Hudson v. Southern Ductile Casting Corp., No. 87-7261

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtBefore JOHNSON; PER CURIAM
Citation849 F.2d 1372
Parties47 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 554, 47 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 38,135, 11 Fed.R.Serv.3d 1003 John D. HUDSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SOUTHERN DUCTILE CASTING CORP., Defendant-Appellee.
Docket NumberNo. 87-7261
Decision Date20 July 1988

Page 1372

849 F.2d 1372
47 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 554,
47 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 38,135, 11 Fed.R.Serv.3d 1003
John D. HUDSON, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
SOUTHERN DUCTILE CASTING CORP., Defendant-Appellee.
No. 87-7261.
United States Court of Appeals,
Eleventh Circuit.
July 20, 1988.

Page 1373

Henry L. Penick, Penick, Williams & Jones, Birmingham, Ala., for plaintiff-appellant.

James W. May, Bradley, Arant, Rose & White, Stephen E. Brown, Birmingham, Ala., for defendant-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.

Before JOHNSON, Circuit Judge, HENDERSON *, Senior Circuit Judge, and PITTMAN **, Senior District Judge.

PER CURIAM:

John D. Hudson appeals from an order entered by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama granting summary judgment in favor of the Southern Ductile Casting Corporation ("Southern Ductile"). We affirm.

This case began when Hudson, a fifty-eight-year-old black male, filed a complaint against Southern Ductile, his former employer, in the district court, alleging violations of (1) Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e et seq.; (2) the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1981; and (3) the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 621 et seq. ("ADEA"). Hudson was employed by Southern Ductile from November 11, 1946 until July 2, 1985. During his employment, he held a variety of jobs including coreroom foreman, the position he held on the date of his termination, at the company's foundry in Bessemer, Alabama.

Page 1374

In the late 1970s, Southern Ductile began a program of expansion and modernization at its Bessemer facility. These improvements included additions of equipment and processes and the construction of a new plant building, permitting Southern Ductile to expand its space allotted for coremaking. In January, 1982, Southern Ductile hired Charles Hardin, a twenty-seven-year-old white male with a degree in engineering, as general coreroom foreman, a newly created supervisory position. Hardin's duties as general coreroom foreman included managing the expanded coreroom operations and providing problem-solving/trouble-shooting skills in the startup of the new equipment and processes in the new plant. Both Hudson, as first shift coreroom foreman, and Donald Shierling, a thirty-one-year-old white male, as second shift coreroom foreman, reported to Hardin who, in turn, was responsible to Mike Widick, the operations manager. Prior to the creation of the general coreroom foreman position, Hudson and Shierling had reported directly to Widick.

Hardin resigned from the company after about ten months and was replaced by George Whitlow, another white male who was transferred from his position as general foundry foreman. Hudson characterizes Southern Ductile's failure to promote him to general coreroom foreman on these two occasions as acts of discrimination. 1

Although Hudson worked primarily in the coreroom, he received several temporary assignments during the period relevant to this lawsuit. For a portion of 1982, he served as a plant guard and from late November, 1984 until May, 1985, approximately one month before he was terminated, he served as the second shift grinding room foreman. These temporary transfers, according to Hudson, were demotions and were motivated by discrimination. 2

In late June, 1985, Southern Ductile eliminated several jobs as part of an alleged reduction in force ("RIF"). The employees and positions terminated in the RIF were (1) James W. Hill, a white, thirty-six-year-old personnel manager; (2) John E. Moore, a white, thirty-six-year-old industrial engineer/technician; (3) George Davis, a black, thirty-four-year-old first shift gatebreaking foreman; (4) Harvey Prater, a white, fifty-nine-year-old second shift gatebreaking foreman; and (5) Hudson. A sixth employee, Thomas Haisten, a white, twenty-five-year-old foreman trainee, was allowed to return to an hourly position in the bargaining unit. Pursuant to a collective bargaining provision, Haisten was entitled to return to the bargaining unit and to retain his seniority because he had been classified as a supervisor for less than six months. A seventh employee, Harry Burton, a white, sixty-four-year-old maintenance foreman, had lost his job a short time earlier as a result of reassignments following elimination of the position of plant engineer. Southern Ductile offered Hudson, Prater and Davis employment as hourly employees in the bargaining unit without seniority rights, because they were not eligible under the bargaining agreement, or, alternatively, a severance package providing insurance coverage for ninety days and one week's pay for each year worked. Prater and Davis accepted the severance package....

