Stevenson v. International Paper Co.

• Decision Date: 29 April 1977
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 18877.
• Citation: 432 F. Supp. 390
• Parties: Frankie (Wilson) STEVENSON et al. v. INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Louisiana

432 F. Supp. 390

Frankie (Wilson) STEVENSON et al. v. INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY et al.

Civ. A. No. 18877.

United States District Court, W. D. Louisiana, Monroe Division.

April 29, 1977.

As Amended May 11 and 13, 1977.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Stephen J. Katz, Kidd, Katz & Strickler, Monroe, La., for plaintiffs.

James E. Youngdahl and Pamela D. Walker, Youngdahl, Larrison & Agee, Little Rock, Ark., for defendant Unions.

STAGG, District Judge.

OPINION

On April 2, 1973, Frankie Wilson Stevenson, Ruthie Adams, Doris Roberts, Paula Thompson and Lois Hemphill, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, commenced this action against International Paper Company (Company) and the International Brotherhood of Pulp, Sulphite and Paper Mill Workers Burke Local 582 (Burke Local 582). They sought redress for alleged violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq.

The suit has been constantly in motion from its inception. On October 30, 1973, the United Paperworkers International Union Local No. 582 (Local 582), answered the complaint as successor to Burke Local 582. The Company moved to dismiss the complaint against it for failure to join an indispensable party, the United Paperworkers International Union (International Union), on April 8, 1974. Reacting to the Company's motion, the plaintiffs supplemented and amended their original complaint, stating Title VII claims against the International. The plaintiffs having moved the Court to certify the class they sought to represent, the Court granted the motion on September 5, 1974; the class included all females who had been or were employed at the Bastrop Plant of the Single Service Division of International Paper Company.

In its answer to the original complaint, Local 582 cross-claimed against the Company, urging that the Company had discriminated against its female members. The Company moved to dismiss the cross-claim for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted. Stating, "The continuation of the cross-claim is to be based on principles of applicable tort law rather than on an E.E.O.C. claim," the Court, on March 13, 1975, denied the motion.

On June 6, 1975, the Company answered the complaint and cross-claim; it also filed a cross-claim against the International Union and Local 582, asserting rights of contribution and indemnification. In answer to the cross-claim, on June 20, 1975, Local 582 and the International Union filed a counter cross-claim against the Company, also asserting rights of contribution and indemnification.

After filing a consent decree between it and plaintiffs, the Company re-urged its motion to dismiss Local 582's original crossclaim on May 7, 1976. It stated that the consent decree would settle all issues of discrimination between the Company and its female employees. After approving the consent decree, the Court dismissed all cross-claims between the Company and the Unions on July 29, 1976.

The Company and the plaintiffs jointly moved the Court to approve a consent decree settling all class claims against the Company on May 7, 1976. The Company agreed to pay $4,200 to plaintiffs' attorneys for their fees and to pay $30,000 to the class, to be deposited with the plaintiffs' attorneys and to be distributed as determined by the plaintiffs' attorneys or the Court. The parties notified all members of the class, who could object to the proposed settlement within thirty (30) days of the notice. Several class members objected, and on June 25, 1976, the Company and the plaintiffs jointly moved to amend the decree. Pursuant to the amendment, the Company would deposit $30,000 in the Registry of the Court. The Court then would order the appropriate distribution of the fund after the trial of issues between the Unions and the plaintiffs. After 30 days the Court disallowed the objections of several parties, gave its final approval to the consent decree, and dismissed plaintiffs' Title VII claims against the Company.

By approving the consent decree the Court also approved a supplemental agreement between the Company, the International Union and Local 582. The supplemental agreement, now in effect, revised the lines of progression at the Bastrop Plant, discarded departmental seniority in favor of plant seniority, provided for the posting of bid notices, and greatly altered a number of other terms and conditions of employment about which the plaintiffs had complained. The full text of the supplemental agreement appears as the Appendix of this opinion.

