Patterson v. Tobacco Company - Company and Unions Found in Violation of Title VII

    ay 

ws, | 
, } \ 4 

Informatiow cald 4 WijMiam Bass or Evalyn W. Shaed 
Li” », oa AP 804 - 648-9073 

’ \ 
JY \ OR IMMEDI? 2 TO ALL MEDIA: 

ember 26, 1974, Richmond, Virginia 

memorandum opinion dated September 25, 1974, Federal 

Jistrict Judge Albert V. Bryan, Jr., found the American Tobacco 

Company, The Tobacco Workers' International Union, and Local 

nber 182 of the International, in violation of Title VII of 

Civil Rights Act of 1964 because of race and sex discri 

tion in two of American's Richmond plants. The class 

suit, styled Patterson v. American Tobacco Company, was main- 

tained by NAACP Legal Defense Fund attorneys on behalf of 

approximately 580 past and present black employees. 

In the landmark decision, the Court ordered sweeping 

injunctive relief which included the "bumping" of incumbent 

white employees by Blacks and females with longer company 

service; a freeze on the hiring and promotion of white male 

supervisors; and an adjustment in the company's retirement and 

pension plans. In addition, the Court ordered back pay and 

attorneys' fees for plaintiffs' counsel. 

Jack Greenberg, Director-Counsel of the Legal Defense Fund 

hailed the decision as "the most significant Title VII decision 

since Quarles v. Philip Morris" and predicted that the decision 

would be extremely valuable in LDF's nationwide legal effort to 

eliminate job discrimination against black workers. 

The decision came as the result of a trial held in Richmond, 

Virginia, that lasted from July 15 through July 18 of this 

year. The black plaintiffs were represented by the Richmond, 

Virginia law firm of Hill, Tucker & Marsh. The litigation, 

which was instituted in March of 1973, was later combined with 

brought by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

on behalf of female employees of the Company. The memorandum 

decision was limited to questions of liability for back pay, 

injunctive relief and attorneys' fees, while the issues as to 

A aw kak ‘4 ety 



the amount, method of calculation, and distribution of back pay 
* ’ : 

«“awards are to be considered at a later date. 

‘ The most significant ruling made by Judge Bryan was that 

Blacks and females may "bump" incumbent white male employees 

into lower job classifications if the Whites now hold job classi- 

fications which would have been held by Blacks and females had 

there been no discrimination. White employees who are bumped would, 

however, be allowed to retain their present wage rates in the 

lower classifications. It is believed that this is the first 

instance where any court has sanctioned bumping in a Title VII 

case. Judge Bryan recognized the significance of such a remedy 

by stating: 

"The 'bumping' which can occur under the 
relief awarded, will undoubtedly create morale 
problems, if not immediate economic problems, 
for those displaced. The relief is warranted, 
however, where past discrimination has allowed 
those persons greater job opportunity than more 
senior blacks and females." 

In the opinion, Judge Bryan suggested that counsel for all 

parties attempt to agree on the monetary aspects of the case 

(e.g., back pay and pension and profit sharing plans) because 

of the complexity of these issues. 

Judge Bryan also held that some Black and female members 

of the class may be entitled to back pay for as much as seven 

years, in addition to requiring that the Company's pension and 

profit sharing plans be adjusted to compensate for the effects 

of past discrimination. Additionally, it was held that no 

vacancies for supervisory personnel are to be filled in the 

company's Richmond Office, Richmond Branch or Virginia Branch 

until the percentages of females and blacks in supervisory 

positions approximate the percentages of females and Blacks in 

the total work force in the Richmond SMSA, which are approximately 

41% and 23.5%, respectively, based on the 1970 census. 

Henry L. Marsh, III, counsel for the Patterson plaintiffs, 

said that the decision vindicated the complaints of the Black 

employees and would result in a substantial back pay award for 

the black class members. 



