Kilgo v. Bowman Transp., Inc., Civ. A. No. C79-674A.
| Decision Date | 04 January 1984 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. C79-674A. |
| Citation | 576 F. Supp. 600 |
| Parties | Oscar KILGO, et al., Plaintiffs, v. BOWMAN TRANSPORTATION, INC., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia |
Christopher Coates, Laughlin McDonald, Neil Bradley (American Civil Liberties Union), Atlanta, Ga., Isabel Katz Pinzler, Joan E. Bertin (ACLU), New York City, for plaintiffs.
James W. Wimberly, Jr., James P. Cobb, E. Ray Stanford, Jr., Atlanta, Ga., for defendant.
On May 20, 1983, this Court found that defendant's use of a one-year prior over-the-road ("OTR") experience requirement had an adverse impact upon women; that the requirement was not justified by any business necessity; and that there are less discriminatory alternatives which would satisfy defendant's legitimate business needs. The Court further found that defendant had carried out a pattern and practice of disparate treatment of women applicants for OTR positions through a variety of means.
In assessing the appropriate remedial measures, the Court must weigh a number of considerations. First, it is the Court's conclusion from the evidence that defendant's practices were flagrant and pernicious. It is also the Court's impression that defendant is stubborn in defense of its practices and will suffer modification of them with little goodwill. Therefore, while the Court will not impose the most severe requirements upon defendant, it will retain jurisdiction in order to keep a close watch on compliance by defendant to ensure that the terms imposed will be enforced and obeyed diligently.
In this remedial order the Court has not provided hiring goals or quotas, regulation of the use of independent contractors, or complete elimination of the use of a prior experience requirement, all of which were sought by plaintiffs. Preferential treatment on the grounds of sex, by means of a quota, is destructive of self respect and merely substitutes one form of discrimination for another. Rather, this order demands that defendant take aggressive and determined steps to seek out and recruit qualified women as OTR drivers. Reliance on the "old-boy" network is no longer acceptable. Those women who applied for positions and those who would have applied had they not been discouraged by the attitude of defendant are entitled to the adoption of a plan that will affirmatively seek out those women who did not have access to these employment opportunities, will actively recruit those overlooked, and will provide remedial action in the form of training and assistance where needed.
The Court decided not to interfere with defendant's use of independent contractors as OTR drivers despite plaintiffs' concerns that independent contractors will be used by the defendant to thwart the effectiveness of this order. The issues of hiring goals or limits upon the use of independent contractors will be reconsidered at a later time if defendant fails to make a special effort to ensure that women are given the opportunity to achieve OTR positions.
In addition, the Court does not bar all use of a prior experience requirement because it feels at this time that it is appropriate for defendant, with some freedom but also with due regard for its present obligations and its egregious history, to fashion criteria for employment that are appropriate for the job and genuinely gender-neutral. If it appears that defendant at any time is not engaged in a good-faith effort to comply with this order, in view of defendant's past practices this Court will not hesitate to impose substantially more severe sanctions.
It is, therefore, ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows:
1.
Defendant is enjoined from the disparate treatment of women in the selection and retention of employees for OTR positions.
2.
Defendant is enjoined from enforcing any employment practice that has an adverse impact upon women and that has not been shown by professional validation studies to further a job-related, business necessity in the selection and retention of employees for OTR positions.
3.
Defendant is enjoined from enforcing any employment practice that has an adverse impact upon women in the selection and retention of employees for OTR positions, even where the employment practice in question has been shown by professional validation studies to further a job-related, business necessity, if defendant knows or should reasonably know that said business necessity can be achieved by a less discriminatory alternative selection device.
4.
Defendant is directed to remove all of its written notifications, including but not limited to signs at its terminals, and to desist from all oral communications that indicate that it is enforcing a prior truck driving experience requirement in its employment selection process for OTR drivers.
5.
Defendant is enjoined from using or enforcing any prior truck driving experience requirement, including a preference for prior truck driving experience, in its employment selection process for employee OTR drivers, except that defendant may continue to consider the past driving experience of its applicants for OTR positions as one of the several factors to be considered in its selection process on the condition: (i) that defendant does not disqualify or hire solely on the basis of the past driving experience, or lack thereof, of applicants; (ii) that defendant develop a written, objective set of criteria, to include the applicant's past driving record, driving ability, past employment references, graduation or lack thereof from a truck driving school, as well as past driving experience, to be used in its selection...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kilgo v. Bowman Transp., Inc.
...Bowman's disparate treatment of female applicants. Id. In 1984, the district court issued a remedial order. Kilgo v. Bowman Transportation, Inc., 576 F.Supp. 600 (N.D.Ga.1984). In this order, the court refused to impose hiring goals or quotas but indicated that it would reconsider this deci......