Chatman v. United States Steel Corp.

• Decision Date: 24 January 1977
• Docket Number: No. C-75-1239-CBR.,C-75-1239-CBR.
• Citation: 425 F. Supp. 753
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
• Parties: Richard C. CHATMAN and James Huffman, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION et al., Defendants.

425 F. Supp. 753

Richard C. CHATMAN and James Huffman, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION et al., Defendants.

No. C-75-1239-CBR.

United States District Court, N. D. California.

January 24, 1977.

Nancy Scott Ince, Lowell Johnston, William Bennett Turner, William E. Hickman, San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiffs.

McCutchen, Doyle, Brown & Enersen, David M. Heilbron, Jonathan H. Sakol, San Francisco, Cal., S. G. Clark, Jr., Gen. Atty., Labor, U. S. Steel Corp., Pittsburgh, Pa., for U. S. Steel Corp.

Carl B. Frankel, Pittsburgh, Pa., H. Tim Hoffman, Hoffman & Associates, Oakland, Cal., for Local 1440, United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO.

ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT

RENFREW, District Judge.

This is an action for employment discrimination brought by Richard C. Chatman ("Chatman") and James Huffman ("Huffman"), two black employees at United States Steel Corporation's Pittsburg Works, located in Pittsburg, California. Defendants are United States Steel Corporation ("U.S. Steel" or "Company") and United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, and its Local 1440 ("Union").

Plaintiffs allege violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. § 1981.¹ They seek broad-based systemic declaratory and injunctive relief as well as back pay, punitive damages, attorneys' fees, and costs.

The action was filed on the heels of a comprehensive Consent Decree entered into by the United States on behalf of various governmental agencies, including the Justice Department, the Labor Department, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.² Parties to the Consent Decree include the United Steelworkers of America and nine major steel producers, among them U.S. Steel.

The Consent Decree enjoins the companies from engaging in any form of employment discrimination; restructures seniority rules; outlines procedures for transfer, promotion, layoff and recall; establishes a back-pay fund of $30,940,000; and sets out affirmative action guidelines, requiring the implementation of affirmative action programs including training and minority recruitment. In addition, the Decree establishes elaborate mechanisms for monitoring implementation and ensuring compliance at each of the some 250 covered facilities, among them U.S. Steel's Pittsburg Works.

Pursuant to the Consent Decree, back pay checks were tendered to numerous minority employees of the nine covered steel producers, including 226 black employees at U.S. Steel's Pittsburg Works. Those who accepted the back pay tender thereby released all claims of discrimination that might otherwise have been asserted against their employers or union. Of the 226 black employees at the Pittsburg Works eligible for back pay, all but 11 accepted the tendered pay and released their claims.

Plaintiffs nonetheless sought initially to maintain this suit as a class action, claiming to represent "all black persons who are employed or might be employed by defendant United States Steel Corporation at its facilities in Pittsburg, California, who have been and continue to be or might be adversely affected by the practices complained of herein, and who have been, are, or might be represented by defendant labor organizations." Complaint at ¶ 5. However, plaintiffs filed no brief in support of their motion for class certification and ultimately withdrew the motion in open court on October 7, 1976, the date set for oral argument.

Asserting that plaintiffs' claims "are founded on garden-variety grievances having nothing to do with race" (Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment at p. 4), defendants moved for summary judgment on September 9, 1976. In essence defendants argue that all of the allegedly discriminatory acts complained of by Chatman resulted from the application of neutral rules and regulations equally applicable to employees of other races. Defendants further assert that Huffman's claim has nothing to do with race and is, in any event, barred by the applicable statute of limitations.

SUMMARY JUDGMENT WITH RESPECT TO CHATMAN'S CLAIMS

In his complaint of June 16, 1975, Chatman alleges that he was discriminated against because of his race on twelve separate occasions. Proceeding chronologically, the Court will consider in turn the factual material adduced by plaintiffs and defendants concerning each separate allegation. In accordance with Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, defendant's motion for summary judgment "shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact * * *."

