Weeks v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Company

Citation277 F. Supp. 117
Decision Date09 November 1967
Docket NumberCiv. A. No. 443.
PartiesMrs. Lorena W. WEEKS, Plaintiff, v. SOUTHERN BELL TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH COMPANY, Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — Southern District of Georgia

William B. Clark, Swainsboro, Ga., for plaintiff.

David J. Heinsma, Hull, Towill & Norman, Augusta, Ga., for defendant.

OPINION OF THE COURT

SCARLETT, District Judge.

Plaintiff, a white female employee of the Defendant, filed this action on May 18, 1967, alleging a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, contending that Defendant refused to consider her bid for a job vacancy in the title of Switchman because of her sex. Defendant's answer admitted that it refused to consider Plaintiff's bid for the switchman's job in Louisville, Georgia, because of her sex and affirmatively averred that sex was a bona fide occupational qualification for the switchman's job. Thus, the only issue presented by the pleadings was whether sex is a bona fide occupational qualification for the switchman's job in Louisville, Georgia.

At the trial of the case, the evidence established that a switchman is required to routinely and regularly lift items of equipment weighing in excess of thirty (30) pounds. In fact, every witness who testified regarding the job duties of a switchman, whether called by the Plaintiff or the Defendant, testified that a switchman must lift equipment weighing over thirty (30) pounds to perform the job. Additionally, the evidence established that there is other strenuous activity involved in this job. The job requires that equipment be lifted from an over-the-head position and that heavy items be moved by pushing or shoving. An affidavit of the Chairman of the Department of Physiology of the Medical College of Georgia stated that lifting from an over-the-head position involved a greater strain on individual muscles than lifting from an on-the-floor position. Also, the testimony was that the pushing and shoving of the heavy items of equipment involved more exertion than lifting items weighing thirty (30) pounds from the floor.

The evidence established that a switchman is subject to call out twenty-four (24) hours a day and is in fact called out at all hours, and is sometimes required to work alone during late night hours, including the period from midnight to 6 a. m. In the event of an emergency or equipment failure, the switchman would be required to lift items of equipment weighing well in excess of thirty (30) pounds.

Also, while it might be possible to reduce the number of times that a switchman would be required to routinely lift items weighing over thirty (30) pounds, so doing would reduce the efficiency of the switchman's operation. The law does not require the Defendant to pattern a job for a woman nor does it require the Defendant to accept an inefficient mode of operation. Rather, the law recognizes precisely...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Vogel v. Trans World Airlines
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri
    • October 2, 1970
    ...reversal by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals on September 26, 1969. The district court decisions in Weeks v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Company (S.D.Ga.) 277 F.Supp. 117, and Mengelkoch v. Industrial Welfare Commission (C.D.Cal.) 284 F.Supp. 950, may have offered other measures......
  • Wirtz v. Wheaton Glass Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey
    • May 1, 1968
    ...Circuit. The War Labor Board decisions turned on "comparable" work and are inapposite subjudice. See also, Weeks v. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 277 F.Supp. 117 (S.D.Ga.1967), regarding protective legislation and occupational qualifications for 16 Since 1945 equal pay bills have been intr......
  • Blue Bell Boots, Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportun. Com'n
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • October 28, 1969
    ...Cir. 1968), rev'g 274 F.Supp. 776 (S.D.Ill.1967); Georgia Power Co. v. EEOC, 295 F.Supp. 950 (N.D.Ga.1968); Weeks v. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 277 F.Supp. 117 (S.D.Ga.1967); LeBlanc v. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., No. 67-573, (E.D.La.1967); Roig v. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., No. ......
  • Georgia Power Co. v. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUN. COM'N
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia
    • August 9, 1968
    ...It is so ordered. 1 Apparently in accord in fair employment cases are the results already reached in Weeks v. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 277 F.Supp. 117 (S.D.Ga.1967); LeBlanc v. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., No. 67-573, E.D.La.1967; Roig v. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., No. 67-574; B......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT