Gay v. WAITERS'AND DAIRY LUNCHMEN'S UNION, LOCAL NO. 30, C-73-0489-WWS.
| Court | United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Northern District of California |
| Citation | 489 F. Supp. 282 |
| Decision Date | 06 February 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. C-73-0489-WWS.,C-73-0489-WWS. |
| Parties | James GAY, Leonard Whitman, Frederick McDowell, Douglas Lee, and Gary Dennis, on behalf of themselves and all persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, and Loyal Graham, Intervenor, v. WAITERS' AND DAIRY LUNCHMEN'S UNION, LOCAL NO. 30; Dining Room Employees Union, Local No. 9; Hotel and Restaurant Employees & Bartenders Union, Local No. 2; The St. Francis Hotel Corporation, a Delaware Corporation; Alioto Fish Co., Ltd., a California Corporation d/b/a Alioto's No. 8 Restaurant; Clift Hotel; Hilton Hotels Corp., a Delaware Corporation d/b/a San Francisco Hilton & Tower; Holiday Inns, Inc.; Hyatt Corp., a Delaware Corporation d/b/a Hyatt on Union Square and Hyatt Regency; Mark Hopkins, Inc., a Hawaii Corporation d/b/a Mark Hopkins; Sheraton Palace Corp. and Kyo-Ya Co., Ltd. d/b/a Sheraton Palace; and Westbury Hotel of California and Grosvenor Sutter Associates d/b/a Westbury Hotel, Defendants. |
William H. Carder, Michael H. Weiss, Marjorie Gelb, Employment Law Center, San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiffs.
Donald D. Connors, Jr., Cecily A. Waterman, Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison for defendant The St. Francis Hotel Corporation; Barbara Ashley Phillips, Paul Burns, San Francisco, Cal., for defendant Hilton Hotels Corp.
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
Contents
Page
I. Introductory Statement .......................................................... 285
II. Background of this Action ....................................................... 285
III. Findings of Fact ................................................................ 286
St. Francis ................................................................... 286
Hilton ........................................................................ 287
Union ......................................................................... 288
Individual Claimants .......................................................... 290
Class Members ................................................................. 291
IV. Discussion....................................................................... 292
A. Statute of Limitations ....................................................... 292
B. Liability of Hotels for Discriminatory Acts of Union ......................... 293
1. Vicarious Liability ....................................................... 293
2. Conspiracy ................................................................ 294
3. Violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement .............................. 294
C. Liability of Hotels on Individual Claims ..................................... 295
1. St. Francis ............................................................... 295
2. Hilton .................................................................... 296
D. Liability of Hotels on Class Claim ........................................... 296
1. Standard of Proof under Section 1981 ...................................... 296
2. Elements of Prima Facie Case .............................................. 300
a. Relevant Labor Market .................................................. 301
i. Geographic Area .................................................... 302
ii. Age Bracket ........................................................ 303
iii. Population Segment ................................................. 303
iv. Time ............................................................... - 304
v. Earnings bracket ................................................... 304
vi. Employment Qualifications .......................................... 306
vii. Finding and Conclusion Respecting Black Male Availability .......... 307
b. Comparison of Defendants' Data ......................................... 307
i. Hiring Transfer and Promotion Data .................................. 307
ii. Statistical Analysis—Prima Facie Case ............................. 310
3. Defendants' Rebuttal Evidence ............................................. 311
a. Applicant Flow Data .................................................... 312
b. Experience Requirement ................................................. 312
V. Conclusion ...................................................................... 315
This is an action for alleged discrimination by defendants in hiring, promoting and transferring black males into waiter positions. Plaintiffs sue on behalf of themselves and a class consisting of black males who were denied employment as waiters. The only defendants remaining in the case are The St. Francis Hotel Corporation ("St. Francis") and Hilton Hotels Corporation ("Hilton"). Plaintiffs' principal claim is based on 42 U.S.C. § 19811, but they also charge that defendants conspired with the labor union representing waiters in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) and breached the collective bargaining agreement in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 185.
