact is amended by adding the following paragraph:

Mosely had the burden of proof throughout to show that he was denied employment because of his race. He did not sustain that burden. Defendant has articulated a valid reason for his discharge, in the form of a policy against re-hiring old employees. Plaintiff failed to prove that this explanation was pretextual.

Christopher Watkins.Paragraph 6 of the findings of fact is amended by adding the following paragraph:

Watkins had the burden of proving that he was discharged because of his race. He had that burden throughout. Defendant articulated a valid and credible reason for his discharge (because he got in a fight and, along with a supervisor, was discharged for violating the no fighting rule). Plaintiff failed to prove that defendant's articulated reason was pretextual.

Lacy Monds.Paragraph 7 of the findings of fact is amended by adding the following paragraph:

Monds had the burden of satisfying the court that he was discharged because of race. He failed to carry the burden. Defendant articulated a valid reason for discharging Monds, that is, his failure to report accidents. Plaintiff failed to prove to the court that this articulated reason was pretextual.

Jerry Hunter.Paragraph 8 of the findings of fact is amended by adding the following paragraph:

Hunter had the burden of satisfying the court that because of his race he was denied two promotions to the job of line foreman and one promotion for transfer to a job as switcher. He has carried that burden throughout. Defendant articulated no valid reason for denying promotion to Hunter and giving the line foreman and switcher jobs to white men instead. Hunter is entitled to relief on his claims for denial of promotion to line foreman and for unlawful failure to transfer or promote into a switcher position.

As to Hunter's discharge, the company has articulated a valid reason (writing obscenities on a bill of lading, which he obviously did). Plaintiff failed to prove that the reason given was pretextual. They "got" him fair and square and don't have to pay for firing him.

Francis Pendergrass.Paragraph 9 of the findings of fact is amended by adding the following paragraph:

Pendergrass undertook to support a claim for discriminatory discipline and for unlawful retaliatory discharge. He had the burden throughout on both charges. He did not sustain the burden of proving that his temporary disciplinary removal from his forklift job in favor of a white driver was based on race. Defendant articulated a valid reason—that it was a routine, nondiscriminatory, corrective measure. Plaintiff failed to prove defendant's articulated reason to be pretextual. Pendergrass had the burden of proving that he was discharged because of his race. He...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Louis v. Meissner
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. Southern District of Florida
    • February 24, 1982
  • Brady v. Thurston Motor Lines, Inc.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
    • February 6, 1985
    ...WIDENER, Circuit Judge: In the third appeal of this vigorously contested case, see 726 F.2d 136 affirming in part and reversing in part 532 F.Supp. 893 remand from 673 F.2d 1306, Thurston Motor Lines appeals an order of the district court granting back pay to three former Thurston employees......
  • Brady v. Thurston Motor Lines
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
    • January 18, 1984
    ...entry of judgment. The district court then amended its judgment to specify the burden of proof it imposed on each of the parties. 532 F.Supp. 893. We affirm the judgment on all issues save two. In summary, we hold: (1) the district court properly allocated the burden of proof between the pa......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT