Trevino v. Holly Sugar Corp.

• Decision Date: 09 March 1987
• Docket Number: Nos. 85-1502,85-1727,s. 85-1502
• Citation: 811 F.2d 896
• Parties: 43 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 280, 42 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 36,877 Silvester TREVINO, Jr., Eliseo Carbajal, and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. HOLLY SUGAR CORPORATION, American Federation of Grain Millers International Union, et al., Defendants-Appellees. Silvester TREVINO, Jr., Eliseo Carbajal, Elida Alonzo, and All Others Similarly Situated, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. HOLLY SUGAR CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

Page 896

811 F.2d 896

43 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 280,

42 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 36,877

Silvester TREVINO, Jr., Eliseo Carbajal, and All Others

Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. HOLLY SUGAR CORPORATION, American Federation of Grain

Millers International Union, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

Silvester TREVINO, Jr., Eliseo Carbajal, Elida Alonzo, and All Others Similarly Situated, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. HOLLY SUGAR CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant.

Nos. 85-1502, 85-1727.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

March 9, 1987.

David Horton, Weslaco Tex., Debra A. Smith, Hereford, Tex., Texas Rural Legal Aid, for Trevino et al.

Edward B. Cloutman, III, Dallas, Tex., for Holly Sugar Corp.

Theresa Collier, Denver, Colo., M. Kirby C. Wilcox, James C. Paras, Patrick J. Maher, San Francisco, Cal., for Texas Legal.

Cary Schacter, Amarillo, Tex., for Legal Services Corp.

Bruce W. Sattler, Denver, Colo., for Texas Rural Legal Aid, Inc.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

Before CLARK, Chief Judge, GOLDBERG and GARWOOD, Circuit Judges.

GARWOOD, Circuit Judge:

Plaintiffs Silvester Trevino, Jr., Eliseo Carbajal, and Elida Alonzo brought an employment discrimination class action based on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e et seq., the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1981, and section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA), 29 U.S.C. Sec. 185, against their employer Holly Sugar Corporation (Holly) and their union, Local 321 of the American Federation of Grain Millers International Union, AFL-CIO (the Union). ¹ After denying class certification, the district court conducted a bench trial on plaintiffs' individual claims. The court denied all of plaintiffs' claims and entered judgment for defendants. Plaintiffs Trevino and Carbajal ² appeal the district court's denial of class certification, denial of relief in their individual actions, and award of costs to defendants. (No. 85-1502). In a consolidated action, Holly appeals from the district court's denial of its motion for attorneys' fees against plaintiffs and their attorneys. (No. 85-1727). We affirm.

Facts and Proceedings Below

Holly is engaged in the business of producing sugar from sugar beets, with refineries in several states. The employees at Holly's Hereford, Texas refinery are covered by a collective bargaining agreement signed by Holly, the American Federation of Grain Millers International, and its affiliated local unions. Plaintiff Trevino is an employee at Holly's Hereford plant and is a member of the collective bargaining unit represented by Local 321. Plaintiff Carbajal was employed by Holly and a member of that collective bargaining unit until his discharge in September 1982.

The production of sugar at Holly occurs on a seasonal basis. The production season, called the "campaign," usually runs from October until January or February at the Hereford facility. During campaign season, when the sugar is refined, the factory operates twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. During "intercampaign" seasons, Holly repairs its production machinery, performs capital improvement projects, and packages and ships stored sugar. Due to the seasonal nature of the industry, the size and composition of the work force fluctuates over the course of each year.

The collective bargaining agreement divides employees into two main categories--campaign employees and year-round employees. Holly selects its year-round employees at the end of each campaign. Employees on the year-round list receive greater benefits than campaign employees, such as paid vacation leave and health insurance. ³ Paragraph 14.19 of the collective bargaining agreement states: "When hiring employees for year-round employment, the Company agrees to give due consideration to seniority, knowledge, ability, skill, together with the requirements of the job." Employees are selected for the year-round list based largely on their skills, because Holly selects those who perform jobs needed during the intercampaign or who are crucial to starting the next production period. Of those qualified for each needed position, the most senior employee usually is chosen, even if this means not selecting a more qualified employee with less seniority. In addition, the agreement divides all the jobs into five levels--Technician I, Technician II, Station Group A, Station Group B, and Station Group C--in decreasing order of wages. Employees move into the Technician and Station Group A levels only by bidding for vacancies, which are posted. These posted jobs are awarded "on the basis of seniority, knowledge, ability, skill, together with the requirements of the job." Agreement p 14.12. Employees holding Technician jobs possess the skills used most during intercampaign and thus are most likely to be selected for the year-round list. ⁴

