Meadows v. Ford Motor Co.
| Citation | 510 F.2d 939 |
| Decision Date | 24 January 1975 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 74--1258 and 74--1259,s. 74--1258 and 74--1259 |
| Parties | 9 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 180, 9 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 9907 Dolores Marie MEADOWS, Plaintiff-Appellant, Cross-Appellee, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee, Cross-Appellant, Local 862, International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and AgriculturalImplement Workers of America, and International Union, United Automobile,Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
James C. Hickey, Ewen, MacKenzie & Peden, Louisville, Ky., Thomas L. Hogan, Louisville, Ky., for plaintiff-appellant, cross-appellee.
Arthur W. Grafton, Edgar A. Zingman, Sheryl G. Snyder, Jon L. Fleischaker, Louisville, Ky., Herbert L. Segal, Irwin H. lCutler, Jr., Louisville, Ky., for defendant-appellee, cross-appellant.
Mary-Helen Mautner, EEOC, Washington, D.C. (William A. Carey, Gen. Counsel, Joseph Beatrice Rosenberg, Gen. Counsel, Beatrice Rosenberg, Charles L. Reischel, EEOC, on brief) for amicus curiae.
Before EDWARDS and MILLER, Circuit Judges, and McALLISTER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Plaintiff appeals from the denial of back pay and retroactive seniority after the District Court for the Western District of Kentucky had found that she and the class of women job applicants she represents had been denied jobs, in violation of the prohibition against sex discrimination in employment contained in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e--15 (1970), as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e--17 (Supp. II, 1972). She also claims that the class involved was unduly restricted by the District Judge and that he ordered an inadequate amount of attorney fees.
This controversy arose when defendant Ford Motor Company began hiring employees for a new Ford Truck Plant in Jefferson County, near Louisville, Kentucky. Plaintiff Meadows applied for a production line job on October 10, 1969. She was not hired and heard nothing concerning her application but learned that Ford had hired over 900 men and no women. She then filed a charge of discrimination before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on January 14, 1970 alleging that the Ford Motor Company and Local 862, UAW 1 were discriminating against her and other women similarly situated. The EEOC issued her a notice of right to sue and plaintiff Meadows filed this action in the District Court alleging that Ford employed a 150 lb. limitation on production line hires so as to eliminate women.
The case was heard by discovery and the taking of depositions. The District Judge entered findings of fact and conclusions of law on August 29, 1973, and followed by a final judgment which recorded his critical holdings as follows:
2. There are thirty-one (31) members of the Class represented by the Plaintiff in the instant action; the names, address and telephone numbers of the said members of the class are attached hereto and made a part hereof as if fully copied herein.
3. The use by the Defendant under the circumstances before the Court of the 150 pound weight requirement for eligibility for employment on its production line at its Kentucky Truck Plant constitutes an unlawful employment practice pursuant to the terms of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e--1 et seq. (sic).
4. Neither the Plaintiff nor any member of the class is entitled to any award of damages. Plaintiff is awarded its costs herein expended and counsel fees in the sum of $11,500.00.
5. The Defendant, Ford Motor Company, be and hereby is permanently enjoined and prohibited from applying the 150 pound weight requirement for eligibility for employment on its production line at its Kentucky Truck Plant.
6. The names of the Plaintiff and the thirty-one (31) members of the class represented by the Plaintiff shall be placed by the Defendant in a priority The District Judge defined the class of plaintiffs as those women who had applied for jobs at the Kentucky Truck Plant between April 1, 1971, and April 13, 1972, and who were refused jobs.
employment pool in the order of the dates of their original application for production employment. The names of all other applicants for production employment are to be placed in a general pool in accordance with the present practice of Defendant. As production employment positions become available, Defendant shall select names from the two pools of applicants at a set ratio of one name from the priority pool for every three names from the general pool, and these individuals are to be notified by the Defendant of the job openings as they occur and given a reasonable opportunity to appear for a pre-employment physicial examination and the other processes regularly required of such applicants.
The District Judge also retained jurisdiction of the case to supervise implementation of his judgment.
The record showed that the two union defendants exercised no control over Ford hiring practices and the case as to them was dismissed by the District Court. No appeal was taken from this decision.
The Ford Motor Company waived its appeal from the portion of the District Judge's judgment finding it guilty of discriminatory practices and requiring it to terminate them and to establish a priority system for offering employment to some 31 identified discriminatees.
On this appeal we deal only with plaintiffs' complaints 1) that the District Judge's judgment by refusing back pay and retroactive seniority failed to make them whole and failed to deter similar discrimination in the future, 2) that the District Judge defined the class of discriminatees too narrowly, and 3) that the attorney fees awarded did not consider all of the work performed in this litigation.
