Jurinko v. Edwin L. Wiegand Company

Decision Date17 April 1973
Docket Number72-1044.,No. 72-1043,72-1043
Citation477 F.2d 1038
PartiesJosephine JURINKO and Ida M. Seibert, Appellants, v. EDWIN L. WIEGAND COMPANY, a corporation and Local 1020, UAW, an unincorporated association. Josephine JURINKO and Ida M. Siebert v. EDWIN L. WIEGAND COMPANY, Appellant, a corporation and Local 1020, UAW, an unincorporated association.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit


Irving L. Bloom, Dent & Bloom, Greensburg, Pa., Robert Allen Sedler, College of Law, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Ky., for cross appellants in No. 72-1043 and appellees in No. 72-1044.

Arnold D. Wilner, Theodore Goldberg, Baskin, Boreman, Wilner, Sachs, Gondelman & Craig, Pittsburgh, Pa., Roger Edgar, Bryan, Cave, McPheeters & McRoberts, St. Louis, Mo., Eric P. Reif, Reed, Smith, Shaw & McClay, Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellees in No. 72-1043 and appellant in No. 72-1044.

Before BIGGS and GIBBONS, Circuit Judges, and HUYETT, District Judge.


BIGGS, Circuit Judge.

The plaintiffs-appellees cross-appellants, Mrs. Josephine Jurinko and Mrs. Ida M. Seibert, alleged in Count II of their complaint1 filed against Edwin L. Wiegand Company (Wiegand) that Wiegand refused to employ them in its factory because they were married women, thereby discriminating against them on the basis of sex in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S. C. § 2000e-2(a)(1).2 Jurisdiction is based on 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f) and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1343(3) and 1331(a).

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission found probable cause to believe that Wiegand had engaged in a discriminatory employment practice but could not mediate the matter.3 On February 14, 1969, Wiegand offered employment to Mrs. Jurinko and Mrs. Siebert, but on the advice of a representative of EEOC both rejected the offer. This action was instituted on February 28, 1969, and after trial to the court, Judge Teitelbaum found that Wiegand had no general policy of discriminating against married women, but he did find that Mrs. Jurinko and Mrs. Siebert were discriminated against and that such discrimination was not based on a "bona fide occupational qualification."4 Judgment was entered in the plaintiffs' favor awarding them $15,784 representing back wages, together with an award of an additional sum in the amount of $3,946 for attorney fees. Judge Teitelbaum also directed Wiegand to offer Mrs. Jurinko and Mrs. Siebert employment "at the next nearest opportunity."5, 6

Wiegand appealed the court's judgment at our No. 72-1044, asserting (1) that the plaintiffs' claims are barred because charges were not filed with the Commission within 90 days of the occurrence of the alleged unlawful employment practice as required by 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(d), (2) that the evidence does not support the district court's conclusion that the plaintiffs were discriminated against on account of their marital status, (3) that if there was such discrimination, it was based on a "bona fide occupational qualification" which the plaintiffs did not satisfy, and (4) that the damages awarded plaintiff Siebert were excessive. The plaintiffs have appealed at our No. 72-1043 insofar as the judgment holds that Wiegand's general hiring policy for production department jobs did not discriminate against married women and insofar as it denied recovery of back pay after Feb. 14, 1969, and held that plaintiffs' reinstatement should be as new employees without seniority. It should be noted that the plaintiffs have not appealed from the failure of the district court to treat this suit as a class action under Rule 23, F. R.Civ.P., 28 U.S.C.7 A pre-trial stipulation was entered into by the parties and filed, and reference will be made to it from time to time. The material facts are substantially uncontested, and as Judge Teitelbaum stated: "It is the inferences to be drawn or not to be drawn from the facts that are the core of the controversy." 331 F.Supp. at 1185.