The procedural context of the trial engendered several motions by the Unions. They first moved to sever the claims of the class against the Unions from the claims of contribution and indemnification between the Unions and the Company. Just prior to trial they moved to bifurcate the first part of the trial, trying liability separately from quantum. Finally, the International Union moved to dismiss the claims against it for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the plaintiffs having failed to name it as a respondent in any charge filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (E.E.O.C.)¹

In partial response to the motion to dismiss, plaintiffs amended their complaint to allege that the International and Local 582 had violated 42 U.S.C. § 1985 by conspiring to deprive plaintiffs of the equal protection of the laws. The Court took the motion to dismiss under advisement and granted the second bifurcation motion.

The trial was to proceed through two possible phases: determination of Union liability and computation of the amount of back pay due by the Unions to each individual class member. The Court heard evidence on the first phase at trial on July 29-30, 1976. It took the issues of Union liability under advisement at the close of the evidence, pending receipt of all briefs.

JURISDICTION OVER CLAIMS AGAINST THE INTERNATIONAL UNION

Just prior to trial the International Union moved to dismiss the claims against it for failure of the plaintiffs to name it as a respondent in the charges filed with the E.E.O.C.; it argued that the Court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over the Title VII claims against it. Subsequently, plaintiffs sought and obtained leave to amend their complaint to allege that the International Union and Local 582 had violated 42 U.S.C. § 1985. The essence of plaintiffs' claims pursuant to section 1985 is that the Unions conspired with each other or the Company to deprive plaintiffs of the equal protection of the laws by discriminating against them in their terms and conditions of employment on the basis of their sex. Their claims must come within the provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3), which proscribes conduct by which:

"Two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire . . . for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges or immunities under the laws. . . ."

The United States Supreme Court addressed the power of § 1985(3) to reach purely private conduct in Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88, 91 S.Ct. 1790, 29 L.Ed.2d 338 (1971). In Griffin, the black plaintiffs alleged that the defendants, private white citizens, had violated § 1985(3) by preventing plaintiffs' passage on the highway and by beating them. Both lower courts had decided that the complaint fatally neglected to allege any state action on the part of the defendants. The Supreme Court held that an allegation of state action was not necessary in every claim under § 1985(3), that the provision could reach purely private conspiracies. It reversed the lower courts, stating that racial discrimination by private persons was within the reach of the section. But the Court was careful to remonstrate that the section did not reach every private conspiracy.² Specifically, the Court did not rule on any private conduct beyond conspiracies to discriminate on the basis of race.³

Circuit court decisions since Griffin have conflicted on the scope and breadth of § 1985(3). Some courts have held that the section reaches purely private conspiracies that deny persons the equal protection of the laws because they exercised their rights pursuant to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.⁴ Other courts have limited the section, as it relates to purely private conduct, to racial motivation.⁵ The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has avoided the issue of whether § 1985(3) reaches private conspiracies to discriminate on the basis of sex,⁶ and the Seventh Circuit has decided that the section does not reach such private conspiracies.⁷ The circuit court opinions do not answer the question whether private sex discrimination is actionable under § 1985(3). In the face of conflicting and confusing precedents, the Court would be unwise to rest its decision on § 1985 if another remedy exists.

Section 706 of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5, establishes the procedure for pursuing claims of employment discrimination. The claimant files a charge with the E.E.O.C., which investigates the charge and attempts to mediate the claims of the respective parties. If the conciliation fails, the E.E.O.C. issues a letter informing the claimant that he or she has the right to sue to obtain relief in federal district court. The complainant then must choose whether to pursue his or her claim further.

The procedure has the two-fold purpose of notice to the charged party and of bringing the charged party before the E.E.O.C. in an attempt to secure voluntary compliance with Title VII. Evans v. Sheraton Park Hotel, 164 U.S.App.D.C. 86, 503 F.2d 177 (1974); Bowe v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., 416 F.2d 711 (7th Cir. 1969). Clearly the predominant purpose is the attempt at voluntary compliance. See Le Beau v. Libbey-Owens-Ford Co., 484 F.2d 798 (7th Cir. 1973); Johnson v. Seaboard Air Line R. R. Co., 405...