Broussard v. Schlumberger Well Services, Civ. A. No. 68-H-215.
| Decision Date | 04 August 1970 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 68-H-215. |
| Citation | 315 F. Supp. 506 |
| Parties | Alexis F. BROUSSARD, Sampson Larry, Earnest Evans, Leroy Haggerty, Andrew Vaughns, and Jeff Davis, Jr., Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. SCHLUMBERGER WELL SERVICES, a Division of Schlumberger Technology Corporation, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas |
Raymon Jordan, Houston, Tex., for plaintiffs.
John B. Abercrombie, Baker, Botts, Shepherd & Coates, Houston, Tex., for defendant.
Memorandum and Order:
This is a class action brought to secure injunctive relief and damages. The five named plaintiffs are all Negroes and they contend that defendant, Schlumberger Well Services, by whom they are employed, has engaged in employment practices prohibited by Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. The Court has jurisdiction of this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f) (1970).
The defendant Schlumberger Well Services, a Division of Schlumberger Technology Corporation is in the business of providing highly technical and skilled services to the drilling, exploration and production phases of the oil industry. These services consist principally of the measurement of certain electrical, acoustical, nuclear and mechanical parameters of the bore hole of an oil well and of the formation around and fluids in the bore hole. The product of sale consists primarily of a record of these measurements and an interpretation of their significance. The devices and instruments required to perform the measurement services of defendant are designed by defendant and manufactured by it for its own use. In large part these instruments are manufactured by defendant's employees at its headquarters plant in Houston, Texas.
This suit is limited to the defendant's plant located at 5000 Gulf Freeway, Houston, Texas, and the Materials and Maintenance Departments in that plant.
Defendant employs approximately 2,750 employees throughout the United States. Approximately 1,100 of these employees are employed at the Houston plant. Of the employees at the Houston plant, approximately 500 of them are in the Materials and Maintenance Departments. The Materials Department is the designation given by defendant to the department responsible for the actual manufacture of the instruments used by the field crews. The other 600 employees at the Houston plant include Engineering Department personnel, executive personnel and administrative and clerical personnel.
As of March 15, 1968, the defendant employed approximately 56 Negro persons at its plant at 5000 Gulf Freeway, Houston, Texas, in the Materials and Maintenance Departments. As of March 15, 1968, the defendant employed approximately 394 white persons at its plant located at 5000 Gulf Freeway, Houston, Texas, in the Materials and Maintenance Department.
Throughout the period of their employment with defendant, plaintiffs, Alexis F. Broussard, Sampson Larry, Leroy Haggerty, Andrew Vaughns and Jeff Davis, Jr., have been assigned to either the Materials or Maintenance Departments. All of them have been in classifications below the foreman level. None of the plaintiffs had acquired a high school education or its equivalent on any occasion material to this action.
The plaintiffs are presently employed in defendant's facility in the City of Houston, Harris County, Texas. The plaintiffs are all Negro males. The initial employment dates and classifications of the plaintiffs as of the date of trial are as follows:
Date of Classification
Employment Current
Alexis F. Broussard
(formerly employed
3/5/54 to 6/15/58) 11/20/61 Assembler A
Sampson Larry 11/4/52 Painter A
Andrew Vaughns 12/16/52 Assembler C
Leroy Haggerty 2/28/56 Machinist A
Jeff Davis, Jr. 5/25/51 Fabricator B
On or about October 13, 1966, the named plaintiffs filed charges of racial discrimination in employment against the defendant with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. This suit is limited to the charges made by plaintiffs with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and those charges specified in the complaint filed in this cause. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission made a determination that reasonable cause existed to believe defendant was in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Plaintiffs Broussard, Davis and Larry received from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission notification that the Commission had been unable to obtain voluntary compliance with the Act, and did bring civil action in this Court within thirty (30) days thereafter.
Negro employees of defendant in the Materials and Maintenance Departments who are similarly situated are too numerous to bring before the Court and plaintiffs are representative of these Negro employees presently employed in the Materials and Maintenance Departments by defendant.
Defendant does not now maintain any plan, program or practice which constitutes discrimination in employment against Negroes in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Defendant does not now maintain, support or promote any segregated social clubs. At one time, defendant did support social clubs which were essentially segregated, but only one integrated social club remains at present. The defendant has not maintained segregated rest rooms, toilet facilities or locker rooms since on or before July 1, 1965. Negroes have not as a class been denied enrollment in evening education courses sponsored by defendant because of their race.
