Chisholm v. U.S. Postal Service
| Decision Date | 25 November 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 80-1800,80-1800 |
| Citation | 665 F.2d 482 |
| Parties | 27 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 425, 27 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 32,250 Napoleon CHISHOLM, Herman Rushing, Alfred A. Hart, Jr., William McCombs, William H. Holman, James M. Little, John A. Pettice, James F. Lee, Norman A. Mitchell, Roy Dixon, Jr., Tom McGill, Milton J. Yongue, Sr., Peggy F. Talbert, Oren McCullough, Clarence Morgan, John T. Harrison, Wade Mosley, Appellees, v. The UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, A. Shaw, Officer in charge of the Charlotte Postal Service; E. T. Klassen, Postmaster General of the United States; Michael R. Greeson, Director of Personnel of the Charlotte Branch of The United States Postal Service, Appellants. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
David G. Karro, U. S. Postal Service, Washington, D. C. (Stephen E. Alpern, Associate Gen. Counsel, David Fishman, U. S. Postal Service, Washington, D. C., on brief), for appellants.
Jonathan Wallas, Charlotte, N. C. (Chambers, Ferguson, Watt, Wallas, Adkins & Fuller, P. A., Louis L. Lesesne, Jr., Gillespie & Lesesne, Charlotte, N. C., Jack Greenberg, Bill Lann Lee, Beth J. Lief, New York City, on brief), for appellees.
Before PHILLIPS, MURNAGHAN and ERVIN, Circuit Judges.
Napoleon Chisholm and other named plaintiffs brought this class action on behalf of fellow black employees against the United States Postal Service in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina (USPS) for racially discriminatory employment practices. After a bench trial in 1979, the district court renewed the class certification; concluded that USPS was liable to the class under a disparate impact theory for discriminatory promotion practices and liable to certain individual plaintiffs under a disparate treatment theory for discrimination in promotion and awarded extensive injunctive relief to the class, as well as providing for later remedial proceedings for assessment of individual damages. With the exception of the determination of liability in favor of class member Rushing on one of his claims of discrimination and award of relief to him on that claim, we affirm the district court's decision. 516 F.Supp. 810.
The USPS in Mecklenburg County, comprised of the main Charlotte post office, several other post offices in the county, and various branch stations, is a large federal employer, and historically it has played an important role in providing jobs for black persons. At times relevant to this case, about thirty percent of USPS employees in Mecklenburg County were black. The overall percentage of black employees, however, does not tell the whole story, for black employees have held a disproportionately large number of lower level jobs, called "craft" jobs, and have been represented poorly in upper level management and supervisory positions. 1 This disparity precipitated the class action brought by Chisholm.
Chisholm, hired by USPS in 1957 as a temporary mail carrier, was a regular mail carrier at the time he instituted administrative proceedings for racial discrimination pursuant to United States Civil Service Commission regulations. 2 On March 24, 1972, he filed a formal administrative complaint, alleging that USPS had unfairly denied him the opportunity to compete for the higher level positions of finance examiner and budget assistant. The complaint also alleged that black employees at USPS in Mecklenburg County as a class had been discriminated against from 1960 through the time of this complaint. A hearing on the complaint was held at Chisholm's request, during which evidence both of Chisholm's specific claims and of class-wide discrimination was presented. The hearing examiner found that Chisholm was improperly denied consideration for the position of budget assistant and concluded that a preponderance of the evidence supported the allegation of discrimination based on race. The national USPS office of Equal Employment Compliance accepted the hearing examiner's proposed findings and decision, and the Board of Appeals and reviews affirmed the rulings. Despite Chisholm's efforts, the claim of class-wide discrimination was never addressed at any administrative level.
His administrative remedies having been exhausted, Chisholm filed this lawsuit on January 27, 1973; the complaint charged violation of the Fifth Amendment, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and section 717(c) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(c). Chisholm sought to represent in the class action "all black persons who have been or who may have been affected by the unlawful employment practices complained of herein at the facilities of defendant United States Postal Service located in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina." He specifically alleged that USPS refused to consider him for the positions of budget assistant and finance examiner because of his race and that it was USPS's policy to refuse to grant promotions to blacks, to prevent blacks from attaining supervisory positions, and to exclude blacks from the promotion board, all because of race. Five other black employees-H. C. Rushing, William J. McCombs, C. A. Rickett, Milton J. Yongue, and James F. Lee-subsequently moved to intervene as parties plaintiff. They filed a complaint in intervention, which added to Chisholm's complaint the allegation that USPS maintained a policy of discrimination against blacks with respect to "details" 3 and other temporary promotions.
The district court, 516 F.Supp. 810, subsequently allowed the motion to intervene, ruled that the action should proceed as a trial de novo under Title VII, 4 and certified a class defined as
all black persons who are employed and who might be employed by the defendants at the Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina branch of the United States Postal Service and who are or have been limited, classified, restricted, discharged, excluded or discriminated against by the defendants in ways which deprive or tend to deprive them of employment opportunities and otherwise affect their status as employees or applicants for employment or promotion because of their race or color.