This case has had a long and tortuous history; only so much as is relevant to this disposition is summarized here. The original complaint was filed on March 28, 1973. Of the original defendants only the St. Francis remains. On June 27, 1973, its motion to dismiss the Section 1981 claim was denied. On March 19, 1975, plaintiffs' motion for class certification was denied. On March 11, 1977, the Court of Appeals reversed the class order and remanded the case which meanwhile had been reassigned to another judge. 549 F.2d 1330 (9th Cir.). On May 31, 1977, an amended and supplemental complaint was filed against the original defendants. On August 23, 1977, the Court tentatively determined that the action could be maintained as a class action against the defendant labor unions but not against the St. Francis.
On February 8, 1978, plaintiffs with leave of Court filed a second amended and supplemental complaint adding several new defendants, including the Hilton, and alleging claims under Sections 1981 and 1985 against all defendants and under Title VII against all but the St. Francis. On August 8, 1978, the Court ruled on a number of motions. So far as is relevant here, the Court's order struck the claim of plaintiff McDowell against the St. Francis, denied the motion for summary judgment against plaintiff Dennis, dismissed the claims against the Hilton arising under Title VII, except for prospective relief, and those claims predating February 8, 1975.
On June 22, 1979, the Court entered a second amended order permitting the action to proceed on behalf of a class defined, so far as is now relevant, as follows:
The action went to trial before the Court on October 29, 1979, on the claims of the foregoing class and the individual claims of Whitman, Dennis and Gay against the St. Francis and Whitman, Dennis and McDowell against the Hilton. After seven trial days, and extended oral argument heard on November 21, 1979, the action was submitted.
The St. Francis is a large, class A luxury hotel at Powell and Geary Streets in San Francisco. It operates four restaurants, in addition to banquet and room service departments. All employ waiters, captains and bus persons.
Victor's is a French restaurant located in the St. Francis Tower. It offers only French service, i. e., food is brought from the kitchen on platters and served onto plates at the table. Service is performed by teams consisting of a captain, a waiter and a bus person. Orders are taken by the captain or the waiter. Waiters bring the food to the side of the table where the captain performs whatever carving, boning or flaming is necessary and then serves the plates, assisted by the waiter. Bus persons assist in serving water, bread and butter. Both waiters and bus persons set up and clear tables. Captains assist whenever needed. Each team is responsible for six or seven tables. The English Grill is an a la carte restaurant specializing in seafood. No French service is performed but waiters bone fish. The Dutch Kitchen is a coffee shop which offers simple a la carte items prepared in the kitchen and served directly to the patron by plate service only, no French service being involved. The Terrace Room offers similar items at lunch only. Food service at the latter three...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gay v. Waiters' and Dairy Lunchmen's Union, Local No. 30, 9
...on the waiters' individual and class claims, filing exhaustive findings of fact and conclusions of law in a thoughtful 30-page opinion. 489 F.Supp. 282 (N.D.Cal.1980). 3 The waiters appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291, and we Page 535 I The facts are well-summarized in the district court......
-
Chang v. University of Rhode Island, Civ. A. No. 77-0070 S
...statistic which is based on a ratio incorporating the standard deviation. See Gay v. Waiters' and Dairy Lunchmen's Union, Local No. 30, 489 F.Supp. 282, 308 n. 33 (N.D.Cal. 1980), aff'd, 694 F.2d 531 (9th Cir.1982). Once the value of the test statistic is ascertained, the probability of a t......
-
Vuyanich v. Republic Nat. Bank of Dallas, CA-3-6982-G
...(9th Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 984, 92 S.Ct. 447, 30 L.Ed.2d 367 (1971) (city data); Gay v. Waiters' and Dairy Lunchmen's Union, 489 F.Supp. 282, 302-03 (N.D.Cal.1980) (weighted average, based on applications, between central city and balance of SMSA); Greenspan v. Automobile Club of Mi......
-
Korwek v. Hunt, 84 Civ. 7934 (MEL).
...to the individual claims mooted the tolling issue as to the class claims. See id. at 1323. Gay v. Waiters' and Dairy Lunchmen's Union, 489 F.Supp. 282 (N.D. Cal.1980), aff'd, 694 F.2d 531 (9th Cir.1982) involved not a new class action but rather an amendment to the class complaint reasserti......