Lewis v National Labor Relations Board Suggestion of Rehearing En Banc by Plaintiffs-Appellants
Public Court Documents
January 18, 1984

Cite this item
-
Brief Collection, LDF Court Filings. Lewis v National Labor Relations Board Suggestion of Rehearing En Banc by Plaintiffs-Appellants, 1984. e5864b30-bb9a-ee11-be36-6045bdeb8873. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/49f917ee-e45c-4c77-854a-3b2e8b5efa67/lewis-v-national-labor-relations-board-suggestion-of-rehearing-en-banc-by-plaintiffs-appellants. Accessed July 01, 2025.
Copied!
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 83-2055 DONALD R. LEWIS, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Defendants-Appellees. On Appeal From The United States District Court For the Southern District of Texas Southern Division SUGGESTION OF REHEARING EN BANC BY PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS JULIUS LEVONNE CHAMBERS CHARLES STEPHEN RALSTON GAIL J. WRIGHT 99 Hudson Street 16th Floor New York, New York 10013 MARK MCDONALD 1834 Southmore Boulevard Houston, Texas 77004 Counsel for Plaintiffs- Appellants TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF CASES AND AUTHORITIES ............... i CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS ............ ii STATEMENT OF COUNSEL .......................... iii STATEMENT OF THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS AND DISPOSITION OF THE C A S E .................. iv STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE ........................... v ARGUMENT ........................................ 1 I. The Statistical Evidence Establishes A Prima Facie Case of Racial Discrimi nation With Respect To Promotions to Supervisory and Managerial Positions............ 1 II. The Panel Decision Conflicts With Prior Decisions of This Court and The Supreme Court ............................... 3 CONCLUSION .................................... 5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 6 TABLE OF CASES AND AUTHORITIES Page Capaci v. Katz v. Besthoff, Inc., 711 F.2d 647 (5th Cir. 1983 ) ................................ 4 Carroll v. Sears Roebuck Co., 708 F .2d 183 (5th Cir. 1983) ................................ 4 Hazelwood School District v. United States, 433 U.S. 299 (1977) ................................ 4 Payne v. Travenol Laboratories, 673 F.2d 798 (5th Cir. 1982) 4 Segar v. Smith, 738 F.2d 1249 (D.C. Cir. 1984) 4 Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324 (1977) 4 CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS Pursuant to Rule 35.2.1, the undersigned counsel of record for plaintiffs-appellants certify that the following listed persons have an interest in the outcome of this case: 1. Donald R. Lewis, the named plaintiff-appellant 2. Donald Dotson, Chairman of the National Labor Relations Board 3. Rosemarie Collyer, General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board 4. Joseph E. DeSio, Associate General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board 5. Louis Baldovin, Regional Director of Region 23 of the National Labor Relations Board. Respectfully submitted, Gail J. Wright Counsel of Record for Plaintiffs Appellants STATEMENT OF COUNSEL Plaintiffs-appellants express their belief, based upon a reasoned and studied professional judgment that the panel decision is contrary to the following decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, and that consideration by the full court is necessary to secure and maintain uniformity of the decisions in this Court: Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324 (1977) Hazelwood School District v. United States, 433 U.S. 299 (1977) Carroll v. Sears Roebuck Co., 708 F.2d 183 (5th Cir. 1983) Capaci v. Katz & Besthoff, Inc., 711 F .2d 647 (5th Cir. 1983) Payne v. Travenol Laboratories, 673 F.2d 798 (5th Cir. 1982) Further, we express our belief, based upon a reasoned and studied professional judgment, that this appeal involves one or more questions of exceptional importance, namely the relative burdens of proof in a Title VII employment discrimination case. Respectfully submitted, Counsel of Record for Plaintiffs-Appellants STATEMENT OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND DISPOSITION OF THE CASE Donald L. Lewis, a Black professional employee of the National Labor Relations Board initiated this action in the District Court for the Southern District of Texas in Houston, Texas on May 6, 1976 pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000 3, et. seq. as amended by the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972, 42 U.S.C. § 2000C-16. The case went to trial on June 21, 1982, and concluded on July 9, 1982. Plaintiffs-appellants challenged the various employ ment activities of the N.L.R.B. as they affected Black pro fessional employees in