Ross v. Buckeye Cellulose Corp.
| Decision Date | 04 January 1993 |
| Docket Number | 89-8703,90-8470 and 91-8641,89-8722,Nos. 89-8378,s. 89-8378 |
| Citation | 980 F.2d 648 |
| Parties | 60 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 822, 60 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 41,990, 37 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 980 Issiah ROSS, Jr., Eddie Slaughter, William Morgan Porter, Johnnie Lee Palms, James C. Homer, John W. Taylor, Vernon Alexander Putman, Hosey J. White, Jr., Franklin Roosevelt Scott, Gerry Plant, Tabitha Herring, George Rumph, Nanette Tyson, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BUCKEYE CELLULOSE CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee. William Morgan PORTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BUCKEYE CELLULOSE CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee. Issiah ROSS, Jr., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. BUCKEYE CELLULOSE CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant. Issiah ROSS, Jr., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, Cross-Appellants, v. BUCKEYE CELLULOSE CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant, Cross-Appellee. Issiah ROSS, Jr., Johnnie Lee Palms, James C. Homer, John W. Taylor, Gerry Plant, Tabitha Herring, Plaintiffs-Appellees, Cross-Appellants, v. BUCKEYE CELLULOSE CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant, Cross-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit |
James Finkelstein, Albany, Ga., for Issiah Ross and William Morgan Porter, et al.
John G. Skinner, Smith, Currie & Hancock, Atlanta, Ga., for Buckeye Cellulose Corp.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia.
Before ANDERSON, Circuit Judge, HILL and ESCHBACH *, Senior Circuit Judges.
I. FACTS
Appellants in this action are all black, present or former employees of appellee Buckeye Cellulose Corporation ("Buckeye"). 1 Buckeye is an Ohio corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Procter & Gamble Paper Products Company. Buckeye owns several plants in various states around the country, including one in Macon County, Georgia, near Oglethorpe, known as the "Flint River Plant." For a description of the Flint River Plant's organization and operations, see Ross v. Buckeye Cellulose Corp., 733 F.Supp. 344, 347-48 (M.D.Ga.1989) ("Buckeye I").
In December, 1979, Buckeye hired the first group of employees--known as "technicians"--to prepare for the opening of the Flint River Plant. In the Summer of 1980, Buckeye hired the remainder of the work force in four stages. Initially, all of the technicians within a hire group were paid the same amount. At the three and six month periods of employment, each technician received uniform pay increases. It was not until the end of nine months of employment that each technician entered the career planning process that determined the technician's wage based on individualized factors.
The career planning process gradually evolved into the Pay and Progression ("P & P") System that appellants' suits challenge as discriminatory. The district court described the process by which Buckeye established the technicians' initial career plans: 2
First, Buckeye conducted Plant-wide shift team meetings to explain the system. The managers then gathered information about each technician's performance on the job. Each technician then met with his manager to discuss his performance level, and his or her interests, goals and expectations. Each technician completed an "Interest Form" to identify preferences for career plans. The Unit Management Team then met to evaluate the gathered information in conjunction with the employees' preferences and the "ideal skill mix." The Unit Management Team then assigned proposed career plans and submitted them for approval to the Pay and Progression Review Board. The Review Board either accepted or modified the proposed career plan for each employee and then assigned him or her to a pay curve level. A pay curve was, at that time, one of two pay levels on which a course of pay increases was charted in relation to the career plan and the timing intervals established by the plan. Once the career plans were approved by the Board, managers reviewed them with each technician.
Sometime in 1982, Buckeye made significant changes to the P & P System. Plant Manager Burt Richards created a method of measuring the value of the various skill areas in relation to one another by assigning a point value to each skill. Buckeye did not divulge these values to any of its employees, although "testimony at trial indicated that at least some employees became aware of the point values, their significance, and the skills necessary to obtain a desired goal/pay level." Id. Buckeye also instituted a ranking system whereby each technician's performance and contribution was "force" ranked on a scale of 1 to 5. 3 The district court found that this ranking system was "almost totally a subjective program, with few, if any, standards to guide the managers." Id.
Under the modified P & P System, Buckeye considered a technician's career plan, the skills contained therein (whether or not the technician ever actually acquired them), and the points assigned to those skills in order to establish the technician's pay curve. If the ranking system indicated that the technician's performance and contribution were either above or below average, the technician's pay might be shifted by, at most, one pay curve, 4 but this variance was not automatic. In addition, Buckeye assigned each of the five units in the plant an average pay curve rate that was to be maintained within the unit. In the Summer of 1982, Buckeye also began administering examinations, called "Qualification Review Boards," to gauge each technician's progress under his or her career plan. A qualification board generally consisting of between three and five members conducted the examination, which was oral and was not recorded. Buckeye provided guideline questions to the qualification board members, but the board members were not required to ask these questions and were free to ask any relevant questions. At the completion of the examination, the board members conferred to reach a consensus as to the appropriate rating for the technician based upon both objective standards and the board members' "gut feelings." Buckeye made an appeals process available to technicians who were unhappy with their Qualification Review Board results.