Prior to 1955, defendant had no requirement that any employee have a high school diploma to qualify for promotion into any job at defendant's plant. In 1955, defendant established a system of salary and job progression for training for skilled craft jobs which allowed employees to move through the craft training program in a systematic pattern. This system was "semi-automatic" in that, at specific intervals in an employer's tenure in the craft training program, the employee's supervisor was required to take positive action to either increase the employee's salary (or promote him to a higher classification) or to hold the employee at his current salary (or in his current classification) or to discharge the employee. This same system of "semi-automatic" progression is still in effect although the classifications, names, and job contents have changed from time to time. The classifications which were included in this salary and job progression system came to be referred to as "mainstream" classifications.
At approximately the same time (1955), defendant adopted a requirement that in order for an employee to be hired or promoted into a "mainstream" job he must have obtained a high school education or its equivalent. This high school education requirement was not, however, strictly enforced until 1958 or 1959.
At the time of the adoption of the craft training progression program and the institution of the high school requirement, the following classifications in the various crafts were in the "mainstream": Utility Man, Second Class, First Class and Leadman. Persons in the following job classifications were required to have a high school education or its equivalent before they were eligible to be promoted into the "mainstream": Shop Assistant, Sub-Assembler, Custodian, Watchman and Building Steward.
Between the time of the institution of the high school education requirement for employment in "mainstream" jobs and the elimination of such requirement, six white employees were hired into the "mainstream" without a high school diploma or its equivalent and two Negroes were promoted into the "mainstream" without a high school diploma. No Negroes were hired into the "mainstream" without a diploma during this period of time.
In February of 1966, defendant created two new job classifications below the "mainstream": Shop Operator and Assembler. At the time of the creation of the Shop Operator classification, all Shop Assistants were Negro. All but one of the employees placed in the Shop Operator classification were Negroes. Employees in the Shop Operator and Assembler classifications were required to have a high school education or its equivalent before they were eligible to be promoted into the "mainstream" classifications.
On February 1, 1968, defendant eliminated the requirement of a high school diploma or its equivalent for promotion into the "mainstream" for employees with at least two years of service with defendant.
Prior to February 16, 1966, plaintiffs Haggerty, Broussard, Davis and Vaughns were all classified as Shop Assistants. On February 16, 1966, plaintiffs Broussard, Davis and Haggerty were reclassified and promoted to the classification of Shop Operator but not effective until March, 1966. Plaintiff, Vaughns remained in the classification of Shop Assistant until September 8, 1968, when he was reclassified and transferred to Custodian. On September 29, 1969, plaintiff Vaughns was transferred and reclassified Assembler C.
The so-called "mainstream" classifications were eliminated on February 1, 1968, and replaced by the job titles of A, B, C and First Class.
Advances within the rate ranges for job classifications below salary grade-6 (salary grades 1-5) are made on the basis of good performance and required minimum time in the grade level (automatic time progression). The required minimum time to progress through the "mainstream" job classifications was four years. The defendant has informal on-the-job training programs which are designed to train employees to become first class Machinists, Mechanics, Painters, Welders, Fabricators, Warehousemen, etc. Promotion and advancement are not formally based on comparative seniority among employees. However, if two equally qualified employees are available for promotion to fill an existing vacancy, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hurley v. Van Lare
...the class may nevertheless include others who have not. Doe v. Lavine, 347 F.Supp. 357 (S.D.N.Y.1972); Broussard v. Schlumberger Well Services, 315 F.Supp. 506 (S.D.Tex.1970); Miller v. International Paper Co., 408 F.2d 283 (5th Cir. 1969). Hence such factual distinctions among members of t......
-
Johnson v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company
...420 F.2d 1225 (4th Cir. 1970), rev'd on other grounds, 401 U.S. 424, 91 S.Ct. 849, 28 L.Ed.2d 158 (1971); Broussard v. Schlumberger Well Services, 315 F.Supp. 506 (S.D.Tex.1970); Hicks v. Crown Zellerbach Corp., 49 F.R.D. 184 (E.D. La.1968). See also Annot., 8 A.L.R.Fed. 461 (1971). The pro......
-
Watkins v. Scott Paper Co.
...1970, 420 F.2d 1225, 1230--31, rev'd on other grounds, 1971, 401 U.S. 424, 91 S.Ct. 849, 28 L.Ed.2d 158; Broussard v. Schlumberger Well Servs., S.D.Tex.1970, 315 F.Supp. 506, 512. See also EEOC Guideline 1607.11, 29 C.F.R. 1607.11:No employee selection standard can be imposed upon a class o......
-
Vuyanich v. Republic Nat. Bank of Dallas
..."most often" by "positive empirical evidence"), and that it need not be performed by a "professional," Broussard v. Schlumberger Well Services, 315 F.Supp. 506, 512 (S.D.Tex.1970). See also Washington v. Davis, supra, 426 U.S. at 247 n.13, 96 S.Ct. at 2051 n.13 ("It appears beyond doubt by ......