According to the stipulation the plaintiffs were employees of Wiegand for a number of years prior to December 10, 1953; that at that time both were discharged from employment because of their respective marriages; that Wiegand's policy of discharging women upon their marriages and of not hiring married women was instituted at the close of World War II for the purpose of providing jobs for "bread winners" returning after the war and that this policy was lawful at least until July 2, 1965, the effective date of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In July, 1965, the plaintiffs approached Wiegand's Personnel Director and requested that they be reinstated in their former jobs. The Personnel Director refused this request, stating they were not entitled to reinstatement and in any event the company was not then hiring employees. Thereafter, on September 7, 1965, Mrs. Jurinko submitted a written application for employment with Wiegand, and Mrs. Seibert submitted a similar request to Wiegand on January 10, 1966. At this time, both plaintiffs were informed that the company was not then hiring any employees but that their applications would be kept on file for future reference. In June, 1966, the plaintiffs again contacted the Personnel Director seeking employment and were again informed that Wiegand was not hiring at that time. The plaintiffs filed a charge of discrimination against Wiegand with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on July 29, 1966.

The district court stated as follows in respect to the contention of Wiegand that the charges were not timely filed: "The company contends that because the charge was filed with the Commission more than 90 days after the original meeting in June of 1965, it was untimely, and therefore this Court lacks jurisdiction of this action. Section 2000e-5(d) of 42 U.S.C. does provide that charges with the Commission shall be filed within 90 days of the occurrence of the alleged unlawful employment practice. It is clear, however, that the plaintiffs' reapplication in June of 1966 represents the occurrence of an alleged unlawful employment practice, and consequently this Court is not without jurisdiction. See Cox v. United States Gypsum Co., 409 F.2d 289 (C.A. 7, 1969)." 331 F.Supp. at 1186, n. 3.

We are in agreement with the district court's conclusion, for there were three separate and distinct acts, the latter of which occurred within the 90-day period. Therefore the 90-day statutory period commenced to run anew from the last allegedly unlawful employment practice. Molybdenum Corp. of America v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 457 F.2d 935 (10 Cir. 1972). The ground raised by Wiegand, that the plaintiffs' failed to timely pursue their administrative remedy, is thus without merit.8

Turning to the contentions in the matter of the district court's conclusions regarding discrimination, the statistical evidence and the attitude of Wiegand's personnel directors are well set out in Judge Teitelbaum's opinion, 331 F.Supp. at 1186, as follows: "Statistically, the evidence is that (1) at all relevant times the company employed, in production, approximately 900 persons; (2) of these approximately 900 persons, 59 were women on July 2, 1965, 58 on May 15, 1966, 56 on December 31, 1966, and 44 on March 1, 1971; (3) at all relevant times, of the women employed only three were married; (4) at all relevant times, only two married women, other than the plaintiffs, applied for employment in production It must be noted in this regard that both of these women were hired in January of 1969, after the Commission had notified the plaintiffs of their right to sue Wiegand under the Civil Rights Act.; and (5) during the period from May 15, 1966 to December 31, 1966, forty-three new employees were hired, all of whom were males. There is no evidence of the qualifications of the forty-three males hired. There is evidence, however, that the plaintiffs' applications were on file during the period from May 15 to December 31, 1966, that the company was aware of their applications, and that prior experience and a good work record with the company (which each plaintiff had) were qualifications which favored an applicant. Asked why the plaintiffs had not been hired during that period, the then Personnel Director testified that he `* * * really didn't know * * *' but that it `* * * could have been many reasons * * *.' A later Personnel Director testified that the company's practice of permitting `bumping' (by seniority) for each new job opening in production made it mandatory that new employees be physically able to perform each and every job in production (since the new employees were ultimately `bumped' to the most physically taxing jobs) and that the assumption under which the company operated was that women were physically unable to perform each and every production job. In conclusion, both Personnel Directors testified that the company had not pursued a policy of discrimination against married women."

