U.S. v. Trucking Management, Inc.
| Decision Date | 14 August 1981 |
| Citation | 662 F.2d 36 |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
David B. Marblestone, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., of the bar of the Supreme Court of Illinois pro hac vice by special leave of Court, and Warren B. Duplinsky, Atty., Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Washington, D. C., with whom Drew S. Days, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., Charles F. C. Ruff, U. S. Atty., Walter W. Barnett and David L. Rose, Attys., Dept. of Justice, Lutz Alexander Prager and Paul E. Mirengoff, Attys., Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, James D. Henry and Louis G. Ferrand, Jr., Attys., Dept. of Labor, LeRoy D. Clark, Gen. Counsel, Joseph T. Eddins, Associate Gen. Counsel, and Carin Ann Clauss, Sol. of Labor, Washington, D. C., were on the brief for United States of America, et al., appellants in No. 79-2103 and cross-appellees in No. 79-2102. Beatrice Rosenberg, Atty., Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Washington, D. C., also entered an appearance for appellants in No. 79-2103.
Roland P. Wilder, Jr., Washington, D. C., with whom David Previant, Milwaukee, Wis., Wilma B. Liebman, and Robert M. Baptiste, Washington, D. C., were on the brief for International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, appellee in Nos. 79-2102 and 79-2103.
Michael J. Gallagher, Washington, D. C., with whom R. F. Beagle and James L. Moeller, Washington, D. C., were on the brief for Arkansas-Best Freight Systems, Inc., et al., appellees in Nos. 79-2102 and 79-2103.
Harry A. Rissetto, Washington, D. C., with whom Charles P. O'Connor, William J. Curtin, and Susan S. Sauntry, Washington, D. C., were on the brief for Trucking Management, Inc., et al., appellee in Nos. 79-2102 and 79-2103.
Plato E. Papps, Washington, D. C., Alfred M. Klein, and Thomas J. Fineman, Los Angeles, Cal., entered appearances for International Ass'n. of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, appellee in Nos. 79-2102 and 79-2103.
Francis M. Gregory, Jr., Washington, D. C., with whom Marilyn L. Muench, Washington, D. C., was on the brief for North Penn Transfer, Inc., appellant in No. 79-2192.
Thomas G. Abrams, Andrea R. Waintroob, Robert E. Williams, and Douglas S. McDowell, Washington, D. C., were on the brief for Equal Employment Advisory Council, amicus curiae, urging affirmance in No. 79-2102.
Before SWYGERT, * Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, WILKEY and GINSBURG, Circuit Judges.
Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge WILKEY.
Appellants United States and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) first brought this suit in 1974, urging that a defendant class of trucking companies, two labor unions, and their collective bargaining representatives had engaged in hiring, assignment, and seniority practices unlawful under both Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 1 and Executive Order No. 11,246. 2 By a partial consent decree filed with the complaint and approved by the district court, the parties jointly established a compensation procedure which purported to resolve all disputed issues save those concerning defendants' alleged discriminatory seniority practices. When this case first came before us on interlocutory appeal, we vacated the proposed compensation procedure and remanded to the district judge for immediate resolution of those seniority issues. 3
In the four years intervening, two decisions have sharply narrowed the questions yet to be resolved. In International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States (Teamsters), 4 decided just before our decision vacating and remanding, 5 the Supreme Court held that the precise seniority system challenged here had been adopted and maintained without discriminatory intent and thus constituted a "bona fide seniority system" expressly exempt from liability under section 703(h) of Title VII. 6 On remand appellants argued to the district court that the challenged seniority system, even if expressly declared lawful under Title VII by Teamsters, nevertheless violated the contractual "affirmative action" obligations imposed on defendants by Executive Order No. 11,246. 7
In the ruling being appealed to us today, the district judge dismissed inter alia those portions of appellants' complaint alleging violations of the Executive Order for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 8 The district judge framed the central question before him as whether Executive Order No. 11,246 can "make unlawful the negotiation and maintenance of the (very) seniority system found bona fide and lawful by the Supreme Court under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act." 9 Answering that question in the negative, the district judge cited, but did not rely upon, the Fifth Circuit's 1977 decision in United States v. East Texas Motor Freight System, Inc., 10 a suit involving all of the plaintiffs and some of the defendants here. 11 In that case, the Fifth Circuit held that a bona fide seniority system found lawful under Title VII by virtue of section 703(h) may not be found unlawful under Executive Order No. 11,246. Because we find the Fifth Circuit's decision persuasive, if not preclusive, on this issue, we affirm.
Nationally active common carriers maintain a distinction between higher-paid intercity drivers who haul motor freight over long distances between company terminals ("over-the-road" or "line" drivers) and lower-paid intracity drivers who pick up and deliver goods only within the immediate vicinity of a particular company terminal ("city" drivers). Through bargaining agents, the national trucking companies and the Teamsters, which represents all truck drivers, have negotiated a comprehensive nationwide collective bargaining agreement with area supplements called the National Master Freight Agreement (NMFA). That agreement recognizes over-the-road drivers and city drivers as separate job classifications and bargaining units, providing for separate lines of job seniority for each. Accordingly, drivers are hired for one job or the other, and any driver transferring between classifications loses the accumulated seniority from his or her earlier job.
