McKenzie v. Saylor

• Decision Date: 30 January 1981
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 974-73.
• Parties: Alfred U. McKENZIE et al., Plaintiffs, v. Samuel SAYLOR, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Columbia

508 F. Supp. 641

Alfred U. McKENZIE et al., Plaintiffs, v. Samuel SAYLOR, Defendant.

Civ. A. No. 974-73.

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

January 30, 1981.

Douglas L. Parker, Institute for Public Representation, Dale F. Swartz, Washington Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Elliot Mincberg, Hogan & Hartson, Washington, D. C., for plaintiffs.

David H. Shapiro, Asst. U. S. Atty., Washington, D.C., for defendant.

Thomas P. Powers, Washington, D.C., for intervenor Washington Printing and Graphic Communications Union of North America, AFL-CIO.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

BARRINGTON D. PARKER, District Judge:

In January 1977 this Court ruled in a class action claim brought by three black employees of the United States Government Printing Office (GPO) that on the basis of the undisputed facts there was clear and convincing evidence that black workers in the Offset Press Section (OPS) of the Government Printing Office were the victims of racial discrimination in that they have been denied promotion opportunities to which they were otherwise entitled. McKenzie v. McCormick, 425 F.Supp. 137 (D.D.C. 1977). The Court concluded that the rights of the plaintiff class of black workers, as provided by law, had been violated and they were entitled to appropriate legal and equitable relief under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. as amended by the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16.

The Court's decision was based principally on the unchallenged statistical data and undisputed material facts generated through several rounds of discovery. Those data and facts revealed an unmistakable pattern of racial discrimination against black OPS employees over an extended period of time. In particular, the facts demonstrated that black OPS workers were underrepresented in supervisory and journeyman positions; subjected to wide and unexplained disparity in wages; exposed to promotion procedures and policies lacking in objectivity and discriminatory in operation; and excluded from meaningful participation in training and career development programs which might have enhanced their opportunities for promotion.

Following the Court's ruling and in an attempt to secure well-considered recommendations and appropriate measures to be included in a final order designed to eliminate discriminatory practices, two experts were appointed under the authority of Rule 53, Fed.R.Civ.P. The experts, Mitchell Fein and A. John Geis, were selected from a list of qualified nominees suggested by counsel for the parties. Messrs. Fein and Geis were directed to study and analyze job positions and training opportunities; to make recommendations regarding job qualifications and promotion procedures; and to suggest procedures in the selection, training and promotion of personnel in the Offset Press Section, all directed against racially discriminatory practices. Their assignment and responsibility was spelled out in a document entitled Protocol Regarding Procedures For Court-Appointed Experts, filed April 3, 1978. The experts first submitted a draft report which was subject to review and comment by counsel for the parties. Their FINAL REPORT was submitted on July 23, 1979.

It was not surprising that the experts' findings and conclusions were not accepted fully by either party. Nonetheless, their efforts were creditable and substantial. Together with other relevant data of record they served as a basis for the fashioning of an order providing for final relief.

After the submission of the FINAL REPORT, the parties embarked on lengthy negotiations designed to effect a stipulated settlement of the many still unresolved issues. Each side made concessions and on various occasions optimism was expressed. Finally, however, they announced their inability to agree.

The plaintiffs submitted a lengthy proposed order accompanied by a supporting legal memorandum. The GPO filed a brief opposing many of plaintiffs' proposals. The Washington Printing and Graphic Communications Union, an intervening defendant representing journeymen at the GPO, presented its view and comments on plaintiffs' proposals concerning the Letterpress Transfer Program.

While there have been expressions of concern and some efforts by the GPO management to change the employment patterns in the Offset Press Section in light of the Court's January 1977 ruling, there has been no startling change or cause for great expectations in the overall status of the black workers. In April 1979, the Court approved on a temporary basis, pending a final order of relief, a new training program for printing plant workers—the Feeder/Assistant Training Program—but thus far, no employee has completed the program and moved into a journeyman position.

