Taylor v. Teletype Corp., LR-C-77-65.

• Decision Date: 02 November 1979
• Docket Number: No. LR-C-77-65.,LR-C-77-65.
• Citation: 478 F. Supp. 1227
• Parties: Tommie W. TAYLOR et al., Plaintiffs, v. TELETYPE CORPORATION, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Arkansas

478 F. Supp. 1227

Tommie W. TAYLOR et al., Plaintiffs, v. TELETYPE CORPORATION, Defendant.

No. LR-C-77-65.

United States District Court, E. D. Arkansas, W. D.

November 2, 1979.

John T. Lavey, Perlesta A. Hollingsworth, Little Rock, Ark., for intervenors.

G. Ross Smith, James W. Moore, Little Rock, Ark., for defendant.

ORDER

ARNOLD, District Judge.

The parties have submitted briefs on the questions raised by the Court's Opinion of August 29, 1979, and those issues will be considered in turn.

I. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Is injunctive relief appropriate in view of the finding that the defendant has not discriminated on grounds of race with regard to demotions since December 31, 1976? The plaintiffs persuasively argue that such relief is necessary because of the history of discrimination at Teletype and the findings of discrimination in this case. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(g) authorizes injunctive relief upon a finding that the employer "has intentionally engaged in or is intentionally engaging in . . ." an unlawful employment practice (emphasis added); this language contemplates an injunction in this case in the exercise of the Court's discretion. The Court is of the opinion that the issuance of a permanent injunction is necessary fully to effectuate the purposes of Title VII, and it is therefore ordered that Teletype Corporation be, and it is hereby, permanently enjoined from discriminating against any individual with respect to his or her compensation, terms, conditions, privileges of employment, or in any other manner, because of such individual's race. The final judgment in this case will contain such an injunction.

On the other hand, the Court is not convinced that the defendant should be ordered to institute more objective criteria for the exercise of its discretion in making demotions. There is no indication that such criteria are now necessary. The proof at trial failed to substantiate that lack of objectivity has had an adverse impact upon blacks since December 31, 1976. The Court is mindful, moreover, that the union contract gives the defendant a certain amount of discretion, and the Court is unwilling on this record to intrude upon the collective-bargaining process. Such intrusions are often warranted to correct discrimination, but not in this case. The injunction which the Court has issued should be sufficient to assure that the defendant exercises its discretion in a manner which does not discriminate.

II. INDIVIDUAL RELIEF

Tommie Taylor. Should Mrs. Taylor be reinstated and, if so, to what position? Does she come into court with clean hands, in view of the Court's finding adverse to her on a key question of credibility? The Court found that Mrs. Taylor's second demotion and subsequent layoff were illegal. Because of these findings, she is presumptively entitled to reinstatement and back pay. Franks v. Bowman Transportation Co., 424 U.S. 747, 96 S.Ct. 1251, 47 L.Ed.2d 444 (1976). In Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405, 95 S.Ct. 2362, 45 L.Ed.2d 280 (1975), the Supreme Court directed that back pay should be denied only for reasons which, if applied generally, would not frustrate the central statutory purposes of eradicating discrimination and making persons whole. The same considerations should govern the reinstatement determination. Although the Court is troubled by the adverse credibility determination, the fact remains that Mrs. Taylor was demoted and laid off because she is black, and denying reinstatement or back pay will not make her whole. In addition, the question of credibility relates to plaintiff's first demotion, with respect to which she did not prevail. The Court finds that she should be reinstated by Teletype. When a wrong has been established, doubts as to the remedy should be resolved against the wrongdoer.

It is argued on Mrs. Taylor's behalf that she should be reinstated to the position of ANSE I civic relations assistant. The Court held that she was discriminatorily downgraded from the 910 position and then laid off. The defendant argues that she should not be reinstated to any position higher than 910. The Court agrees. The defendant further argues that reinstatement will cause discord and antagonism between Mrs. Taylor and her supervisors and among the employees with whom she would work. Clearly, any discord arising purely from the fact that Mrs. Taylor successfully challenged the demotion and layoff is irrelevant to a reinstatement determination; nevertheless, the record supports the belief that animosity does exist and may work an unnecessary and harmful strain on the work environment if Mrs. Taylor is reinstated to a grade 910 public relations representative position. It is therefore ordered that Mrs. Taylor be reinstated on the following terms: Reinstatement should be to the position of 910 public relations representative or a comparable position. Whether another position is comparable should be judged according to pay, responsibility, the opportunity for creativity and independent judgment, advancement, and similar factors. If Mrs. Taylor is offered a position which she does not believe is comparable, she may ask the Court for further relief.

Other employees need not be displaced. Mrs. Taylor should be offered reinstatement in the first available opening in a 910 or a comparable position of the defendant's choice. Back-pay liability will run, however, until she is actually reinstated or refuses the offer. Mrs. Taylor should submit to the Court a claim for back pay in affidavit form, computed to the date of this opinion; the defendant may submit counteraffidavits. Mrs. Taylor is entitled to the amount she would have earned in the 910 position from the date of demotion. Computing back pay as if she would have been promoted to a higher-paying job is too speculative. Interim earnings, including unemployment compensation, and any pay she should have earned through reasonable diligence, must be deducted from the back pay award. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Enterprise Ass'n Steamfitters Local No. 638, 542 F.2d 579, 591-92 (2d Cir. 1976). She should be made whole with regard to other benefits, pension, insurance, seniority, and so forth.

Larry C. Peyton. The Court found that Mr. Peyton was discriminatorily demoted from the position of engineering associate on July 28, 1975. He should be reinstated to that position. The defendant argues that reinstatement should be denied and back pay tolled because in February, 1977, Mr. Peyton was offered the position but refused. Proof at trial was that he refused because he felt it would be too insecure, a belief created in part by his discriminatory demotion. The Court is unwilling to say that Mr. Peyton's feeling of insecurity was unreasonable. He would be an engineering associate today were it not for the violation of law, and it is not clear that the effect of that violation had sufficiently dissipated by February, 1977, to require Mr. Peyton to accept the position at that time. It is argued on Mr. Peyton's behalf that back pay should be adjusted upward because the demotion kept him from being considered for promotion to higher-paying...