International Union of Elec., Radio and Mach. Workers, AFL-CIO-CLC v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., AFL-CIO-CLC
| Decision Date | 01 August 1980 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 79-1893,AFL-CI,AFL-CIO-CLC,79-1894,L,CLC,AFL-CIO-CL,s. 79-1893 |
| Citation | 631 F.2d 1094 |
| Parties | 23 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 588, 62 A.L.R.Fed. 1, 23 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 31106A INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ELECTRICAL, RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS,, an unincorporated association, International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers,, Local 449, an unincorporated association, International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers,, Local 627, an unincorporated association, H. J. Adams, Genevieve Arnett, Josephine Baker, Marge Dinnan Brophy, Henrietta Brown, Dorothy M. Burton, Minnie Chatman, Mary E. Cobb, A. Contento, Melvina Cooper, Jean Corbin, Norma Doyle, Eleanor Dye, Tanya Fourshee, D. Fowler, Dorothy Gaines, Martha Gant, Madeline Giese, L. M. Harris, Dorothy Hayes, Eleanor Hunker, Pauline Lee, J. Lindenthal, Ollie Little, Madeline Martino, D. P. Massi, Rena McLeod, S. McNeil, Patti Mitchell, Roberta Moore, Mabel Morrell, Mildred Ociki, Helen O'Loughlin, Mary Pfister, Ann Raho, R. Rainear, P. Rutowski, Loretta Ryan, J. L. Sheldon, V. Vaughn, Helen Walsh, and Shirley Watkins, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, v. WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION, a corporation, International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers,("IUE") and Locals 449 and 627, Appellants in 79-1893, Marge Brophy, Henrietta Brown, Melvina Cooper, Ann Raho Frazier and Helen Walsh, on behalf of themselves and the class they represent, Appellants in 79-1894. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
Michael H. Gottesman, Frank Petramalo, Jr., Jeremiah A. Collins, Bredhoff, Gottesman, Cohen & Weinberg, Washington, D. C., Sidney L. Reitman, Jesse H. Strauss, Kapeljohn, Lerner, Reitman & Maisel, Newark, N. J., for individual appellants.
Virginia Fenton, Carpenter, Bennett & Morrissey, Newark, N. J., Stuart I. Saltman, Westinghouse Electric Corp., Pittsburgh, Pa., Walter P. DeForest (argued), Peter D. Post, Martha Hartle Munsch, Reed, Smith, Shaw & McClay, Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellee Westinghouse Electric Corp.
Robert E. Williams, Douglass McDowell, McGuiness & Williams, Washington, D. C., for amicus curiae Equal Employment Advisory Council.
Norman Redlich, Co-Chairman, New York City, Norman J. Chachkin, Richard T. Seymour, Staff Attys., Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Washington, D. C., for amici curiae Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, et al.
Winn Newman, Carole W. Wilson, Washington, D. C., Richard B. Sobol (argued), Ann H. Franke, Sobol & Trister, Washington, D. C., for Union appellants.
Leroy D. Clark, Gen. Counsel (argued), Joseph T. Eddins, Associate Gen. Counsel, Beatrice Rosenberg, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Vincent J. Blackwood, Atty., Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Washington, D. C., Drew S. Days, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., David L. Rose, Sandra L. Hughes Before SEITZ, Chief Judge, and VAN DUSEN and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.
Attys., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for amici curiae Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the United States.
The plaintiffs in this case brought suit alleging, inter alia, that the Westinghouse Electric Corporation (Westinghouse or the company) had set the wage rates lower for those job classifications which were predominantly filled by females than the wage rates for those job classifications which were predominantly filled by males. Plaintiffs claimed that this disparity was attributable to the fact that the company deliberately paid lower wages for those types of work which would be done predominantly by women. They claimed this disparity is in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2-2000h-6. 1 The district court held that Title VII did not prevent sex discrimination in setting wage rates for different categories of jobs unless it could be shown that the jobs, regardless of the reason for their classification, involved equal or substantially equal work. Because the plaintiffs had stated that they did not intend to prove that the jobs predominantly filled by women were the same as the jobs predominantly held by men, the court granted Westinghouse's motion for partial summary judgment. The plaintiffs appealed.
The instant case pushes us to the edge of subtle concepts of statutory construction. It involves sophisticated aspects of personnel policies and job classifications and it rests on a legislative history which is not totally free of ambiguity. Thus, at the outset it is essential that we make clear what is not involved in this case. Westinghouse is not being charged with the type of discrimination where different wages have been paid to men and women who are in the same classification and who perform the same work. For any classification which was predominantly filled by women, Westinghouse paid the same wage to any male who might work within that same classification. The problem here is that Westinghouse allegedly used a system which set the wage rates lower for any classification if the group covered within that category was predominantly female. Under the applicable law it is clear that Westinghouse could not create job classifications whereby different wages were paid to one group solely because of considerations of religion, race or national origin. 2 The statutory issue here is whether Congress intended to permit Westinghouse to willfully discriminate against women in a way in which it could not discriminate against blacks or whites, Jews or Gentiles, Protestants or Catholics, Italians or Irish, or any other group protected by the Act. Because we hold that this alleged intentional discrimination in formulating classifications of jobs violates Title VII, we will reverse.