The District Judge's reasoning on the back pay issue is set forth in an opinion as follows:
However, having determined that liability for discrimination exists is not the same as finding that an award of money damages is in order. Indeed, the Court has found absolutely no authority for awarding money damages in a case like the present one. Under the relevant statute, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(5) (sic), the only money damages that can be awarded are in the form of back pay. No court whose decision has been reported has been willing to award back pay to a group of persons who were never in the employ of the employer-defendant in the first place. Back pay has been awarded in cases of discriminatory refusal to promote or to transfer, and to some individuals who were discriminatorily denied jobs in the first instance, but in all of these situations, the amount of speculation as to just who was damaged and how much has been minimal. For instance, in the case of Bowe v. Colgate, 416 F.2d 711 (C.A.7, 1969), it was quite clear as to which persons were damaged and how they should be compensated. That is not the case here. Assuming that the class of plaintiffs can be more or less exactly defined, there is no way to calculate which of them would have been hired, or when, or what other circumstances would have intervened in the meantime. In other words, there is no basis on which an award in any amount can be justified. Although all reductions of legal injury to money damages are somewhat speculative, in other cases, the damaged party is absolutely identified, which is not the case here. The fact that Ford has been found guilty of sexual discrimination does not mean that it must pay whatever damages to which the Plaintiff believes that she is entitled. Unless the Court is directed to some authority to the contrary, it does not intend to make an award of money damages in this case.
The District Judge also entered the following conclusion of law:
6. The Court, being unable to determine from the records when plaintiff or any members of her class would have been employed, had it not been for the discriminatory practices of the defendant, concludes that it is without authority to award any backpay or any monetary damages to plaintiff or any members of her class. The only cases in which backpay has been awarded to a potential employee, who was discriminated against and not employed, are those involving individual employees where it was definitely shown that they would have been entitled, on a date certain, to be employed and after computation could be made of the wages to which they were entitled. See Gates v. Georgia Pacific Corporation, 326 F.Supp. 397 (D.C.Or.1970). Any award of damages in this case, therefore, would be speculative and must be denied.
We believe the District Judge was in error in concluding that the difficulties of ascertaining the amount of damages suffered deprived him of authority to award back pay. The statute relating to back pay is 42 U.S.C. § 2000e--5(g) (1970). The statutory language extant at the time this suit was filed was:
(g) If the court finds that the respondent has intentionally engaged in or is intentionally engaging in an unlawful employment practice charged in the complaint, the court may enjoin the respondent from engaging in such unlawful employment practice, and order such affirmative action as may be appropriate, which may include reinstatement or hiring of employees, with or without back pay (payable by the employer, employment agency, or labor organization, as the case may be, responsible for the unlawful employment practice). Interim earnings or amounts earnable with reasonable diligence by the person or persons discriminated against shall operate to reduce the back pay otherwise allowable. No order of the court shall require the admission or reinstatement of an individual as a member of a union or the hiring, reinstatement, or promotion of an individual as an employee, or the payment to him of any back pay, if such individual was refused admission, suspended, or expelled or was refused employment or advancement or was suspended or discharged for any reason other than discrimination on account of race, color, religion,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Grove v. Frostburg Nat. Bank
...are commonly awarded to make a successful Title VII plaintiff whole for past discrimination in compensation. E.g., Meadows v. Ford Motor Co., 510 F.2d 939 (6th Cir.1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 998, 96 S.Ct. 2215, 48 L.Ed.2d 823 Prejudgment interest on Title VII back pay awards has been awa......
-
Bakke v. Regents of University of California
...Franks v. Bowman Transportation, Inc., supra, 96 S.Ct. 1251; Mims v. Wilson (5th Cir. 1975) 514 F.2d 106, 110; Meadows v. Ford Motor Company (6th Cir. 1975) 510 F.2d 939, 948; Baxter v. Savannah Sugar Refining Corporation (5th Cir. 1974) 495 F.2d 437, 444--445.) As the United States Supreme......
-
EEO COM'N v. Kallir, Philips, Ross, Inc.
...525 F.2d 1354, 1362-63 (9th Cir. 1975); Hairston v. McLean Trucking Co., 520 F.2d 226, 232-33 (4th Cir. 1975); Meadows v. Ford Motor Co., 510 F.2d 939, 941-48 (6th Cir. 1975); Johnson v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 491 F.2d 1364, 1379-80 (5th Cir. 1974). 10 The parties stipulated that plain......
-
West Virginia Human Rights Commission v. United Transp. Union, Local No. 655
...of the plaintiffs in securing industrial justice against the interests of innocent non-party employees. E. g., Meadows v. Ford Motor Co., 510 F.2d 939 (6th Cir. 1975) cert. denied, 425 U.S. 998, 96 S.Ct. 2215, 48 L.Ed.2d 823 While the majority decision has given absolute protection to the i......