Pack v. Energy Research and Development Admin.
| Decision Date | 30 December 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 77-1329,77-1329 |
| Citation | 566 F.2d 1111 |
| Parties | 16 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 987, 15 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 8065 Margaret B. PACK, Appellant, v. ENERGY RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION et al., Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Gary Howard Simpson, Bethesda, Md., for appellant.
V. De Von Heaton, U. S. Atty., Las Vegas, Nev., for appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada.
Before ELY, WRIGHT and CHOY, Circuit Judges.
Margaret B. Pack, the appellant, instituted her suit in the District Court, seeking monetary damages pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(c) (Supp. V 1975), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1343(3), (4) (1970), and Executive Orders 11246, 11375, and 11478. Her complaint alleged that the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC); 1 and its employees discriminated against her on the basis of her sex by denying her employment promotions, training, and full-time employment between 1965 and 1973. She sought back pay, costs, attorney's fees, and punitive damages.
The District Court, relying upon the administrative record compiled at an AEC hearing that adjudicated Pack's claim and additional evidence submitted by the parties, entered judgment for the appellees. We affirm.
In 1965 the Nevada Operation Office (NVOO) of the AEC employed appellant as a geological engineer on a part-time basis at the salary level of GS-11, Step 2. She was terminated by a reduction-in-force action in March, 1973, without having received a promotion to a higher GS grade or an offer of full-time employment.
After receiving notification of termination, Pack arranged a meeting with an Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) counselor for the AEC. The counselor investigated Pack's allegations and then advised her and her attorney that she, the counselor, had found no indication of discrimination. Thereafter, appellant filed a formal complaint with the NVOO. The AEC Division of Inspection conducted a formal investigation of appellant's complaint, the investigation extending over a period of almost two months. An EEO officer gave appellant a copy of the report, informing her that it did not support her complaint and that, accordingly, her complaint would be denied.
On October 19, 1976, the District Court rejected appellant's Title VII action on its merits. In an extensive opinion the court entered the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
1. Referring to the administrative prehearing meetings, "neither the plaintiff nor her attorney was able to produce dates, specific acts, the names of any discriminatory officials that would support her contention of discrimination."
2. Referring to the administrative hearing, "there was no evidence produced to support the fact that any one employee at NVOO promised her that her part-time employment would become full-time employment in the future."
3. Referring to the highly contested question whether appellant was considered for a position for which a Mr. Skrove was selected in July 1969, "(n)o witness was able to say positively whether the plaintiff's name was or was not on the form when they reviewed the list of eligibles, and there was no record of when the rating of the position was changed from GS-12 to GS-13 (which would have made appellant, a GS-11, ineligible for the advancement). . . .
The weight of the evidence supports the position that plaintiff, indeed was considered for this job."
4. Referring to appellant's introduction of statistical evidence at trial to prove sex discrimination, "(n)o prima facie case based upon statistics has been established that would shift the burden of proof to the defendants."
We must review the District Court's fact findings under the clearly erroneous standard of Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a). If there is evidence supporting a finding, the finding is ordinarily not clearly erroneous unless "the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." United States v. United States Gypsum Co.,333 U.S. 364, 395, 68 S.Ct. 525, 542, 92 L.Ed. 746 (1948). Although appellant presented witnesses who testified that, in their opinion, appellant should have been considered for a number of promotions for which she was allegedly not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gay v. Waiters' and Dairy Lunchmen's Union, Local No. 30
...these findings are clearly erroneous, they must not be disturbed on appeal." Id. See also Pack v. Energy Research & Development Adm'n, 566 F.2d 1111, 1113 (9th Cir. 1977) (per curiam) (clearly erroneous standard applied to district court finding that plaintiff was considered for position so......
-
Nagel v. Avon Bd. of Educ., Civ. No. H-78-557 (PCD).
...F.2d 457 (5th Cir.1978), Haire v. Calloway, 434 F.Supp. 1140 (E.D.Mo.), aff'd, 572 F.2d 632 (8th Cir.1977); Pack v. Energy Research & Dev. Admin., 566 F.2d 1111 (9th Cir.1977); Miller v. Williams, 590 F.2d 317 (9th Cir.1979); Causey v. Ford Motor Co., 516 F.2d 416 (5th Cir. 1975); Blizard v......
-
Moore v. Hughes Helicopters, Inc., a Div. of Summa Corp.
...grades is indicative of a discriminatory employment practice. We rejected this very inference in Pack v. Energy Research & Development Administration, 566 F.2d 1111 (9th Cir.1977) (per curiam). In Pack, the plaintiff sought to establish a prima facie case of sex discrimination by a statisti......
-
Grano v. Department of Development of City of Columbus
...women. See Hazelwood School District v. United States, 433 U.S. 299, 97 S.Ct. 2736, 53 L.Ed.2d 768 (1977); Pack v. Energy Res. & Admin., 566 F.2d 1111, 1113 (9th Cir. 1977). Contrast Davis v. Califano, 613 F.2d 957 (D.C.Cir.1979) (statistical data indicated low percentage of women in upper ......