Fang-Hui Liao v. Dean, Civ. A. No. 86-AR-5428-NW.
Decision Date | 06 May 1987 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 86-AR-5428-NW. |
Citation | 658 F. Supp. 1554 |
Parties | Christina FANG-HUI LIAO, Plaintiff, v. Charles H. DEAN, Jr., et al., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama |
Ernest N. Blasingame, Jr., Florence, Ala., for plaintiff.
Lewis E. Wallace, Acting Gen. Counsel, Justin M. Schwann, Sr., Asst. Gen. Counsel, Thomas F. Fine, Senior Litigation Atty., John P. Kernodle, Tennessee Valley Authority, Knoxville, Tenn., for defendants.
Christina Fang-Hui Liao sued the Directors of her former employer, Tennessee Valley Authority, invoking 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et. seq., claiming that her termination by TVA as a research chemist was the result of racial and/or sexual discrimination. The court heard oral testimony and considered written evidence. The court makes the following findings of fact which bear upon the conclusions of law which it thereafter reaches.
Dr. Liao is a female citizen of Chinese extraction. She was first employed by TVA on July 7, 1977, as a research scientist in the TVA's National Fertilizer Development Center (NFDC), Soil and Fertilizer Research Branch. When employed she held a Ph.D. in chemistry and was hired as a project co-leader for nitrogen research projects carried out at NFDC. Dr. Liao's entrance pay classification was SD-3, which was lower than the entrance pay classifications of white male Ph.D. research scientists employed before and after she was employed in NFDC. During her time of employment, Dr. Liao lodged written and verbal complaints with her supervisors alleging disparate treatment in several respects: (1) slow promotion and unfair differentiation in job classification; (2) lack of an exclusive laboratory and a laboratory assistant; (3) unfair performance evaluations; (4) non-exposure to educational seminars and advancement opportunities; and (5) ostracism. A good argument can be made that one or more of Dr. Liao's pretermination complaints was valid; but the court finds it unnecessary to decide whether or not anything Dr. Liao complained of prior to her termination constituted an act motivated by sexual and/or racial discrimination, that is, except to the extent that her complaints may tend to reflect an adverse white male reaction to TVA's affirmative action program (AAP), which will be the primary subject of this opinion.
Dr. Liao's complaint arises from her termination in a reduction in force (RIF) which took place on January 8, 1982. She was chosen as the only employee in the Soil and Fertilizer Branch to be involuntarily terminated in the RIF. Dr. Bert Bock, a white male with two years less seniority than Dr. Liao, was retained. This court has no doubt that Dr. Liao's original employment with TVA was due in large measure to TVA's AAP, which had been put in place shortly prior to her recruitment. How wonderful it was to have signed up a highly qualified Ph.D. who was also Asian and female. TVA's AAP, sometimes referred to as an "Equal Opportunity Plan of Action", as revised, contains several very revealing provisions, not the least of which is the self-criticism reflected in the statistics, clearly showing that women and minority TVA employees at the higher levels were and are not representative of their relative numbers in the work force generally. Another important provision, which is contained in any serious AAP, asserts the goal of attaining an increased and more nearly representative percentage of the underrepresented groups in the employer's work force. The court has read and considered TVA's entire AAP, together with certain collateral directives involving it. The court finds it unnecessary to repeat all of the affirmative action language, but does suggest that the following have particular significance:
In a memorandum to all TVA employees dated May 24, 1979, the TVA chairman said:
Employees who have managerial or supervisory oversight of any kind have a special obligation to aggressively carry out TVA's policy on equal employment opportunity. You are expected to vigorously support all affirmative action programs designed to eliminate the present effects of past discrimination and to make sure all employment decisions are free from prohibited discrimination.
When budgetary constraints were imposed by the Government, a communication was received by TVA from the Office of Personnel Management under date of June 5, 1981. It said, inter alia:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Garner v. Runyon
...additional points or a preference. This court has had experience with TVA's affirmative action programs. See Liao v. Dean, 658 F.Supp. 1554 (N.D.Ala.1987), rev'd by Liao v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 867 F.2d 1366 (11th Cir.1989), cert. denied, Liao v. Dean, ___ U.S. ___, 110 S.Ct. 1806, 1......
-
Liao v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 87-7379
...plan (AAP) which governed the branch for which Liao worked. The plan, dealt with at some length in the district court opinion of May 6, 1987, 658 F.Supp. 1554, recognized the "limited participation" by women and blacks in management and in the scientific and engineering occupations. The pla......
-
Morman v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co., Civ. A. No. 86-70204.
...allowed to advertise itself as an affirmative action employer and then wink at its AAP when it gets in the way." Fang-Hui Liao v. Dean, 658 F.Supp. 1554, 1561 (N.D.Ala.1987). III. THE AAP AS I ruled at trial that once an employer adopts an AAP and benefits from it as a shield from claims of......
-
Killinger v. Samford University, Civil Action No. 94-AR-3007-S.
...antonym for "religious" is "secular." Samford is indisputably not a secular institution. This court is reminded of Fang-Hui Liao v. Dean, 658 F.Supp. 1554 (N.D.Ala.1987), a case in which this court held that an employer, which had widely advertised itself as an affirmative action employer, ......
-
Defendant's Documents
...advertise itself as an affirmative action employer and then wink at its AAP when it gets in the way.” (Quoting Fang–Hui Liao v. Dean , 658 F.Supp. 1554, 1561 (N.D.Ala.1987). Moreover, the court stated that “once an employer adopts an AAP and benefits from it as a shield from claims of discr......