Q4H4 UD \ 

IBY NYPR57 

7FROM PR NEWSWIRE--NYC 212-832-9400/LA 213-626-5501/MIA 305-576-5020/ 

TO CITY DESK 

COPY TO FINANCIAL 

NEW YORK, SEPT. 27 -- THE NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE FUND TODAY REPORTED 

THE FOLLOWING -- 

FEDERAL DISTRICT JUDGE ALBERT V. BRYAN, JR», HAS FOUND THE 

AMERICAN TOBACCO COMPANY, THE TOBACCO WORKERS’ INTERNATIONAL 

UNION, AND LOCAL NO. 182 OF THE INTERNATIONAL, IN VIOLATION OF TITLE 

VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964 BECAUSE OF RACE AND SEX 

DISCRIMINATION IN TWO OF ITS RICHMOND PLANTS. THE CLASS ACTION 

SUIT, PATTERSON V. AMERICAN TOBACCO COMPANY, WAS MAINTAINED BY 

NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND ATTORNEYS ON BEHALF OF 

APPROXIMATELY 580 PAST AND PRESENT BLACK EMPLOYEES. 

IN THE LANDMARK DECISION, THE COURT ORDERED INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, 

WHICH INCLUDES THE "BUMPING" OF INCUMBENT WHITE EMPLOYEES BY BLACKS 

AND FEMALES WITH LONGER COMPANY SERVICE; A FREEZE ON THE HIRING 

AND PROMOTION OF WHITE MALE SUPERVISORS, AND AN ADJUSTMENT IN 

THE COMPANY'S RETIREMENT AND PENSION PLAN. IN ADDITION THE COURT 

ORDERED BACK PAY AND ATTORNEYS’ FEES FOR PLAINTIFFS’ COUNSEL. 

THE LITIGATION INSTITUTED IN MARCH OF 1973, WAS LATER COMBINED 

WITH A SUIT BROUGHT BY THE EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 

ON BEHALF OF FEMALE EMPLOYEES OF THE COMPANY. THE MEMORANDUM 

DECISION WAS LIMITED TO QUESTIONS OF LIABILITY FOR BACK PAY, 

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND ATTORNEYS' FEES, WHILE THE ISSUES REGARDING 

THE AMOUNT, METHOD OF CALCULATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF BACK PAY 

AWARDS ARE-T:0 BE CONSIDERED AT A LATER DATE. 

THE MOST SIGNIFICANT RULING MADE BY JUDGE BRYAN WAS THAT BLACKS 

AND FEMALES MAY "BUMP" INCUMBENT WHITE MALE EMPLOYEES INTO LOWER JOB 

CLASSIFICATIONS IF THE WHITES NOW HOLD JOB CLASSIFICATIONS WHICH 

WOULD HAVE BEEN HELD BY BLACKS AND FEMALES HAD THERE BEEN NO 

DISCRIMINATION. WHITE EMPLOYEES WHO ARE “BUMPED,” HOWEVER, WOULD 

BE ALLOWED TO RETAIN THEIR PRESENT WAGE RATES IN THE LOWER 

CLASSIFICATIONS. IT IS BELIEVED THAT THIS IS THE FIRST INSTANCE 

WHERE ANY COURT HAS SANCTIONED "BUMPING" IN A TITLE VII CASE. 

JUDGE BRYAN RECOGNIZED THE SIGNIFICANCE OF SUCH A REMEDY BY STATING 

-- "THE ‘BUMPING’ WHICH CAN OCCUR UNDER THE RELIEF AWARDED, WILL 

UND OUBTEDLY CREATE MORALE PROBLEMS, IF NOT IMMEDIATE ECONOMIC 

PROBLEMS, FOR THOSE DISPLACED. THE RELIEF IS WARRANTED, HOWEVER, 

WHERE PAST DISCRIMINATION HAS ALLOWED THOSE PERSONS GREATER JOB 

OPPORTUNITY THAN MORE SENIOR BLACKS AND FEMALES.” 

JUDGE BRYAN ALSO HELD THAT SOME BLACK AND FEMALE MEMBERS OF THE 

CLASS MAY BE ENTITLED TO BACK PAY FOR AS MUCH AS 7 YEARS, IN ADDITION 

TO REQUIRING THAT THE COMPANY'S PENSION AND PROFIT SHARING PLANS 

BE ADJUSTED TO COMPENSATE F(R THE EFFECTS OF PAST DISCRIMINATION. 