On the basis of the above facts, the court concluded: "We do not think however, that the statistical evidence introduced in this case reasonably supports a conclusion that the company's general hiring policy discriminated against married women. The low number of married women employees of the company must be considered in light of the company's pre-Civil Rights Act policy and the number of married women who have applied for employment since the termination of that policy. The uncontradicted testimony is that from 1965 through 1968, the plaintiffs were the only married women who applied to the company for work in production. Two others apparently applied in early 1969 and both were offered employment. A general policy of discriminatory hiring cannot logically be concluded. With specific regard to the plaintiffs, however, the evidence of the company's extensive hiring of men during a period when the plaintiffs, with prior experience and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
60 cases
  • Gurmankin v. Costanzo
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • May 29, 1980
    ...Co., 424 U.S. 747, 763-64, 96 S.Ct. 1251, 1263-1264, 47 L.Ed.2d 444 (1976) (Title VII standard). Id. at 1238. In Jurinko v. Edwin L. Wiegand Co., 477 F.2d 1038, 1046 (3d Cir.), vacated on other grounds, 414 U.S. 970, 94 S.Ct. 293, 38 L.Ed.2d 214 (1973), we directed the trial court to expand......
  • EI DuPont de Nemours v. Phillips Petroleum
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Delaware
    • March 21, 1989
    ...376 U.S. 963, 84 S.Ct. 1124, 11 L.Ed.2d 981 (1964); Childs v. Franco, 563 F.Supp. 290, 292 (E.D.Pa. 1983). Cf. Jurinko v. Edwin L. Wiegand Co., 477 F.2d 1038, 1045 (3d Cir.), vacated, 414 U.S. 970, 94 S.Ct. 293, 38 L.Ed.2d 214 Phillips' argument is also factually flawed. It is apparently Ph......
  • Thomas v. Resort Health Related Facility
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • May 26, 1982
    ...See Comacho v. Colorado Electronic Technical College, Inc., 590 F.2d 887 (10th Cir. 1979) (per curiam); see also Jurinko v. Edward L. Wiegand Co., 477 F.2d 1038 (3d Cir. 1973), vacated and remanded, 414 U.S. 970, 94 S.Ct. 293, 38 L.Ed.2d 214 (1974). Nevertheless, close examination of these ......
  • Pao v. Holy Redeemer Hosp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • August 27, 1982
    ...within the prescribed 180 day filing period. 457 F.2d at 936.2 The Third Circuit affirmed this principle in Jurinko v. Edwin L. Wiegand Company, 477 F.2d 1038 (3rd Cir. 1973), vacated on other grounds, 414 U.S. 970, 94 S.Ct. 293, 38 L.Ed.2d 214 (1973), where the plaintiffs sought employment......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • Appearance based hiring: the 'bona fide occupational qualification' carveout, exploring hooters of America and Air India v. Nargesh Meerza
    • United States
    • Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law No. XXIV-1, October 2022
    • October 1, 2022
    ...discrimination is 83. Id. at 334–37. 84. Id. at 335–36. 85. Hoerner, supra note 15. 86. See generally Jurinko v. Edwin L. Wiegand Co., 477 F.2d 1038 (3d Cir. 1973) vacated , 414 U.S. 970 (1973); see also Gunther v. Iowa State Men’s Reformatory, 462 F. Supp. 952 (N.D. Iowa 1979) aff’d , 612 ......
  • Sex Discrimination in Employment: Opening a Closed Door
    • United States
    • Colorado Bar Association Colorado Lawyer No. 03-1976, March 1976
    • Invalid date
    ...Co. v. Moody, note 112 supra; Bowe v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., note 36 supra. 117. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(g). 118. Jurinko v. Wiegand Co., 477 F. 2d 1038 (3rd Cir. 1973), aff'g 331 F. Supp. 1184 (W.D.Pa. 1971); McLaughlin v. Mercury Freight Lines, Inc., 472 F.2d 1406 (5th Cir. 1973); aff'g___F. ......
  • The Caregiver Conundrum.
    • United States
    • Stanford Law Review Vol. 75 No. 3, March 2023
    • March 1, 2023
    ...abrogated in other part by Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 146-49 (2000); Jurinko v. Edwin L. Wiegand Co., 477 F.2d 1038, 1044 (3d Cir. 1973) ("Discrimination against married women constitutes discrimination on the basis of sex only if a different standard, [Le.], t......

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