Huckeby v. Frozen Food Express, CA 3-74-622-C.
| Decision Date | 04 March 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. CA 3-74-622-C.,CA 3-74-622-C. |
| Citation | 427 F. Supp. 967 |
| Parties | Carolyn HUCKEBY v. FROZEN FOOD EXPRESS. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas |
Judson Francis, Jr., Bean, Francis, Ford, Francis & Wills, Jerry Clements, Dallas, Tex., for plaintiff.
Allen P. Schoolfield, Jr., Schoolfield, Smith & Weissert, Dallas, Tex., for defendant.
Plaintiff Carolyn Huckeby brought suit against defendant Frozen Foods Express corporation, for alleged violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended. Having heard the evidence and oral arguments, and reviewed the briefs and proposed findings and conclusions filed on behalf of both parties, the Court is of the opinion that judgment must be entered for defendant.
In May, 1971, plaintiff was hired by defendant as secretary to Lester Crews, the director of defendant's department of insurance, safety and driver personnel. Plaintiff's duties included, in addition to general stenographic and typing work, the handling of some clerical tasks relating to the defendant's insurance program.
The department was set up so that Crews directed the entire office, with three assistants directly under him, each in charge of a separate section within the department. Gene Koshinski served as one of the assistants, and as such, supervised the insurance section.
Crews retired in March, 1973, and was succeeded as director by Dick Bennett. Plaintiff remained in her position as secretary to the director, and continued to handle insurance clerical work.
In June, 1973, Gene Koshinski was fired. His termination created a void in the insurance section, which plaintiff and Bennett jointly filled. Plaintiff took over many of Koshinski's clerical chores, often working from the desk where insurance records were kept, while director Bennett assumed all discretionary duties involving the insurance program. The assumption of additional work by plaintiff sometimes necessitated her working extra hours, for which, when reported, she was compensated.
During the summer of 1973, plaintiff was able to leave her duties long enough to take two weeks vacation. From September 10, 1973, through October 29, 1973, plaintiff was absent from work due to illness. During that time her work was performed by other secretaries in the department.
On November 29, 1973, plaintiff filed a complaint against defendant with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. In early 1974, defendant filled the position left vacant by Koshinski. Rather than hire a new supervisor, defendant upgraded the position to assistant director of the department, and hired Al Ryer to fill the post. Plaintiff was never interviewed for the job.
On July 2, 1974, plaintiff initiated this lawsuit, alleging 1) that defendant violated the equal pay provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay plaintiff the same wages paid to Gene Koshinski and Al Ryer, and 2) that defendant violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by failing to promote plaintiff to the position of assistant director and by retaliating against plaintiff because she filed a charge of discrimination against defendant with the EEOC.
The equal pay provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act prohibits employers from discriminating, on the basis of sex, between employees performing equal work on jobs which require "equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions . . .." 29 U.S.C. § 206(d)(1) (1963). Plaintiff contends that she performed work that was "equal," within the meaning of the Act, to that performed by Gene Koshinski and Al Ryer. The Court disagrees.
Hodgson v. Brookhaven Gen. Hosp., 436 F.2d 719, 725 (5th Cir. 1970).
With respect to plaintiff's claim that she performed work equal to that performed by Koshinski, the evidence supports that claim only to the extent that both performed similar routine clerical duties regarding defendant's insurance program. However, Koshinski's responsibilities went beyond those discharged by plaintiff. Most significantly, Koshinski had discretionary authority to settle insurance claims up to $500. After Crews retired as director, the limit was removed, and Koshinski was empowered with complete discretion over insurance claims and the issuance of checks relating thereto. When Koshinski left, all responsibility relating to settlement of insurance claims and disbursement of funds was shifted to director Bennett, and later, to assistant director Ryer.
The court concurs with defendant's assertion that the settlement of insurance claims constituted a significant and substantial portion of Koshinski's job responsibilities during his tenure with defendant. The Court makes no finding with regard to plaintiff's ability to perform the above work; only that she did not perform it.
In addition to the above duties, Koshinski also taught classes at the defendant's driver training school, attended prehearing conferences and trials as a representative of defendant, and investigated accidents on an average of at least one per month. Plaintiff assumed none of the above duties, except that she investigated one minor accident that occurred at the Lancaster terminal, where she worked.
Plaintiff's claim that she and Al Ryer performed equal work is also without sufficient support in the evidence. Ryer...
To continue reading
Request your trial