Westinghouse's present wage structure, according to the plaintiffs, 3 is derived from a wage structure Westinghouse established in the late 1930's which was described in Westinghouse's Industrial Relations Manual Wage Administration, Part 3, section 3 (1939), reprinted in Appendix at 110. At that time all of the job classifications at Westinghouse's Trenton, New Jersey plant were allegedly segregated by sex. The "female" jobs included assembly line jobs, sub-assembly jobs and quality control jobs. The "male" jobs included janitor, forklift operator, warehouseman, various material handling jobs, and craft jobs. For simplicity we will refer to those job classifications which are predominantly filled by women as "female" jobs and those filled predominantly by men as "male" jobs. The 1939 manual explains that the company first "point-rated" all of its jobs taking into account the knowledge and training required, and the specific demands and responsibilities of the job. It then assigned each job a numerical value, based on an evaluation of these three factors. Next each job was assigned a "grade" based on its point rating and "keysheets" were developed which set forth the hourly wage for jobs at each labor grade. The plaintiffs contend that the wage rates for female jobs were set lower than the rates for male jobs which had received the same point rating. Indeed, Westinghouse's manual stated, Id. at 158a (emphasis added).
In 1965 the company established a unitary key sheet in which the grades had no explicit sexual designation. The plaintiffs contend that the new wage scale, which is still in use, embodies the deliberately discriminatory policy of the prior plan. In support of their view, they contend that Westinghouse expanded the number of labor grades from nine to thirteen and generally accorded female jobs labor grades in the new scale below those of male jobs even though these jobs had been at corresponding labor grades before the merger. They also point to the fact that the vast majority of the women at the Trenton plant are still employed in the female jobs. Their records show employee assignments at the Trenton plant as of November 30, 1975 as follows:
Brief for Appellants at 10-11. This table shows that with a single exception the 183 employees working at Labor Grades 1 through 4 were women, the grades into which the female jobs were placed in 1965. Thus, eighty five percent of the women working in the plant in 1975 were assigned to these jobs. Although the plaintiffs acknowledge that "there have been some changes in job content over the years, and some rate adjustments," in their view "the changes have not eradicated the wage inequities established by the (1930) system." Id. at 10.
The district court held that Title VII had not been violated even if the wage scale had been set in the manner described by the plaintiffs. It reasoned that because of the Bennett Amendment, which is included in section 703(h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(h), sex-based discrimination in compensation violates Title VII only if it also violates the Equal Pay Act of 1963, 29 U.S.C. § 206(d) (Equal Pay Act). The court held that the Equal Pay Act proscribes discriminatory compensation only when it is shown that the plaintiff performs the same work or substantially the same work of other employees. Since the plaintiffs in this case agreed that their suit did not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
County of Washington v. Gunther
...617 F.2d 61 (CA5 1980); Peltier v. City of Fargo, 533 F.2d 374 (CA8 1976); International Union of Electrical Workers v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 631 F.2d 1094, 1108, n. 2 (CA3 1980) (Van Dusen, J., dissenting). In addition, insofar as hiring or placement discrimination caused the isolat......
-
Council Tree Communications, Inc. v. F.C.C.
...and longstanding interpretation by the agency'" responsible for administering a statute. Int'l Union of Elec., Radio & Mach. Workers v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 631 F.2d 1094, 1106 (3d Cir.1980) (quoting United States v. Nat'l Ass'n of Sec. Dealers, Inc., 422 U.S. 694, 719, 95 S.Ct. 2427, ......
-
Hakimoglu v. Trump Taj Mahal Associates
...has considered in determining the appropriateness of granting certification. International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, et al v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 631 F.2d 1094, 1099 (3d Cir.1980), cert. denied, 452 U.S. 967, 101 S.Ct. 3121, 69 L.Ed.2d 980 We see no cognizable......
-
Iwanowa v. Ford Motor Co.
... ... grounds of nonjusticiability and international comity. This Court shall consider each of ... over all available manpower, including workers recruited from abroad and prisoners of war ... See Doe v. Unocal Corp., 963 F.Supp. 880, 892 (C.D.Cal. 1997); l Coalition Gov't of the Union of Burma v. Unocal, Inc., 176 F.R.D. 329, 349 ... Elec., Radio and Mach. Workers, AFL — CIO — CLC v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 631 F.2d 1094, 1110 (3d Cir.1980) ... ...
-
A Reexamination of the Role of Employer Motive Under Sections 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act
...131. See Local 357, Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters v. NLRB, 365 U.S. 667 (1961). Cf. Electrical Workers (IUE) v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 631 F.2d 1094, 1108 n.2 (3d Cir. 1980) (Van Dusen, J., dissenting) (Equal Pay Act). But cf. Rinkel v. Associated Pipeline Contractors, 17 F.E.P. Cases 224, 226......