After an interval of four years, the overall status of the black worker in the OPS still presents a situation demanding more than the imposition of general injunctive sanctions against future discrimination. Blacks are still denied promotion at a fair and equitable rate. While the number of black journeymen has increased somewhat since the 1977 ruling, the black worker remains badly underrepresented in uprate and supervisory positions. At present there are no black foremen or assistant foremen in the OPS. These conditions persist despite the disproportionately large percentage of black workers in the printing plant worker categories which existed prior to and throughout the history of this litigation.

In October 1980, the Court convened a hearing on the plaintiffs' proposed order. At that time plaintiffs' counsel assessed the situation as one in which the GPO management still remains insensitive to problems associated with its promotion practices for blacks and has undertaken little to reduce the serious disparity between the number of blacks at the lower levels and the number of blacks at the higher levels.^* Supplemental data submitted to the Court indicate that is not an invalid assessment. Following that hearing, additional memoranda were submitted by the parties in support of their respective positions. On the basis of the entire record and the developments since the 1977 Memorandum Opinion, the Court determines that much of the plaintiffs' proposed order is appropriate and should be adopted. Other provisions, however, particularly those governing back pay, have been modified.

The Proposed Order

There are four substantive aspects to the final relief afforded in this proceeding:

1. General Relief concerning promotion practices available to all OPS workers; provisions for an employees' manual, vacancy notices, recordkeeping, an outside consultant, and a monitoring committee. (¶ ¶ I-II(A), pages 2-8).

2. Training Programs designed for promotion of workers to journeyman positions —including maintaining the GPO Feeder/Assistant Program and restriction of workers from the Letterpress Section. (¶ II(B), pages 10-16).

3. Promotion Procedures designed to eliminate, as far as practicable, subjective and potentially discriminatory aspects in the evaluation, selection and promotion of black employees to uprate and supervisory positions, together with a limited schedule for temporary goals and timetables. (¶ II(C), pages 16-21).

4. Monetary Relief—providing procedures for determining all individual victims of discrimination, and awarding them appropriate compensation. (¶ III, pages 21-25).

1. General Relief

The Order provides for certain relief that will benefit all employees of the Offset Press Section. One of the chief discriminatory practices identified in the Court's 1977 ruling was defendant's failure to provide definite standards for job performance and evaluations. Assignments were determined on the basis of subjective evaluation, often made by a single supervisor. Compounding this problem was the GPO's practice of filling vacancies without notice to employees who might have been eligible to apply for consideration. To remedy this problem, the Order provides for greater objectivity in personnel practices through the use of written standards for job performance. New job analyses, performed by either OPM or an independent expert, will serve as the basis for formulating objective qualifications for positions in OPS. The qualifications, along with a description of revised promotion and training opportunities available to all personnel, will be set out in an employees manual. The Order also requires that formal notice of all vacancies or training opportunities be posted conspicuously. Improved GPO recordkeeping will provide an employee's complete work history and full qualifications. The GPO is also directed to undertake an education program to assure that all employees understand the mechanics and purpose of the new procedures. Finally, an Equal Employment Opportunity Monitoring Committee is established to oversee the implementation of this Order and to participate in the selection of certain supervisory personnel.

2. Training Programs

The January 1977 Memorandum Opinion pointed out that training programs through which employees advanced to journeyman, uprate, and supervisory positions had operated in a discriminatory fashion. Accordingly, the Order modifies training procedures to correct past discrimination and to assure equal opportunity in the future. GPO is to maintain only one training program leading to journeyman positions in the Offset Press Section, the Feeder/Assistant Program. This program will be shortened and a new training plan developed by GPO.

This provision effectively terminates the Letterpress Transfer Program as of August 26, 1977. Under a preliminary injunction entered that date, offset journeyman positions filled through the Letterpress Transfer Program since that time are deemed vacant and therefore available to graduates of the revised Feeder/Assistant Program. The Union intervenor objected strenuously to this aspect of the plaintiffs' proposed Order on the grounds that it...