Chatman first claims to have been discriminated against on the basis of race on June 22, 1973, when he was assigned two or three graveyard shifts in a row.

Defendants contend that this incident resulted from the application of a neutral policy in force throughout the plant. In support defendants offer the affidavit of Personnel Superintendent Robert A. Benson who states that Chatman was assigned to the first of two successive graveyard shifts as part of his normal shift rotation. On the date in question Chatman was employed as a "Piler," a job which is one step below that of Basement Attendant on the relevant line of progression. When an employee with greater seniority than Chatman returned from vacation, he displaced the least senior Basement Attendant who in turn displaced Chatman, the least senior Piler. Chatman was consequently "bumped back" to the position of Tractor Operator on a crew which had just rotated onto the graveyard shift.

The rule that a returning employee at one job level displaces the least senior employee at the level immediately below is employed throughout U.S. Steel's Pittsburg Works to minimize the number of displacements required in a move-down situation. According to affiant Benson, this policy, which occasionally results in successive assignments to the same shift, is applied evenhandedly to all employees regardless of race.

In opposition to defendants' motion for summary judgment, plaintiff has produced no fact tending to controvert the explanation contained in the Benson affidavit.

Chatman claims to have been discriminated against on the basis of race when bids posted on October 9, 1974, for vacancies to be filled at a later date, were cancelled after the bidding.

According to Robert Benson's affidavit of September 8, 1976, bids for two of the positions were cancelled because the vacancies no longer existed. Ten non-black bidders were also adversely affected by the cancellation. Moreover, the bids would doubtless have been awarded to some among the many bidders with earlier plant continuous service dates than Chatman, had they not been cancelled. None of these facts has been controverted by plaintiff, hence no disputed issue remains for trial.

Chatman claims to have been discriminated against on the basis of race in November, 1974, when he bid for the position of Attendant at the nine crew level. Although he was posted as having received the bid, the plant failed to go to the nine crew level of operation and the bid was voided.

According to facts contained in Robert Benson's affidavit and nowhere contradicted by plaintiff, the nine crew level was never reached because of adverse economic conditions. Consequently all successful bidders at the nine crew level had their bids voided, in conformance with established plant procedure. As plaintiff Chatman conceded in deposition testimony (Chatman Deposition at pp. 23-24), employees of all races were affected by the cancellation.

Chatman claims to have been discriminated against on the basis of race because, in November, 1974, he was not permitted to move to temporary openings on another line. At that time Chatman was working as a Piler on Number 3 line, and the Number 3 line was shearing.

According to affiant Benson, Chatman was not permitted to move up to temporary openings on other lines for one reason. Under established move-up policy in force throughout the Ferrostan Department, the Piler assigned to the Number 3 line must perform the piling function if the Number 3 line is shearing, as it was on the dates in question. This policy resulted from a Company-Union agreement worked out in 1968 and subsequently updated in 1972. According to information contained in the Benson affidavit, Pilers of all races have lost move-ups due to its application. Plaintiff Chatman has produced nothing in opposition to defendants' motion suggesting that, on the dates in question, move-ups were denied him because of his race, rather than his position.

On a second occasion in November, 1974, Chatman claims that he was discriminated against when he was not permitted to move up, within Number 3 line, from the position of Piler to that of Assistant Operator. In this instance, defendants concede that the policy precluding Pilers from moving to vacancies on other lines was not applicable. According to affiant Benson, Chatman was not awarded the move-up he sought because, as Piler, he was three positions below Assistant Operator in the promotional sequence and thoroughly unfamiliar with the job.

By way of opposition, Chatman does not dispute defendants' allegation that he had no training for the position he sought. He states, however, that a white worker named Stephens was, with the help of his foreman, allowed to move up from Feeder to Operator on one isolated occasion in 1974. According to Chatman's affidavit of September 28, 1976, Stephens "was not familiar with the job, but the foreman on the line, Berg, set the shear cut and assisted Stephens throughout the turn in doing the Operator's job so that Stephens earned Operator's pay with the help of his foreman." Chatman Affidavit at Par. 3.

With regard to this...