the field of examiner, field attorney, supervisory and managerial positions. Plaintiffs-appellants offered statistical, analytical, documentary, and testimonial evidence. The district court's final judgment, finding against the plaintiffs on all grounds was executed on November 24, 1984, and entered December 1, 1984. Plaintiffs-appellants filed a notice of appeal on January 20, 1983. A panel consisting of Judges Garza, Reaveley and Johnson heard argument on August 29, 1984, and in an opinion on January 18, 1985, affirmed the district court's judgment as to the merits. The court held that the statistical evidence adduced by plaintiffs-appellants did not demonstrate such a gross statistical disparity so as to demonstrate a pattern of discrimination in the National Labor Relations' promotional practices with respect to supervisory and managerial posi- The panel reached this conclusion based upon its misapprehension of the facts in the case. Further, the ruling is squarely inconsistent with prior rulings from within the Circuit and from the Supreme Court. */ The Court also found against the plaintiffs-appellants with respect to other claims, however, those issues are not at issue in this petition. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE Whether plaintiffs' statistical evidence demonstrated a pattern and practice of discrimination so as to establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination with respect to promotions to supervisory and managerial positions within the National Labor Relations Board. ARGUMENT I. The Statistical Evidence Establishes A Prima Facie Case of Discrimination A. Promotions to supervisory positions Appellants respectfully suggest that the panel's analysis of the statistical evidence is flawed. That evidence demonstrates that Black professionals have moved into professional position over a period of 6 years at rates far below what would be expected given their repre sentation in the relevant labor force. If, as the panel and the district court concluded, Blacks moved up the lower ranks at speeds comparable to that of Whites, one would expect that over the time period involved they would become eligible for and receive promotions into the supervisory ranks at comparable rates also. Such, however, has not been the case. Thus, in 1974 and 1975, the two years prior to the filing of the complaint herein, Blacks received none or 0%, of the 117 promotions to supervisor, even though they comprised nearly 4% of the GS-13 Field Attorneys and GS-12 Field Examiners.- In 1976, when Blacks comprised 8.8% of the professional workforce (see slip op. at 1907, n.15), they received only 4, or 4% of the 98 promotions to supervisors. Even if the years of zero promotions are excluded, and even if it is assumed that Blacks remained at 8.8% of the professional workforce from 1976-1979, they received 1/ See PX 1, Tables 1C, 6C. fewer promotions to supervisors at a level that is statis tically significant. —^ The panel discounts this evidence by adopting the district court's assumption that Blacks were represented as GS-13 Field Attorneys and GS-12 Field Examiners at a level below their representation in the overall professional workforce throughout the period. This assumption is contrary to the evidence. As the following Table shows, by 1979 a higher percentage of Blacks were GS- 13 Field Attorneys and Field Examiners than in the profes sional workforce as a whole (12.8% — ̂ to 10.5%). Throughout the period Blacks consistently received fewer promotions to supervisory positions than expected when compared to their members as GS-13 attorneys and GS-12 examiners. 2/ From 1976-1979 there were 379 promotions to supervisor and manager. 19 went to Blacks. See, PX 10. Using the formula set out at p.1906, n.12 of the slip opinion, /number of promotion to x % of Blacks in x % of supervisor workforce non-whites = / 379(.088)(.912) = / 30.417 = 5.52 = Ko. of Blacks promoted(19) - Expected No. (8.8%x379) 5.52 = - 2.6 standard deviations 3/ Source: PX 1, Tables 1C, 6C. The figures show 33 Black GS-13 attorneys and 9 Black GS-12 examiners out of a total of 329 attorneys and examiners. 2 Table Percentage of Black GS-13 FA and GS-12 FX and Percentage Promoted To Supervisors, 1976-79 _Z. % Blacks GS-13 FA, GS-12 FX % of Promotions to Blacks 1976 6.4% 4% 1977 7.5% 3% 1978 10.13% 6.5% 1979 ] 2.8% 6% The net result of six years of underselection of Blacks was that by 1980 Blacks remained severely underrepresented in supervisory positions at the level of — 3.12 standard deviations. Slip op. p.1906, n.12. B. Managerial Positions The inexorable zero shows up with regard to two of the three manager positions over the entire history of the agency since 1933 . There has never been a Black Assistant Regional Director, or a Black Regional Attorney. There has never been more than one Regional Director at any one time, for a grand total of 3 since 1933. Once more, appointment to these positions are from the internal work force. The absence of Black appointees remains unexplained. II. The Panel Decision Conflicts With Prior Decision of This Court And The Supreme Court Plaintiffs' fundamental position is that prior decisions of this Circuit, as well as decisions of the £/ Sources: PX 1, Tables 1C, 6C; PX 10. 