The case proceeded to trial in August 1979. After the plaintiffs' presentation of statistical and testimonial evidence to show that the USPS promotional system was discriminatory and USPS's presentation of statistical and testimonial evidence in rebuttal, the district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs.
The district court found under a disparate impact theory that the promotional system for higher level jobs, although facially neutral, was discriminatory. All of the challenged versions of the initial level supervisory examination-an important feature of the promotional system-had a statistically significant disparate impact on black employees, the evidence of which was not rebutted by any proof by USPS that the tests were valid. Similarly, the detailing system, whereby employees gained both specialized and general experience in higher level positions helpful to eventual promotion to those positions, was discriminatory. Deviation by USPS officials from specialized and generalized experience requirements to the detriment of black applicants and to the benefit of white applicants, and also deviation from standard procedures to avoid the selection of black employees were also found to be discriminatory components of the promotional system. Promotion determinations of the promotion advisory board, a key body in the promotion process, and the postmaster were subjective, standardless, and favored white applicants. The administration of discipline-not guided by any objective criteria-disproportionately penalized black employees and adversely affected their prospects for promotion. Again, USPS offered no evidence justifying the disparate impact. Finally, black employees were excluded from management training positions prior to 1978 and rural route carrier positions prior to 1979.
Evidence of discrimination in promotion against certain individuals under a disparate treatment theory of liability buttressed the plaintiffs' statistical evidence. Upon this evidence the district court also ruled in favor of seventeen persons with individual claims of discrimination.
The judgment entered by the district court enjoined USPS from discriminating against the class in the areas of promotion, details, examinations, discipline, and pay. The court narrowed the class at that time to include only black employees from March 24, 1970, who had been subject to discrimination in promotions, details, use of tests, discipline, or pay. The court also awarded back pay to each plaintiff or class member who is able to establish entitlement to it in stage II proceedings. Specific relief was ordered in the seventeen individual cases, with the details of the awards to be determined by a master. The court enjoined USPS to make "affirmative efforts" to recruit, appoint, and promote qualified black persons, using as a goal the percentage of black employees at USPS. USPS also was ordered to make extensive reports of its future policies; to formulate objective criteria for promotions, details, and discipline; to establish a new position of EEO Employee Complaints Representative; to use only validated written tests or new selection devices; and to pay an interim award of attorneys' fees.
On appeal, USPS challenges the class description, certification and representation; it also argues that the district court erred in ruling in favor of the class on the issue of liability, erred in five instances in ruling in favor of the seventeen individual plaintiffs, and abused its discretion in awarding injunctive relief.
Upon conclusion of the trial, the district court renewed its certification of the class under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(2) and narrowed class membership to exclude black applicants for jobs. The class as reconstituted was defined as
(a)ll black persons who have been employed by the defendants at the Charlotte and Mecklenburg County,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Baruah v. Young
... ... 1980). See Tucker v. United Parcel Service, 657 F.2d 724, 726-27 (5th Cir. 1981). Whether the application of ... See, e.g., Chisholm v. United States Postal Service, 665 F.2d 482, 491 (4th Cir. 1981); ... ...
-
Sillah v. Burwell
... ... " but involved different aspects of the "promotional system." Chisholm v. U.S. Postal Serv. , 665 F.2d 482, 491 (4th Cir. 1981). 2. Plaintiff's ... ...
-
Segar v. Smith, s. 82-1541
... ... Hiring. The Civil Service Commission Handbook establishes the minimum entry level requirements for ... See Valentino v. U.S. Postal Service, 674 F.2d 56, 70 (D.C.Cir.1982). Typically the independent ... sake of clarity and congruence with the form of argument presented to us, we will separate our analysis along the lines suggested by the parties' ... ...
-
Wagner v. Taylor
... ... Page 582 ... the senior executive service. 4 Originally hired by ICC as a senior trial attorney in 1978, he left ... injunction--a review we clearly are authorized to conduct--requires us to first ascertain whether Wagner's suit can proceed as a class action ... 97 Valentino v. United States Postal Serv., 218 U.S.App.D.C. 213, 225, 674 F.2d 56, 68 (1982) ... 98 ... 110 See, e.g., Chisholm v. United States Postal Serv., 665 F.2d 482, 492 (4th Cir.1981) ... ...
-
Post Charge Title Vii Claims: a Proposal Allowing Courts to Take ‘charge' When Evaluating Whether to Proceed or to Require a Second Filing
...Co., 932 F.2d 540, 546 (6th Cir. 1991); Waiters v. Parsons, 729 F.2d 233, 238 (3d Cir. 1984); Chisholm v. United States Postal Serv., 665 F.2d 482, 491 (4th Cir. 1981); Zalewski v. M.A.R.S. Enters. Ltd., 651 F. Supp. 601, 604-05 (D. Del. 1982); Hubbard v. Rubbermaid, Inc., 436 F. Supp. 1184......