In April 1983, plaintiffs filed an across-the-board employment discrimination class action against Holly and the Union, alleging discrimination based on race, national origin, and/or sex. ⁵ Plaintiffs asserted that Holly and the Union discriminated against the members of the purported class "at every step of the employment process, including recruitment, hiring, job assignment, discipline, promotion, demotion, wages, training, seniority, the allocation of seasonal versus full-time employment, layoff, recall, and termination." Plaintiffs initially sought class certification for themselves and all past, present, and future Hispanic employees at Holly's Hereford factory. ⁶ By the close of their five-day class certification hearing in April 1984, plaintiffs had narrowed the purported class to Hispanics adversely affected by the year-round employee provision of the collective bargaining agreement at any Holly facility subject to the agreement. At the hearing, plaintiffs also stated that they did not seek class certification against the Union and that they did not present Carbajal as a class representative. On May 11, 1984, the district court denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

In March 1985, the district court conducted a ten-day bench trial on the merits of the individual claims. ⁷ Plaintiffs' main contention was that they had been injured by Holly's pattern or practice of discrimination against Hispanics. Plaintiffs argued that the disparity between the time it takes Hispanic employees to achieve year-round status as compared to the time for non-Hispanic employees demonstrates Holly's discrimination against Hispanic workers. ⁸ Plaintiffs also asserted that it takes Hispanics longer than non-Hispanics to attain seniority and to rise from lower to higher job levels. Trevino specifically claimed that he was discriminated against in not being placed on the 1982 and 1983 year-round lists. He also averred that his temporary demotion in 1982 from locomotive engineer to yard and factory worker was discriminatory, and that Holly illegally retaliated against him for attempting to enforce rights guaranteed by Title VII. Carbajal claimed that his discharge was discriminatory and that the Union failed to properly pursue his grievance.

The district court found that plaintiffs failed to prove discrimination in each of the discrete occasions asserted, and that plaintiffs had not suffered from a pattern or practice of discrimination. The district court analyzed the statistical evidence presented by each side and concluded that Holly's statistics presented "a more accurate depiction of reality" than the plaintiffs' statistics. The court observed that, even if it were to credit plaintiffs' statistics, it would not benefit the individual claimants in this case. Therefore, the court denied plaintiffs' relief and awarded costs to defendants. Plaintiffs do not appeal the district court's determination of their demotion, retaliation, or discharge claims; they do appeal the district court's finding that they failed to prove that defendants discriminated against them in the application of the year-round provision of the agreement.

In July 1985, Holly filed a motion seeking attorneys' fees against plaintiffs, their attorneys, Texas Rural Legal Aid, Inc. (TRLA), and the Legal Services Corporation. Holly appeals the district court's denial of this motion.

Discussion

Individual Claims

Plaintiffs appeal the district court's finding that defendants have not discriminated against them based on their national origin and race in violation of Title VII, section 1981, and section 301 of the LMRA. Plaintiffs claim to have suffered injury from a pattern or practice by defendants of discriminating against Hispanics in their application of the year-round employment status provision of the collective bargaining agreement. ⁹ The thrust of plaintiffs' complaint is that Hispanics do not have an equal opportunity to accrue the seniority or job skills that are important factors in selection to the year-round list and in successful bidding for job promotions (which in turn facilitates selection to the year-round list). Plaintiffs argue that it takes Hispanics longer than non-Hispanics to achieve year-round status and thus Hispanics are harmed in not receiving the economic benefits of year-round status on an equal basis.

The nature of Holly's bidding system and year-round list selection has the effect of multiplying the advantages of seniority. An employee with little or no seniority is greatly disadvantaged, because an employee with any significant seniority has a much better chance to accrue increased seniority. Plaintiffs contend that Hispanics do not have an equal opportunity to accrue seniority and thus are disadvantaged in their attempts to get on the year-round list. Plaintiffs also argue that Hispanics lack seniority because they are not placed on the year-round list in adequate numbers considering their proportion of Holly's employees. It seems that a significant aspect of plaintiffs' complaint is...