Ferguson v. United Parcel Service

• Decision Date: 06 November 1973
• Docket Number: No. 130,130
• Citation: 311 A.2d 220,270 Md. 202
• Parties: , 7 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 414, 6 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 8926 William L. FERGUSON v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

Page 202

270 Md. 202

311 A.2d 220, 7 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 414,

6 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 8926

William L. FERGUSON v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE.

No. 130.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

Nov. 6, 1973.

Philip J. Tierney, Gen. Counsel, Md. Commission on Human Relations (Jacob J. Edelman, Baltimore, on the brief), for appellants.

William A. Carey, Gen. Counsel, Joseph T. Eddins, Jr., Associate Gen. Counsel, Beatrice Rosenberg, Charles Reischel, Lutz A. Prager and Debra A. Millenson, Washington, D. C., on the brief for United States E. E. O. C. amicus curiae.

Robert B. Barnhouse, Baltimore (Michael Esher Yaggy and Piper & Marbury, Baltimore, on the brief), for appellee.

Argued before MURPHY, C. J., and BARNES, McWILLIAMS, SINGLEY, SMITH, DIGGES and LEVINE, JJ.

SINGLEY, Judge.

This is an appeal from the order of the Circuit Court for Prince George's County (Ralph W. Powers, C. J.) which had reversed orders entered by Maryland's Commission on Human Relations (the Commission).

The case had its genesis in March of 1970 when Ferguson filed with the Commission a complaint alleging that United Parcel Service (United Parcel) had discriminated against him because of his race when it failed to employ him as a loader-unloader at its Landover, Maryland distribution center. After three interviews with United Parcel, which were unproductive, Ferguson filed his complaint:

'I would like to file a complaint against the United Parcel Service Co., of Landover, Md., for discrimination, because of my race or color. I filed an application with this company for employment but was not hired. The application was made in December of 1969. I have had three different interviews in the past three months and was still turned down by them. I have even talked to the supervisor of personnel. The personnel manager told me Tuesday that he would talk to the interviewer about my application. The last time, I was interviewed was March the 6th and I was turned down again. The last ime I was interviewed for the third time, I was told my chances of being hired were as good as anyone else who was being interviewed. So if my changes are that good, why do their interviewers still turn me down for employment at this company.'

It would seem that the Commission regarded Ferguson's complaint as coming within the ambit of § 12(a) of Art. 49B, Maryland Code (1957, 1972 Repl.Vol.) (the Act):

'Any person claiming to be aggrieved by an alleged discrimination prohibited by any section of ths article may make, sign and file with the Human Relations Commission (hereinafter referred to as the 'Commission') a complaint in writing under oath. The complaint shall state the name and address of the person, firm, association, partnership, corporation, State agency, department or board alleged to have committed the act of discrimination together with the particulars thereof; and the complaint also shall contain such other information as may be required from time to time by the Commission.' ¹

The conclusion is buttressed by the fact that United Parcel was given notice of a public hearing on Ferguson's complaint, as provided by § 14(a) of the Act:

'The chairman shall cause a written notice to be issued and served in the name of the Commission together with a copy of the complaint requiring the respondent to answer the charges of the complaint at a public hearing . . ..' ²

The Commission's hearing tribunal concluded that '(t)here (was) no evidence that Ferguson was not hired because of particular individual discrimination against him because of his race,' but rather that Ferguson was not employed because of the criteria imposed by United Parcel in filling the job of loader-unloader, criteria which the Commission thought bore no relation to job performance and tended to exclude blacks from employment.

The Commission entered an order from which the following is an excerpt:

'(United Parcel) is ordered to remove from its application forms for the loaderunloader job (or to direct applicants not to complete those portions of the forms containing) questions relating to completion of high school education, arrests, convictions, home ownership or rental, tardiness in making time payments, wage assignments or garnishments, repossessions, refusal of bond, suits for non-payment, bankruptcy, refusal of credit, current tardiness in time payments or loans, and driving records. Questions pertaining to past employment shall be limited to the immediately preceding employment, or to employment involving elements (such as physical stamina) pertinent to the loader-unloader job.'

There was a further direction that United Parcel pay Ferguson one week's back pay of $150.00. The finding as regards this part of the order was as follows:

'The extent of the loss actually caused by discrimination, however, must necessarily be slight. (United Parcel) customarily checked out application information after hiring. Had it done so in Ferguson's case, it would have discovered the falsehoods he had recounted, and no doubt would have fired him, and justifiably so; see statement pertaining to misrepresentation of facts in the application form. . . .

'We think Ferguson is entitled to some back pay, but cannot find, on this record, entitlement for more than a week. In january, 1970, the loader-unloader pay was $3.75 per hour, or $30 per eight hour day. For a five-day work week, this would amount to $150.00. We direct (United Parcel) to pay Ferguson $150 in...