IT WAS ADDITIONALLY HELD THAT NO VACANCIES FOR SUPERVISORY 

PERSONNEL ARE TO BE FILLED IN THE COMPANY'S RICHMOND OFFICE, 

RICHMOND BRANCH OR VIRGINIA BRANCH UNTIL THE PERCENTAGES OF FEMALES 

AND BLACKS IN SUPERVISORY POSITIONS APPROXIMATE THE PERCENTAGES OF 

FEMALES AND BLACKS IN THE TOTAL WORK FORCE IN THE RICHMOND AREA, 

WHICH ARE APPROXIMATELY 41 PER CENT AND 23.5 PER CENT RESPECTIVELY, 

BASED ON THE 1970 CENSUS. 

HENRY L. MARSH, III, COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFFS, SAID THAT THE 

DECISION VINDICATED THE COMPLAINT OF THE BLACK EMPLOYEES AND WOULD 

RESULT IN A SUBSTANTIAL BACK PAY AWARD FOR THE CLASS MEMBERS. THE 

PLAINTIFFS WERE REPRESENTED BY THE LEGAL DEFENSE FUND COOPERATING 

ATTORNEYS, HILL, TUCKER & MARSH, A RICHMOND, VA., LAW FIRM. 
=0- 

/CONTACT -- HENRY L. MARSH, III OR WILLIAM BASS OF HILL, TUCKER & 

MARSH AT 804-648-9073 FOR THE PLAINTIFFS/ 

-57- 



a44 

= 

WY NYPRAS 

/FROM PR WEWSWIRE--NYC 212-332-9400/LA 213-626-5501/MIA 305-576-5020/ 

TO CITY DESK 

> 
COPY TO EDUCATION EDITOR 7 

Ly 

AEN ELS 

75 DISTINGUISHED BUSINESS AND COMMUNITY LEADERS WILL MEET THIS 

FRIDAY, /OCT. 4/ TO ANNOUNCE PLANS FOR A COMMEMORATIVE DINNER 

HONORING DR. JOHN W. DAVIS, THE NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL 

FUND'S EDUCATIONAL CONSULTANT. THE PRESS IS INVITED TO COVER THE 

RECEPTION WHICH WILL BE HELD AT 5.30 PM IN THE COUNCIL ROOM OF THE 

UNIVERSITY CLUB AT 1 WEST 54TH ST. 

DR. DAVIS, WHO ESTABLISHED THE LEGAL DEFENSE FUND'S EDUCATIONAL 

PROGRAM IN 1964, WAS PRESIDENT OF WEST VIRGINIA STATE COLLEGE FROM 

1919 TO 1953. HE ALSO SERVED AS A MEMBER OF THE FIRST BOARD OF 

DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION AND AS DIRECTOR OF THE 

U.S. TECHNICAL COOPERATIVE ADMINISTRATION FOR LIBERIA. 

RICHARD C. GERSTENBERG, CHAIRMAN AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF 

GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, IS THE DINNER COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN, OTHER 

MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE WHO WILL HONOR THE 86-YEAR-OLD EDUCATOR, 

INCLUDE -- WILLIAM T. COLEMAN, JR., OSSIE DAVIS, CHRISTOPHER F. 

EDLEY, JACK GREENBERG, DOROTHY I. HEIGHT, REV. THEODORE M. HESBURGH, 

JAMES HICKS, VERNON E. JORDAN, JR., JUDGE DAMON J. KEIGH, ERSA 

POSTON, JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, HARVEY C. RUSSELL, REV. LEON H. 

SULLIVAN, ROY WILKINS, AND MRS. WHITNEY M. YOUNG, JR. 

SINCE DR. DAVIS INITIATED THE LEGAL DEFENSE FUND*S EDUCATIONAL 

PROGRAM, THE ORGANIZATION HAS AWARDED MORE THAN 1,000 SCHOLARSHIP 

GRANTS TO BLACK COLLEGE STUDENTS, AND THROUGH ITS EARL WARREN LEGAL 

TRAINING PROGRAM, LAST YEAR AWARDED 366 SCHOLARSHIPS TO BLACK 

STUDENTS ATTENDING 59 LAW SCHOOLS. 

CONTACT ‘RUTH LOGAN OF NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND 

AT 212-586-4759. 

=0- 

/SEPT. 30/ 

-48-