In 1982, after the first series of Qualification Review Boards had been administered, Buckeye undertook a second career planning process similar to the first. This time, however, technicians who had not achieved a certain level of proficiency in their Qualification Review Boards often were not allowed to receive additional skills in their career plans and sometimes were not allowed to retain those in their initial career plans. The district court found that these second career plans "were the essential ingredient in establishing a technician's pay curve." Id. at 351. Furthermore, the court found that each technician's pay curve, "once established, was the basis for his entire pay history at Buckeye, and was a chief result of the fundamental elements of the Pay and Progression System which left a great deal of responsibility with the subjective decisions of the managers." Id. After this second career planning process, there were no subsequent plant-wide reevaluations, although modifications to certain career plans occurred on individual bases.
In October, 1984, Buckeye froze its entire P & P System because of alleged low production, waning production quality, and high costs. The freeze precluded changes in technicians' pay curves from 1984 until 1987, when a revised P & P System went into effect.
II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
From 1985 to 1988, thirteen individual employees at Buckeye's Flint River Plant filed twelve separate lawsuits against Buckeye. 5 All thirteen plaintiffs brought actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 alleging racial discrimination in pay and in the terms and conditions of their employment. Appellants Ross and Porter also alleged discriminatory discharge in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981. In addition, eleven of the plaintiffs--all except appellants Rumph and Tyson--brought actions under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., based on complaints of discrimination they had filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in March, April, and May of 1985. All of the suits filed in districts other than the Middle District of Georgia were transferred to the Middle District. 6
On July 29, 1988, the District Court for the Middle District of Georgia consolidated for trial all of appellants' cases. Appellants' section 1981 claims were tried before a jury from September to December, 1988. On December 21, 1988, the jury returned verdicts regarding liability on these claims. The jury found in favor of Ross on his claim of discriminatory discharge and retaliation and on his claim of discrimination in the terms and conditions of his employment. The jury found in favor of Plant on his claim of pay discrimination. The jury returned verdicts for Buckeye with respect to the remaining claims, thus denying all section 1981 relief for all appellants except Ross and Plant.
After hearing additional evidence on January 6, 1989, the jury returned damage verdicts as to the two prevailing plaintiffs. The jury awarded Ross $65,000.00 in back pay and $10,000.00 for lost benefits of employment. The jury awarded Plant $10,000.00 in back pay and $1,000.00 for lost benefits of employment.
On March 21, 1989, the district court entered final judgment on the disparate treatment claims under section 1981. Pursuant to this court's holding in Lincoln v. Board of Regents of Univ. System of Georgia, 697 F.2d 928, 934 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 826, 104 S.Ct. 97, 78 L.Ed.2d 102 (1983) (), the district court's order also entered judgment on appellants' Title VII disparate treatment claims. In addition to the jury verdict, the court awarded Ross and Plant interest on their back pay awards totaling $11,736.20 for Ross...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gess v. US
...period is running. See e.g., First Alabama Bank v. United States, 981 F.2d 1226, 1228 (11th Cir.1993); Ross v. Buckeye Cellulose Corp., 980 F.2d 648, 661 (11th Cir.1993), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 115 S.Ct. 69, 130 L.Ed.2d 24 (1994). On the other hand, the balance of justice tilts in favo......
-
White v. Wells Fargo Guard Services
...with the EEOC within the 180 day time period results in a bar of claims contained in the untimely filed charge. Ross v. Buckeye Cellulose Corp., 980 F.2d 648, 662 (11th Cir.1993), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 115 S.Ct. 69, 130 L.Ed.2d 24 (1994); see also Jackson v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R. C......
-
Crum et al. v. Alabama
...276, 278-79 (11th Cir. 1989); Ross v. Buckeye Cellulose Corp., 733 F. Supp. 363, 377 (M.D. Ga. 1990), rev'd on other grounds, 980 F.2d 648 (11th Cir. 1993). If the employer cannot so demonstrate, then individual relief may be IV. The Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution stat......
-
Pierri v. Cingular Wireless, LLC
...victim of unlawful discrimination." Turlington v. Atlanta Gas Light Co., 135 F.3d 1428, 1435 (11th Cir.1998); Ross v. Buckeye Cellulose Corp., 980 F.2d 648, 660 (11th Cir.1993). The Plaintiff has the burden of proving that equitable tolling is appropriate. Ross, 980 F.2d at Applying the law......
-
Introduction to evidentiary foundations
...because the court repeatedly issued limiting instructions with respect to the prior murder evidence. Ross v. Buckeye Cellulose Corp. , 980 F.2d 648 (11th Cir. 1993). The trial court may properly exclude evidence that is simply cumulative in nature and when it adds little to the probative fo......
-
Introduction to evidentiary foundations
...because the court repeatedly issued limiting instructions with respect to the prior murder evidence. Ross v. Buckeye Cellulose Corp. , 980 F.2d 648 (11th Cir. 1993). The trial court may properly exclude evidence that is simply cumulative in nature and when it adds little to the probative fo......
-
Introduction to Evidentiary Foundations
...because the court repeatedly issued limiting instructions with respect to the prior murder evidence. Ross v. Buckeye Cellulose Corp. , 980 F.2d 648 (11th Cir. 1993). The trial court may properly exclude evidence that is simply cumulative in nature and when it adds little to the probative fo......
-
Tactics
...because the court repeatedly issued limiting instructions with respect to the prior murder evidence. Ross v. Buckeye Cellulose Corp. , 980 F.2d 648 (11th Cir. 1993). The trial court may properly exclude evidence that is simply cumulative in nature and when it adds little to the probative fo......