E.E.O.C. v. Radiator Specialty Co.
| Decision Date | 15 November 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 78-1291,78-1291 |
| Parties | 21 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 351, 21 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 30,396 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Appellee, v. RADIATOR SPECIALTY COMPANY, Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
Michael P. Mullins, Charlotte, N.C. (R. Brent Chapman, Mullins & Brafford, Charlotte, N.C., on brief), for appellant.
Leopoldo Fraga, Jr., Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Washington, D.C. (Abner W. Sibal, Gen. Counsel, Joseph T. Eddins, Jr., Associate Gen. Counsel, Beatrice Rosenberg, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Washington, D.C., on brief), for appellee.
Before WIDENER and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges, and MERHIGE, District Judge, sitting by designation.
Defendant Radiator Specialty Company appeals from a judgment entered by the district court in this action brought by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 1 alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. The district court found racially discriminatory certain policies and practices used by Radiator Specialty Company (RSC) in the recruiting, hiring, transferring and promoting of persons into its clerical, sales, professional, and managerial job classifications. On this appeal RSC contends that the Commissioner did not comply with the procedural prerequisites to the institution of this suit and that the statistical evidence presented to the district court is insufficient to establish employment discrimination. Concluding that the evidence must be reexamined in light of critical intervening decisions of the Supreme Court and of this court, principally Hazelwood School District v. United States, 433 U.S. 299, 97 S.Ct. 2736, 53 L.Ed.2d 768 (1977), we reverse in part, vacate in part and remand to the district court for further proceedings.
This suit arose out of a charge filed with the Commission by Willie Westbrook, a former RSC employee. Westbrook initially charged that he had been discharged because of his race and later amended his complaint to include an allegation that RSC maintained racially segregated departments. In January 1975 the Commission brought suit alleging that RSC discriminated against blacks in hiring and promoting into certain job classifications, in discharging employees, and in maintaining segregated departments. The Commission claimed that RSC had restricted blacks to less desirable and lower paying jobs.
The Commission's evidence showed that while, since the effective date of Title VII, the overall percentage of blacks employed by RSC (a Charlotte, North Carolina manufacturing corporation) has exceeded the percentage of blacks in the general population of the Charlotte area, the percentages of blacks employed in RSC's professional, managerial, clerical, and sales positions were far lower than the percentages of blacks in the general population. 2 The evidence further showed that RSC had filled, by outside hiring or by promotion from within, over 100 vacancies in its sales, managerial, professional, and clerical classifications since 1971, but that the representation of blacks among the "new hires" in these classifications had been substantially less than their representation in the general population, and that relatively few of RSC's black employees had been promoted into the jobs in question.
In rebuttal, RSC presented statistical evidence showing the percentages of blacks employed in various job classifications in Mecklenburg County. These figures, based on statistics drawn from the Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA) for the year 1970, were then compared with the percentages of blacks in comparable classifications at RSC from 1971 to 1977. In the professional and managerial categories RSC's percentages of black employees were higher than the SMSA percentages; in the sales category RSC's percentages were lower; in the clerical category RSC's percentages were lower than the 1970 SMSA percentage until 1975 and were higher thereafter.
Looking to evidence other than the statistical data, the district court found that RSC utilized unpublicized, unwritten, and highly subjective standards and procedures for recruiting, hiring, transferring and promoting persons into its upper level positions. Specifically, RSC was found to rely on "word of mouth" recruiting by employees among their friends and to have no policy of posting notice of vacancies or written descriptions of available job openings. Transfers and promotions to upper level positions were instigated either at RSC's initiative by selecting a few persons as candidates or by permitting the employee to make an oral request to the employee's immediate supervisor. Predominantly white managers and Personnel Department employees were given unlimited discretion in the appointment of persons to clerical, sales, professional, and managerial positions. The criteria for appointment to these upper level positions, used since RSC was first organized, were both general and subjective. Various written tests used in certain jobs were found to be unstandardized, unvalidated, and haphazardly administered.
Considering both the statistical data and the evidence showing these general "badges of discrimination," See Brown v. Gaston County Dyeing Machine Co., 457 F.2d 1377, 1382-83 (4th Cir. 1972), the trial court concluded that plaintiff, by its statistical evidence showing gross disparities between the racial composition of RSC's upper level positions and the racial composition of both the general population and RSC's own work force, had established a Prima facie case of racial discrimination in the recruiting, hiring, transferring and promoting of persons to clerical, sales, professional, and managerial positions. Defendant's SMSA statistical evidence, offered as a more reliable statistical basis for assessing the impact of defendant's practices, was rejected out of hand because the "skills and abilities of black persons in Mecklenburg County are not necessarily reflected by their present or most recent employment." The court further held that defendant had failed to rebut plaintiff's Prima facie case by showing that its policies and practices were justified by any business necessity. Concluding that race was therefore the only identifiable factor explaining the disparity between black and white employees in the upper level positions, the court held that RSC had engaged in unlawful employment practices and ordered extensive injunctive relief.
