Com. of Pa. v. LOCAL U. 542, INTERN. U., Civ. A. No. 71-2698.

Citation469 F. Supp. 329
Decision Date30 November 1978
Docket NumberCiv. A. No. 71-2698.
PartiesCOMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA and Raymond Williams et al., on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LOCAL UNION 542, INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, Operating Engineers Joint Apprenticeship and Training Committee of Philadelphia, Eastern Pennsylvania and Delaware, General Building Contractors Association, Inc., Contractors Association of Eastern Pennsylvania, United Contractors Association, and Pennsylvania Excavating Contractors Association, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Glasgow, Inc., on its own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated.
CourtUnited States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Pennsylvania)

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Harold I. Goodman, M. Taylor Aspinwall, Germaine Ingram, Andrew S. Price, Bruce Endy, Community Legal Services, Philadelphia, Pa., Robert J. Reinstein, Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiffs Raymond Williams, et al.

Edward G. Beister, Jr., Acting Atty. Gen., D. Bruce Hanes, Asst. Atty. Gen., Burton D. Morris, Deputy Atty. Gen., Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Dept. of Justice, Harrisburg, Pa., M. Faith Angell, Deputy Atty. Gen., Margret E. Anderson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Philadelphia, Pa., Thomas J. Oravetz, Deputy Atty. Gen., Harrisburg, Pa., for plaintiff Com. of Pennsylvania.

Andrew F. Mimnaugh, Philadelphia, Pa., for unnamed member of defendant class Barger Const. Co., Inc.

Abraham E. Freedman, Freedman, Borowsky & Lorry, Philadelphia, Pa., Marvin I. Barish, Marvin Levin, Philadelphia, Pa., for defendants Local 542.

Robert G. Kelly, Jr., Philadelphia, Pa., John J. McAleese, Jr., Thomas J. McGoldrick, Bala Cynwyd, Pa., for defendants Glasgow, et al.

Nicholas Price, Martin Wald, Schnader, Harrison, Segal & Lewis, Philadelphia, Pa., for unnamed member of defendant class United Engineers & Constrs. and Catalytic.

Arthur R. Littleton, Dennis J. Morikawa, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Philadelphia, Pa., for unnamed member of defendant class Flour.

Robert W. Ropp, Bond, Schoeneck & King, Syracuse, N.Y. for unnamed member of defendant class Bechtel Corp.

                                       TABLE OF CONTENTS
                                                                                PAGE
                 I. INTRODUCTION                                                  335
                II. FINDINGS                                                      339
                    A. The Hiring System                                          339
                    B. The Philadelphia Plan                                      342
                    C. The Benjamin Franklin Programs I and II                    345
                    D. Procedural History                                         347
                    E. The Delays and Contempt Issues Involving Abraham Freedman
                       Esquire                                                    348
                    F. The Named Plaintiffs as of Certification                   350
                    G. Statistical Evidence                                       350
                       1. Membership Disparities                                  351
                       2. Discrimination in Entry                                 352
                       3. Disparities in Hours and Wages                          353
                       4. Referrals                                               355
                    H. Other Proof                                                357
                       1. Entry Discrimination                                    358
                       2. Individual Testimony                                    360
                          (a) Samuel Long                                         360
                          (b) Willis Fox                                          360
                          (c) Robert Ahmad                                        361
                          (d) John Dent                                           362
                          (e) Elijah Dukes                                        363
                
                           (f) Charles Iseley                                    363
                           (g) John Dodson                                       364
                           (h) Lloyd Hudson                                      364
                           (i) Duane B. Johnson                                  365
                           (j) George Benjamin                                   366
                           (k) Timothy A. Roundtree                              367
                           (l) Cleveland Allen                                   368
                           (m) Conclusion                                        369
                   I. Rebuttal                                                   369
                      1. Experts' Statistical Analysis                           370
                         a. Labor Pool                                           370
                         b. Features of Entry                                    375
                         c. Hours and Wages                                      377
                            i. Dr. Wachter                                       377
                           ii. Dr. Perl                                          378
                          iii. Dr. Dempster                                      379
                         d. Conclusion                                           380
                      2. Other Rebuttal of Defendants                            380
                   J. The Case Against JATC                                      381
                   K. Glasgow, Inc. and the Associations                         384
                III. LEGAL CONCLUSIONS                                           386
                     A. Appropriateness of Plaintiffs' Class: Considerations of
                        Standing and the Requirements of Rule 23                 386
                        1. Adequacy and Standing                                 387
                        2. Rule 23(b)                                            389
                        3. Subclassing                                           390
                        4. Motion for Amendment of Plaintiffs' Class Definition  391
                     B. Substantive Claims                                       394
                        1. Claims Against the Union                              394
                           a. Title VII                                          394
                              i. Title VII Jurisdictional Issues                 394
                                 (a) Conciliation                                394
                                 (b) Scope of Suit                               395
                             ii. The Merits of the Title VII Claim               397
                                 (a) Intentional Discrimination                  398
                                 (b) Disparate Impact Discrimination             399
                           b. Section 1981 Claims Against Union                  399
                           c. Section 1985(3)                                    401
                        2. Claims Against Associations and Contractors           401
                           a. Section 1981                                       401
                              1. The NLRA Cases                                  402
                              2. Civil Rights Cases Rejecting Vicarious Employer
                                 Liability                                       403
                