3 Supreme Court, shift the burden to the employer to come forward with evidence, not conjecture, once the type of disparities that the above statistics show have been demon strated by the plaintiffs in a Title VII case. Conversely, neither the decisions in Payne v. Travenol Laboratories, 673 F .2d 798 (5th Cir. 1982) and Carroll v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 708 F .2d 183 (5th Cir. 1983) nor those in Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324 (1977) and Hazelwood School District v. United States, 433 U.S. 299 (1977) require that the plaintiffs establish that the Blacks in the relevent labor force are as qualified as are the Whites. Rather, comparability of qualifications is the underlying assump tion upon which Title VII rests. See also Segar v. Smith, 738 F .2d 1249 (D.C. Cir. 1984). Reargument is necessary because the Court mis construed the facts in the case, and the opinion represents a sharp departure from prior decisions of the court which have considered the relative burdens of proof in a Title VII employment discrimination case challenging promotion procedures. See, e .g ., Payne v. Travenol Laboratories, 673 F .2d 798 (5th Cir. 1902); Carroll v. Sears Roebuck Co., 708 F .2d 183 (5th Cir. 1983); Capaci v. Katz Besthoff, Inc., 711 F .2d 647 (5th Cir. 1983). See also Segar v. Smith, 738 F.2d 1249 (D.C. Cir.). In support of their claim of discrimination with regard to managerial positions, plaintiffs-appellants submitted evidence demonstrating that numbers of Blacks 4 in managerial positions was dramatically close to the "inexorable zero." The panel agreed that the number of Blacks in these positions is indeed, low (Slip op. 1908 n .16). However, the panel opinioned that since these statistics failed to take into account special qualifi cations they would not support an inference of discrimi nation (Slip op. 1908 n.16). Prior to this decision the opinions of this circuit had consistently held that where a plaintiff introduces accurate data, and a defendant alleges that additional relevant variables should have been included, the defendant may not rely on mere hypotheses to rebut that data, but must offer its own statistics demonstrating the effect of considering the submitted variable. See, e .g ., Capaci v. Katz & Besthoff, 711 F.2d 647 (5th Cir. 1983). See also, Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324 at 360 (1976). In Payne v. Travenol Laboratories, 673 F.2d 798 at 817 (5th Cir. 1982) this Court held that once plaintiffs have shown a prima facie case through statistical proof, the employer cannot rebut the showing with general assertions of good faith or of hiring only the best applicants are insufficient. Contrariwise, in Lewis this Court concluded that plaintiffs-defendants case must fail because plaintiffs failed to compare those who were "qualified" for supervisory positions, or "special qualifications for managerial positions." 5 Slip op. 1907-08 n.16. Thus, the Court's acceptance of the defendants- appellees unsupported and vague speculations to explain the low levels of Black representation in supervisory positions is inconsistent with previous decisions from this Court, which have imposed upon the defendants the burden of explaining why the expected proportion of Blacks have not received supervisory appointments. See, e,g., Carroll v. Sears Roebuck, 708 F.2d 183 (5th Cir. 1983), Payne v. Travenol Laboratories, 673 F .2d 798 (5th Cir. 1982). See also Harrell v. Northern Electric Co., 672 F .2d 444 (5th Cir. 1982). Had the panel adhered to its prior decision in Payne, Sears and Capaci, the result properly would have been a holding that plaintiffs presented an unrebutted prima facie case of racial discrimination with respect to promotions to supervisory and managerial positions within the National Labor Relations Board. CONCLUSION Wherefore, plaintiffs-appellants respectfully submit that the panel decision of January 18, 1984, should be vacated, and the case set for re-argument. Due to the importance of the issues presented by this case, appellants urge that it be reheard en banc. Respectfully submitted, JULIUS LEVONNE CHAMBERS CHARLES STEPHEN RALSTON GAIL J. WRIGHT 99 Hudson Street, 16th Floor New York, New York 10013 6 MARK MCDONALD 1834 Southmore Boulevard Houston, Texas 77004 Counsel for Plaintiffs- Appellants