We first address RSC's claims that the Commission has failed to comply with the statutory requirements for instituting this suit. The district court found that the Commission had complied with the procedural requisites of Title VII prior to bringing suit. RSC claims that this finding is infirm because of the Commission's delay and its alleged refusal to engage defendant in conciliation. We are not persuaded by this argument, and affirm the district court's conclusion of compliance.
Westbrook filed his original charge with the Commission on September 23, 1970. The Commission was, at that time, not statutorily required to notify an employer of a charge within any particular time period. 3 Amendments to § 706 of Title VII, effective March 24, 1972, required the Commission to serve an employer with notice of any charge alleging his engagement in unlawful practices within 10 days of the filing of the charge. 4 On April 3, 1972, 10 days after the effective date of the 1972 Amendment, the Commission mailed notice of Westbrook's 1970 charge to RSC. On March 15, 1973, Westbrook filed an amended charge, and notice of the amended charge was given to RSC. One year later, on March 19, 1974, the Commission issued a determination letter finding reasonable cause.
RSC claims that the 17 months between Westbrook's initial charge and the April 3, 1972, notification was inordinate and unreasonable. RSC asserts that the initial notice incorrectly specified the date of Westbrook's discharge and this error further aggravated the unreasonableness of the delay. Thus, RSC claims it received no hint of the action under investigation until the notice of March 1973 and received no specific information concerning the alleged violation until the March 19, 1974, determination letter. Because of these delays, RSC says it has been denied basic procedural protections necessary for the gathering and preservation of evidence.
The Commission had no statutory duty to inform defendant of the initial charge until the 1972 Amendments took effect, Chromcraft Corp. v. EEOC, 465 F.2d 745 (5th Cir. 1972); International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers v. EEOC, 398 F.2d 248 (3d Cir. 1968), 5 and it satisfied this statutory duty by informing defendant of the initial charge 10 days after the amendment took effect. 6 Therefore, defendant's claim must be one of laches. Mere delay, however, is not sufficient to constitute a defense of laches; a defendant must also show prejudice. See D. Dobbs, Remedies S 2.3, at 43 & n. 19 (1973). A generalized allegation of harm from the passage of time does not amount to a showing of prejudice. EEOC v. South Carolina National Bank, 562 F.2d 329, 332 (4th Cir. 1977). Defendant in this case has shown nothing more. The dismissal of Westbrook's claim by the trial court and the trial court's finding that RSC's discharge policies were not discriminatory demonstrate a virtual absence of prejudice.
Defendant further argues that the Commission failed to make a bona fide conciliation effort as required by 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(b) and is therefore precluded from bringing suit. The Commission's statutory duty to attempt conciliation is one of its most essential functions. EEOC v. Raymond Metal Products Co., 530 F.2d 590, 596 (4th Cir. 1976). Attempted conciliation is a condition to the Commission's power to sue. Patterson v. American Tobacco Co., 535 F.2d 257, 272...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bickley v. University of Maryland
...F.Supp. 345, 350 (E.D.Va.1976); Healan v. Eastern Airlines, Inc., 8 FEP Cas. 917, 922 (N.D.Ga.1973). See also EEOC v. Radiator Specialty Co., 610 F.2d 178, 182-83 (4th Cir. 1979). The defendants next contend that the court cannot consider, in connection with the plaintiff's claim under 42 U......
-
Segar v. Smith, s. 82-1541
...702 F.2d 1094 (D.C.Cir.1983), vacated on other grounds, --- U.S. ----, 104 S.Ct. 1404, 79 L.Ed.2d 732 (1984); EEOC v. Radiator Specialty Co., 610 F.2d 178, 185 n. 8 (4th Cir.1979) (Title VII case following "principle of allocation of proof to the party with the most ready access to the rele......
-
E.E.O.C. v. Rath Packing Co.
...International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. at 339-40 n. 20, 97 S.Ct. at 1856-57 n. 20; EEOC v. Radiator Specialty, 610 F.2d 178, 184 (4th Cir.1979). The burden is on the defendant to establish that the positions in question require special qualifications which are not......
-
EEOC v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
...1513-1520, 4 L.Ed.2d 1307 (1960); EEOC v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 511 F.2d 1352, 1361 (6th Cir. 1975). See also EEOC v. Radiator Specialty Co., 610 F.2d 178, 183 n. 6 (4th Cir. 1979) (Air-guide prejudice standard applied to defect in statutory notice of We do not believe the inadvertent31 fai......
-
Seventh Circuit Holds Failure To Conciliate Is Not A Defense Available To Employers In Litigation With The EEOC
...Carolina, South Carolina (Fourth Circuit); and Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee (Sixth Circuit). EEOC v. Radiator Specialty Co., 610 F.2d 178, 183 (4th Cir. 1979); EEOC v. Keco Industries, Inc., 748 F.2d 1097, 1102 (6th Cir. EEOC v. Ruby Tuesday, Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8268, at ......