                              3. Cases In Which an Employer or Employer's Association
                                 Was Held Liable for Discrimination
                                 Arising From Terms of Contract                               407
                              4. Doctrine of Respondeat Superior                              409
                                 (a) Analogies to Civil Rights Suits Against Municipalities
                                     or Supervisory Personnel                                 409
                                 (b) The Application of the Doctrine of Respondeat
                                     Superior                                                 411
                           b. Employers and Associations Potential Liability Under
                              § 1985(3)                                                       413
                     C. Appropriateness of the Defendant Class as to Section 1981
                        Claims                                                                414
                        1. Rule 23(a)                                                         414
                        2. Rule 23(b)                                                         415
                        3. Standing                                                           417
                        4. Personal Jurisdiction Over the Defendant Class                     419
                
OPINION

A. LEON HIGGINBOTHAM, Jr., Circuit Judge.*

I. INTRODUCTION

This employment discrimination suit was instituted in 1971 by twelve black plaintiffs on behalf of a class of minority workers involved in or desiring admittance to the operating engineer trade in Eastern Pennsylvania and Delaware. Also a named plaintiff is the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, suing on behalf of its citizens and the above-described class. Defendants in this action are as follows: Local 542 of the International Union of Operating Engineers; a class assertedly represented by Glasgow, Inc., consisting potentially of more than 1400 construction contractors and employers receiving referrals through Local 542's exclusive hiring hall; four construction trade associations which represent the employers in contract negotiations;1 and the Joint Apprenticeship Training Committee ("JATC"), an organization created by Local 542 and the trade associations for the induction of new operating engineers. This opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions of law relevant to the liability stage of the trial of this massive and intricate case.

The active claims of plaintiffs' class include a Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., employment discrimination claim against all defendants based upon alleged discrimination in the membership practices of 542, the operation of its referral system, and the hours and wages of minority operating engineers. The foundation of this claim also serves as the basis for a 42 U.S.C. § 1981 claim and a conspiracy claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) against all defendants, an unfair representation claim under 29 U.S.C. § 158 against Local 542, and a Title VI discrimination claim against all those of the defendants who have deprived minority individuals of the benefits of federally funded construction projects. Local 542's function as an exclusive hiring hall in its geographical jurisdiction is at the center of each of the above...

To continue reading

Request your trial
38 cases
  • Glus v. G. C. Murphy Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • November 3, 1980
    ...Cir. 1974) (company and union held jointly liable for back pay and attorney's fees); Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Local 542, International Union of Operating Engineers, 469 F.Supp. 329 (E.D.Pa.1978) (union and company held jointly liable for injunctive relief). These provisions reflect a......
  • Bronze Shields, Inc. v. New Jersey Dept. of Civil Service
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • December 28, 1981
    ...standard to be applied in a § 1981 case holding that disproportionate impact satisfied the statute. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Local Union 542, 469 F.Supp. 329, 400 (E.D.Pa.1978).6 Title VII is limited to the employment context, whereas § 1981 applies to virtually every area of right a......
  • Guardians Ass'n of New York City Police Dept., Inc. v. Civil Service Com'n of City of New York
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • July 25, 1980
    ...(E.D.Pa.1978), and Croker v. Boeing Co. (Vertol Div.), 437 F.Supp. 1138, 1181 (E.D.Pa.1977) (intent standard) with Pennsylvania v. Local 542, 469 F.Supp. 329 (E.D.Pa.1978) (impact During recent history, every court which has considered the question has construed § 1981 to bar discrimination......
  • Ismail v. Cohen, 85 Civ. 0121 (PKL).
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • February 7, 1989
    ...e.g., Leonard v. City of Frankfort Elec. and Water Plant Bd., 752 F.2d 189, 194 n. 9 (6th Cir.1985) (citations omitted); Pennsylvania v. Local Union 542, 469 F.Supp. 329, rev'd on other grounds sub. nom. General Building Contractors Ass'n v. Pennsylvania, 458 U.S. 375, 102 S.Ct. 3141, 73 L.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • The Revival of Respondeat Superior and Evolution of Gatekeeper Liability
    • United States
    • Georgetown Law Journal No. 109-1, October 2020
    • October 1, 2020
    ...Stat. 140, 144 (codif‌ied as amended at 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (2018)). 65. Pennsylvania v. Local Union 542, Int’l Union of Operating Eng’rs, 469 F. Supp. 329, 335, 409, 412 (E.D. Pa. 1978), aff’d, 648 F.2d 923 (3d Cir. 1981), rev’d, 458 U.S. 375 (1982). 66. Id. 67. Id. at 411–13. 2020] THE REVIV......

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