In the early 1970's the Government, first through the Department of Justice and later through the EEOC, 12 began to file complaints in various circuits charging the nationwide trucking companies, the unions representing their employees, and the bargaining agents for both sides with violations of Title VII and Executive Order 11,246. 13 Generally speaking, the complaints alleged that separation of drivers into two classes for purposes of hiring, assignment, seniority, and transfer constituted an unlawful industry-wide "pattern or practice" of discrimination against those present and prospective black and Hispanic drivers seeking the better-paid line driver positions. 14
Eight years ago the Government brought the suit on appeal here against eleven named companies, as representatives of a defendant class of more than 300 common carriers of general commodity freight employing over-the-road drivers (the Companies), Trucking Management, Inc. (TMI), 15 which represents most of the Companies for collective bargaining purposes, the Teamsters and their bargaining committee, 16 and the Machinists, which represents the shop employees of some of the defendant Companies. 17 The complaint charged that the Companies had violated legal obligations under both Title VII and Executive Order No. 11,246 by establishing and conducting the two-tiered seniority system. It further claimed that the unions had perpetuated the discriminatory effects of the Companies' practices by negotiating and consenting to the NMFA. As relief, the Government sought an injunction order permitting black and Hispanic employees to transfer between job classifications without loss of seniority.
In May 1977, while interlocutory appeal was being taken from the district court's initial ruling in this case, 18 the Supreme Court decided Teamsters, its second major decision regarding the lawfulness of seniority systems under section 703(h) of Title VII. 19 In Teamsters the Court held that seniority systems which perpetuate past discrimination are nevertheless exempt from attack under Title VII, so long as they are "bona fide" within the meaning of section 703(h) of that title. 20 Equally significant for our purposes, however, the Court explicitly held as a matter of fact that the NMFA, the seniority system challenged here,
is entirely bona fide. It applies equally to all races and ethnic groups. To the extent that it "locks" employees into non-line-driver jobs, it does so for all. The city drivers ... who are discouraged from transferring to line-driver jobs are not all Negroes or Spanish-surnamed Americans; to the contrary, the overwhelming majority are white. The placing of line drivers in a separate bargaining unit from other employees is rational, in accord with the industry practice, and consistent with National Labor Relation Board precedents. It is conceded that the seniority system did not have its genesis in racial discrimination, and that it was negotiated and has been maintained free from any illegal purpose. 21
Shortly after Teamsters, this court remanded the interlocutory appeal, requiring that the district judge determine the scope of the employees' seniority rights. 22 At that time we specifically chose not to address any other issues raised by the parties. 23 Relying largely on Teamsters, defendants then proceeded to file a series of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shekoyan v. Sibley Intern. Corp.
...and 5 U.S.C. § 301 or commonly referred to as the "housekeeping statute". Id. at 304-08, 99 S.Ct. 1705; see U.S. v. Trucking Mgmt., Inc., 662 F.2d 36, 43-45 (D.C.Cir.1981) (affirming trial court decision that Congress did not intend to permit E.O. 11,246 to override bona fide, neutral senio......
-
Stotts v. Memphis Fire Dept.
...528 F.2d at 1172; United States v. Trucking Employers, Inc., 561 F.2d 313, 317 (D.C.Cir.1977); later app., United States v. Trucking Management, Inc., 662 F.2d 36 (D.C.Cir.1981). Cotton, 559 F.2d at 1330. Ordinarily, the following factors will be considered: 1) the complexity, expense and l......
-
EEOC v. CW Transport, Inc.
...from the consent decree. United States v. Trucking Management, Inc., 20 Fair Empl.Prac. Cas. (BNA) 342, 351 (D.D.C.1977), aff'd, 662 F.2d 36 (D.C.Cir.1981). The consent decree states that the employers who entered into it "deny the existence of any violations of Title VII and Executive Orde......
-
Hayes v. RCA Service Co., Civ. A. No. 81-2978.
...98 S.Ct. 1281, 55 L.Ed.2d 792 (1978). See also, United States v. Trucking Management, Inc., 20 FEP Cases 342, 349 (D.D.C. 1979), aff'd, 662 F.2d 36 (1981). Nevertheless, if one of the causes of action can be considered a principal one and the others are secondary, proper venue must be estab......
-
Scapegoating and Stereotyping: The Executive's Power over Federal Contractors.
...not, in defiance of such policy, make unlawful or penalize a bona fide seniority system."). (47.) United States v. Trucking Mgmt. Inc., 662 F.2d 36, 44 (D.C. Cir. (48.) Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281, 286 (1979). (49.) Id. at 302. (50.) Id. at 306. The Court clarified that the import......