To continue reading

Request your trial
45 practice notes
  • Bozeman v. Per-Se Technologies, Inc., No. 1:03-CV-3970-RLV.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. Northern District of Georgia
    • October 16, 2006
    ...action especially where the Plaintiff did not suffer a reduction in pay or a loss of benefits, Hudson v. Southern Ductile Corp., 849 F.2d 1372, 1375 (11th Cir.1988), reh'g denied, 859 F.2d 928, Per-Se failed to cite to sufficient evidence in support of its 149. It us unclear as to whether t......
  • Gloetzner v. Lynch, Case No: 4:14–cv–686–Orl–ACC–PRL
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. Northern District of Florida
    • December 2, 2016
    ...that the employee engaged in protected activity for a retaliation claim be actionable); Hudson v. Southern Ductile Casting Corp. , 849 F.2d 1372, 1376 (11th Cir. 1988) (affirming grant of summary judgment to the defendant on retaliatory discharge claim where there was uncontradicted evidenc......
  • Smith v. Upson County, Ga., Civ. A. 93-242-2-MAC (WDO).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. Middle District of Georgia
    • August 8, 1994
    ...increases, and new position involved "less responsibility and more menial tasks"); Hudson v. Southern Ductile Casting Corp., 849 F.2d 1372, 1375 (11th Cir.1988); Cargile v. Horton Homes, Inc., 851 F.Supp. 1575, 1578 C. Did the adverse employment action infringe the protected right......
  • Butler v. Albany Intern., Civil Action No. 01-F-1318-N.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. Middle District of Alabama
    • July 29, 2003
    ...Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249-50, 106 S.Ct. 2505 (citations omitted) (emphasis added); accord Hudson v. Southern Ductile Casting Corp., 849 F.2d 1372, 1376 (11th Cir. 1988). Earley, 907 F.2d at 1080-81. Earley, 907 F.2d at 1080. See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322-23, 106 S.Ct. 2548. The nonmoving par......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
45 cases
  • Bozeman v. Per-Se Technologies, Inc., No. 1:03-CV-3970-RLV.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. Northern District of Georgia
    • October 16, 2006
    ...action especially where the Plaintiff did not suffer a reduction in pay or a loss of benefits, Hudson v. Southern Ductile Corp., 849 F.2d 1372, 1375 (11th Cir.1988), reh'g denied, 859 F.2d 928, Per-Se failed to cite to sufficient evidence in support of its 149. It us unclear as to whether t......
  • Gloetzner v. Lynch, Case No: 4:14–cv–686–Orl–ACC–PRL
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. Northern District of Florida
    • December 2, 2016
    ...that the employee engaged in protected activity for a retaliation claim be actionable); Hudson v. Southern Ductile Casting Corp. , 849 F.2d 1372, 1376 (11th Cir. 1988) (affirming grant of summary judgment to the defendant on retaliatory discharge claim where there was uncontradicted evidenc......
  • Smith v. Upson County, Ga., Civ. A. 93-242-2-MAC (WDO).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. Middle District of Georgia
    • August 8, 1994
    ...increases, and new position involved "less responsibility and more menial tasks"); Hudson v. Southern Ductile Casting Corp., 849 F.2d 1372, 1375 (11th Cir.1988); Cargile v. Horton Homes, Inc., 851 F.Supp. 1575, 1578 C. Did the adverse employment action infringe the protected right......
  • Butler v. Albany Intern., Civil Action No. 01-F-1318-N.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. Middle District of Alabama
    • July 29, 2003
    ...Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249-50, 106 S.Ct. 2505 (citations omitted) (emphasis added); accord Hudson v. Southern Ductile Casting Corp., 849 F.2d 1372, 1376 (11th Cir. 1988). Earley, 907 F.2d at 1080-81. Earley, 907 F.2d at 1080. See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322-23, 106 S.Ct. 2548. The nonmoving par......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT