Lorance v. AT&T Technologies, Inc. Reply Brief for Petitioners
Public Court Documents
October 3, 1988
Cite this item
-
Brief Collection, LDF Court Filings. Lorance v. AT&T Technologies, Inc. Reply Brief for Petitioners, 1988. 31d75291-bb9a-ee11-be36-6045bdeb8873. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/56d61551-44cf-41a8-b881-18355f1fae1b/lorance-v-att-technologies-inc-reply-brief-for-petitioners. Accessed May 15, 2025.
Copied!
No. 87-1428
In The
Supreme Court of tt)c Umtetr i£>tate3
October T e r m , 1988
PATRICIA A. LORANCE, JANICE M. KING,
and CAROL S. BUESCHEN,
Petitioners,
v.
AT&T TECHNOLOGIES, INC., and LOCAL 1942,
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL
WORKERS, AFL-CIO,
Respondents.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
REPLY BRIEF FOR PETITIONERS
PATRICK 0. PATTERSON
NAACP Legal Defense and
Educational Fund, Inc.
634 South Spring Street
Suite 800
Los Angeles, CA 90014
BRIDGET ARIMOND
14 West Erie Street
Chicago, Illinois 60610
* Counsel of Record
JULIUS LeVONNE CHAMBERS
NAACP Legal Defense and
Educational Fund, Inc.
99 Hudson Street
Sixteenth Floor
New York, New York 10013
BARRY GOLDSTEIN*
PAUL HOLTZMAN
NAACP Legal Defense and
Educational Fund, Inc.
1275 K Street, N.W.
Suite 301
Washington, D.C. 20005
(202) 682-1300
Attorneys for Petitioners
Patricia A. Lorance, et al.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
T a b l e o f A u t h o r i t i e s .......................... i i i
ARGUMENT 1
I . C o n t r a r y t o R e s p o n d e n t s '
M i s c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n o f
P e t i t i o n e r s ' Argument,
P e t i t i o n e r s Contend t h a t
t h e C u r r e n t O p e r a t i o n o f
t h e " T e s t e r " S e n i o r i t y
System I s U n law fu l . . . . 2
I I . R e s p o n d e n t s ' R e l i a n c e
Upon I n a p p r o p r i a t e and
I n a c c u r a t e F a c t u a l Arguments
U n d e r s c o r e s th e E r r o r i n
t h e i r P o s i t i o n t h a t the
P e t i t i o n e r s F i l e d U n t im e ly
D i s c r i m i n a t i o n Charges . . 6
I I I . R e s p o n d e n t s Ask th e Court
t o Adopt an Extreme P o s i
t i o n That Was R e j e c t e d by
b o t h C o u r t s Be low and t h a t
No C ou rt Has A d o p te d . . . 21
I V . I n t e r n a t i o n a l A s s o c i a t i o n
o f M a c h i n i s t s v . NLRB Does
Not S u p p o r t R e s p o n d e n t s '
P o s i t i o n ......................................... 25
l
Paae
V. The C o u r t ' s P r i o r D e c i s i o n s
P r o v i d e t h a t a S e n i o r i t y
System D e s i g n e d t o D i s c r i m i
n a t e May Be C h a l l e n g e d by
an I n t e n d e d V i c t i m when She
I s Harmed by t h e O p e r a t i o n
o f t h e S y s t e m ............................... 35
CONCLUSION.................................................... 44
A p p e n d ix A.
E x h i b i t 11 t o t h e D e p o s i t i o n
o f P e t i t i o n e r B u e sch e n ,
R .6SA, e x h i b i t 11.
A p p e n d ix B .
C o r r e s p o n d e n c e R e g a r d i n g
t h e Use by R e s p o n d e n t s
i n t h e i r B r i e f o f
C u t s i d e - t h e - R e c o r d F a c t s
and a P r i v a t e d l y Com
m i s s i o n e d R e s e a r c h
P r o j e c t ......................................... .
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases Page
A l b e m a r l e Paper Co. v . Moody,
422 U .S . 405 (1975 ) .......................... 35
A l e x a n d e r v . G a r d n e r -D e n v e r C o . ,
415 U .S . 36 (1974 ) .......................... 23 , 34
A m erican T o b a c c o Co. v . P a t t e r s o n ,
456 U .S . 63 (1 9 8 2 ) .......................... 39 -41
Bazemore v . F r i d a y , 478 U .S . 385
(1 9 8 6 ) ............................................................. 36 , 38
44
B is h o p v . Wood, 426 U .S . 341
( 1 9 7 6 ) ............................................................. 6
C a l i f o r n i a Brew ers A s s ' n v .
B r y a n t , 444 U .S . 598 (1980 ) . . 41
Columbus Board o f E d u c a t i o n v .
P e n i c k , 443 U .S . 449 (1979 ) . . 9
Dayton Board o f E d u c a t i o n v .
Brinkman, 443 U .S . 526 ( 1 9 7 9 ) . . 9
D e law are S t a t e C o l l e g e v . R i c k s . ,
449 U .S . 250 (1980 ) .................... ..... 4 3 -4 4
D e l C o s t e l l o v . T e a m s t e r s ,
462 U .S . 151 (1983 ) .......................... 2 9 -3 0
EEOC v . Home I n s u r a n c e C o . , 553
F. Supp. 704 ( S .D .N . Y . 1982) . . 6
iii
Cases (Continued) Page
EEOC v . W e s t i n g h o u s e E l e c t r i c
C o r p . , 725 F .2d 211 (3d C i r .
1 9 8 3 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 469 U .S .
820 (1 9 8 4 ) ....................................................22
F ord Motor Co. v . EEOC, 458 U .S .
219 ( 1 9 8 2 ) .................................................... 33
H e i a r v . C r a w fo rd C o u n t r y , 746
F . 2d 1190 ( 7 t h C i r . 1984) ,
c e r t . d e n i e d , 472 U .S . 1027
(198 5) 22 -2 3
I n t e r n a t i o n a l A s s o c i a t i o n o f
M a c h i n i s t s v . NLRB, 362 U .S .
411 (1 9 6 0 ) 2 5 -2 9
J o h n so n v . G e n e r a l E l e c t r i c ,
840 F . 2d 132 ( 1 s t C i r . 1988) . . 22
M o b i l e v . B o l d e n , 446 U .S . 55
( 1 9 8 0 ) .............................................................. 37
Newman v . P i g g i e Park E n t e r p r i s e s ,
390 U .S . 400 (1 9 6 8 ) .......................... 34
NLRB v . I n t e r n a t i o n a l B r o t h e r h o o d
o f E l e c t r i c a l W o r k e r s , 827 F .2 d
530 ( 9 t h C i r . 1987) .......................... 22
Owens v . O k u r e , 57 U .S .L .W . 4065
(J a n . 10, 1989) .................................... 32
P e r s o n n e l A d m i n i s t r a t o r o f
Mass. v . F e e n e y , 442 U.S.
256 ( 1 9 7 9 ) ................................................... 9
P o t l a t c h F o r e s t s , I n c . , 87 NLRB
1193 (1 9 4 9 ) 2 7 -2 9
iv
Cases (Continued) Page
Reed v . U n i t e d T r a n s p o r t a t i o n
U nion , 57 U .S .L .W . 4088
(J a n . 11, 1989) .....................
T e a m s te r s v . U n i t e d S t a t e s ,
431 U .S . 324 (1977 ) . .
U n i t e d A i r L i n e s , I n c . v . Evans,
431 U .S . 553 (1977 ) .....................
U n i t e d P a r c e l S e r v i c e v .
M i t c h e l l , 451 U .S . 56 (1981 ) . .
U n i t e d S t a t e s v . B d . o f S c h o o l s
C o m m is s io n e r s , 573 F .2 d 400
( 7 t h C i r . ) , c e r t . d e n i e d ,
439 U .S . 824 (1978 ) ..........................
V i l l a g e o f A r l i n g t o n H e i g h t s v .
M e t r o p o l i t a n H ous ing D evelopm ent
Corp.*, 429 U.S. 252 ( 1977) . . .
W a sh in g to n v . D a v i s , 426 U .S . 229
(1976 ) .............................................................
S t a t u t e s
Labor-Management R e p o r t i n g and
D i s c l o s u r e A c t , § 1 0 1 ( a ) ( 2 ) ,
29 U .S .C . § 4 1 1 ( a ) (2 ) . . .
T i t l e V I I o f t h e C i v i l R i g h t s
A c t o f 1964 , 42 U .S .C .
§§ 2000e e t s e q ...........................
23, 30 -
32
9, 16,
35
3 7 - 3 8 ,
4 3 -4 4
2 9 - 30
42
9 , 37
9
3 0 - 32
. p ass im
v
Statutes (continued) Page
Equal Employment O p p o r t u n i t y A ct
' o f 1972 , P . L . 9 2 - 2 6 1 ,
36 S t a t . 1 0 3 .............................................. 33
N a t i o n a l Labor R e l a t i o n s A c t ,
§ 1 0 ( b ) , 29 U . S .C . § 1 6 0 (b ) . . . p a s s im
L e g i s l a t i v e Aut h o r i t i e s
118 Cong. R e c . 7167 (1972 ) . . . . 33
O ther A u t h o r i t i e s
G. Bloom & H. N o r t h r u p , E c o n o m ic s
o f Labor R e l a t i o n s 237 ( 1 9 8 1 ) . . 16
F. H a r b i s o n , The S e n i o r i t y
Pr i n c i p l e i n Union-Management
R e l a t i o n s 33 (1 9 3 9 ) .......................... 16
J a c k s o n and M atheson , The
Con t i n u i n g V i o l a t i o n T h e o ry
a n d _ t he C o n ce p t o f J u r i s d i c t i o n
i n T i t l e V I I S u i t s , 67 Geo.
L . J . 811 (19 79) .................................... 6
R. S t e r n , E. Gressman, S. S h a p i r o ,
Supreme C o u r t P r a c t i c e ( S i x t h
e d . 1936) a t 564 .................................... 7
Union C o n t r a c t C l a u s e s (CCH)
5 1 , 4 2 8 (1 9 5 4 ) .................................... 17
vi
No. 8 7 -1 4 2 8
IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
O c t o b e r Term, 1988
PATRICIA A. LORANCE, JANICE M. KING,
and CAROL S. BUESCHEN,
P e t i t i o n e r s ,
v .
AT&T TECHNOLOGIES, INC., and LOCAL 1942,
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL
WORKERS, AFL-CIO,
R e s p o n d e n t s .
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
REPLY BRIEF FOR PETITIONERS
ARGUMENT
P e t i t i o n e r s s u b m i t t h i s b r i e f i n
r e p l y t o r e s p o n d e n t s ' b r i e f . With r e s p e c t
t o most o f r e s p o n d e n t s ' a rgu m en ts , we r e s t
on o u r p r i n c i p a l b r i e f and on th e b r i e f
f o r t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s a n d t h e E q u a l
E m p l o y m e n t O p p o r t u n i t y C o m m i s s i o n a s
2
ami c i c u r i a e . Our r e p l y b r i e f a d d r e s s e s
o n l y t h e f o l l o w i n g f i v e p o i n t s .
I . C O N T R A R Y TO R E S P O N D E N T S '
MISCHARACTERIZAT ION OF PETITIONERS'
ARGUMENT, PETITIONERS CONTEND THAT
THE C U R R E N T O P E R A T IO N OF THE
" T E S T E R " S E N I O R I T Y SYSTEM I S
UNLAWFUL.
The Company and U n i o n c o n s i s t e n t l y
m i s c h a r a c t e r i z e t h e a r g u m e n t s o f t h e
f e m a l e w o r k e r s . R e p e a t e d l y , r e s p o n d e n t s
as . s e r t t h a t t h e " s o l e " b a s i s f o r
p e t i t i o n e r s ' c l a i m s i s t h a t t h e s e n i o r i t y
" s y s t e m was i l l e g a l l y ' a d o p t e d ' b e c a u s e
AT&T and th e Union a l l e g e d l y a c t e d w i t h a
d i s c r i m i n a t o r y m o t i v e " when t h e y changed
t h e p l a n t s e n i o r i t y s y s te m t o th e " t e s t e r
c o n c e p t . " R esp . Br . a t 12; s e e a l s o , i d .
a t 2 , 6 , 10 , and 17.
To t h e c o n t r a r y , p e t i t i o n e r s r e l y
u p o n t h e o p e r a t i o n and e f f e c t o f t h e
d i s c r i m i n a t o r y s e n i o r i t y s y s t e m . The
p e t i t i o n e r s a l l e g e d i n t h e i r C o m p l a i n t
t h a t AT&T and t h e IBEW c o n s p i r e d t o change
t h e s e n i o r i t y sy s te m " i n o r d e r t o p r o t e c t
in c u m b e n t male t e s t e r s and t o d i s c o u r a g e
w o m e n f r o m p r o m o t i n g i n t o t h e
t r a d i t i o n a l l y - m a l e t e s t e r j o b s , " and t h a t
" f t ] h e p u r p o s e a n d e f f e c t o f t h i s
m a n i p u l a t i o n o f s e n i o r i t y r u l e s " w ere t o
a d v a n t a g e m a l e e m p l o y e e s o v e r f e m a l e
e m p l o y e e s . J o i n t A p p . 2 0 - 2 2 (E m p h a s is
a d d e d } .
In a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e s e a l l e g a t i o n s ,
t h e p e t i t i o n e r s h a v e a r g u e d t h a t
" [ w ] h e n e v e r t h e s e n i o r i t y sy s te m o p e r a t ed
as i n t e n d e d by AT&T and L o c a l 1942 t o deny
j o b o p p o r t u n i t i e s t o p e t i t i o n e r s b e c a u s e
o f t h e i r g e n d e r , AT&T and L o c a l 1942
c o m m it an u n l a w f u l em ploym ent p r a c t i c e .
B r i e f a t 21 . (Emphasis a d d e d ) . When th e
Company and Union implement t h e c o n s p i r a c y
t o d i s c r i m i n a t e a g a i n s t w o m e n , t n e y
v i o l a t e T i t l e V I I . S i n c e th e p e t i t i o n e r s
f i l e d c h a r g e s o f d i s c r i m i n a t i o n w i t h i n th e
4
r e q u i s i t e f i l i n g p e r i o d , B r i e f a t 1 3 - 1 6 ,
f rom t h e d a t e t h a t t h e Company and Union
i m p l e m e n t e d t h e d i s c r i m i n a t o r y s e n i o r i t y
s y s te m t o bump p e t i t i o n e r s t o l o w e r - p a y i n g
j o b s w h i l e m a l e s w i t h l e s s s e n i o r i t y
r e m a i n e d i n t h e h i g h e r - p a y i n g j o b s , 1 the
p e t i t i o n e r s have f i l e d t i m e l y c h a r g e s .
The i s s u e i n t h i s c a s e i s w h e th e r th e
d i s t r i c t c o u r t , on a m o t i o n f o r summary
ju d g m e n t , i m p r o p e r l y d i s m i s s e d t h i s a c t i o n
o n t h e g r o u n d t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f s ' EEOC 1 * * * * 6
1 When p e t i t i o n e r L o r a n c e was
downgraded on November 15, 1982, f rom j o b
g r a d e t e s t e r 38 t o j o b g r a d e t e s t e r 37 ,
t h e r e w e r e s i x t y - s e v e n g r a d e 38 t e s t e r s
w i t h l e s s p l a n t s e n i o r i t y than L o r a n c e .
When p e t i t i o n e r K i n g was d o w n g r a d e d on
A u g u s t 2 3 , 1 9 8 2 , f r o m a j o b g r a d e 37
t e s t e r t o a j o b g r a d e t e s t e r 36 , t h e r e
w ere t h i r t y - t w o g r a d e 37 t e s t e r s w i t h l e s s
p l a n t s e n i o r i t y t h a n K i n g . W h en
p e t i t i o n e r B u e s c h e n was d o w n g r a d e d on
N ovem ber 1 5 , 1 9 8 2 , f r o m a j o b g r a d e 35
t e s t e r t o a j o b g r a d e 33 p o s i t i o n t h e r e
w ere one hundred f o u r j o b g r a d e 36 t e s t e r s
w i t h l e s s p l a n t s e n i o r i t y than B u e sc h e n .
6 8 A a t e x h i b i t 11 ( E x h i b i t 11 t o t h e
D e p o s i t i o n o f B u e s c h e n , a t t a c h e d a s
A p p e n d ix A ) .
5
c h a r g e s w e r e n o t t i m e l y . I n t h i s
p r o c e d u r a l p o s t u r e , t h e C ou rt must a c c e p t
t h e p e t i t i o n e r s ' " v e r s i o n o f t h e f a c t s , "
i n c l u d i n g t h e a l l e g a t i o n s i n t h e
c o m p l a i n t . ̂ B i s h o p v . W ood , 4 26 U. S .
3 4 1 , 3 4 7 ( 1 9 7 6 ) . A c c o r d i n g l y ,
r e s p o n d e n t s ' r e p e a t e d r e f e r e n c e s t o a
" n e u t r a l , " " n o n d i s c r i m i n a t o r y " s e n i o r i t y
s y s t e m , B r i e f a t 1 4 - 1 7 , " a d o p t e d . . . f o r
g o o d r e a s o n s , " a n d p r o t e c t e d f r o m
l i a b i l i t y by § 7 0 3 ( h ) , i d - a t 16 - s e e
a l s o , i d a t 3 1 - 3 9 , a r e n o t p e r t i n e n t t o
t h e i s s u e b e f o r e th e C o u r t . 2
2 T h e p e t i t i o n e r s n e v e r t o o k
d i s c o v e r y i n t h i s c a s e b e c a u s e " t h e C ou rt
a c c e p t e d t h e p a r t i e s ' r e co m m e n d at io n t h a t
d i s c o v e r y s h o u l d b e h e l d i n a b e y a n c e
p e n d i n g r e s o l u t i o n o f th e Company 's . . .
M o t i o n f o r S um m ary J u d g m e n t . " J o i n t
S t a t u s R e p o r t (F eb . 7 , 1 9 8 6 ) , R. 46 .
̂ R e s p o n d e n t s c o n c e d e t h a t no
l e g i t i m a t e r e l i a n c e i n t e r e s t s a r e a c q u i r e d
u n d e r a s e n i o r i t y sy s te m t h a t e x p l i c i t l y
p r o v i d e s l e s s s e n i o r i t y f o r t h e work o f
women t h a t i t p r o v i d e s f o r t h a t o f men.
Resp . Br . a t 31* n . 3 3 . Yet t h e y c i t e no
a u t h o r i t y f o r t h e i r c o n t e n t i o n t h a t the
6
I I . R E S P O N D E N T S ' R E L I A N C E UP ON
INAPPROPRIATE AND INACCURATE FACTUAL
ARGUMENTS UNDERSCORES THE ERROR IN
THEIR POSITION THAT THE PETITIONERS
F I L E D U N TIM ELY D I S C R I M I N A T I O N
CHARGES.
R e s p o n d e n t s r e p e a t e d l y a n d
i n a p p r o p r i a t e l y ( i n l i g h t o f t h e C o u r t ' s
r e v i e w o f a g r a n t o f summary ju d g m e n t ,
s e e , s e c t i o n I , s u p r a ) u s e d i s p u t e d r e c o r d
r u l e s h o u l d b e d i f f e r e n t f o r a s y s t e m
w h ich s u f f e r s f rom t h e same i n t e n t i o n t o
d i s c r i m i n a t e b u t c h o o s e s t o a c h i e v e t h a t
g o a l t h r o u g h t h e o p e r a t i o n o f a p o l i c y
w h i c h i s d e s i g n e d t o d i s a d v a n t a g e women
w i t h o u t e s t a b l i s h i n g e x p l i c i t g e n d e r
c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s . C o n c e r n f o r t h e
" s u b s t a n t i a l r e l i a n c e i n t e r e s t s " o f
e m p l o y e e s and t h e l o s t in v e s t m e n t o f th e
c o m p a n y i n t h e " g u i d p r o q u o " f o r t h e
c h a l l e n g e d a g r e e m e n t , i t i s s u g g e s t e d ,
o v e r r i d e t h e s t a t u t o r y g o a l o f T i t l e V I I .
I d . a t 3 6 . T h i s C o u r t c e r t a i n l y must
r e j e c t a p o s i t i o n w h i c h w o u l d p e r m i t a
t i m e l y c h a l l e n g e t o an i n t e n t i o n a l l y
d i s c r i m i n a t o r y p o l i c y t o be t h w a r t e d by
t h e i n t e r e s t s o f t h e p a r t i e s t o t h e
u n l a w f u l a g r e e m e n t . S e e e . q . , EEOC v .
Home I n s ur a n c e C o . , 553 F. S u p p . 704 , 713
( S . D . N . Y . 1 9 8 2 ) ; J a c k s o n and M atheson , The
Co n t i n u i n g V i o l a t i o n T h e o r y a n d t h e
C o n c e p t o f J u r i s d i c t i o n i n T i t l e V I I
S u i t s , 67 Geo. L . J . 811 , 851 ( 1 9 7 9 ) .
7
f a c t s i n s u p p o r t o f t h e i r a r g u m e n t s . 4 A
b r i e f r e v i e w o f t h e r e c o r d s h o w s t h a t
r e s p o n d e n t s m i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d th e e v i d e n c e
a n d t h a t , p r o p e r l y v i e w e d , t h e r e c o r d
* I n an e f f o r t t o s u p p o r t t h e i r
p o s i t i o n , r e s p o n d e n t s c o m m i s s i o n e d a
p r i v a t e r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t from BNA P l u s , a
" c u s t o m r e s e a r c h " d i v i s i o n o f The Bureau
o f N a t i o n a l A f f a i r s , I n c . The p r o j e c t was
d o n e p u r s u a n t t o " s p e c i f i c a t i o n s " s e t
f o r t h b y AT&T T e c h n o l o g i e s . T h e
r e s p o n d e n t s a t t a c h e d a summary o f t h i s
p r o j e c t as an A p p e n d ix t o t h e i r B r i e f and
r e f e r r e d t o t h e f a c t s p r o d u c e d by t h i s
p r o j e c t . B r i e f a t 1 4 - 1 5 , n . 1 5 .
T h e C o u r t " h a s c o n s i s t e n t l y . . .
c o n d e m n e d " t h e p r a c t i c e b y c o u n s e l o f
" a t t a c h i n g t o a b r i e f f a s h a v e
r e s p o n d e n t s ] some a d d i t i o n a l o r d i f f e r e n t
e v i d e n c e t h a t i s n o t p a r t o f t h e c e r t i f i e d
r e c o r d . " R. S t e r n , E. G r e s s m a n , S.
S h a p i r o , Supreme C ou rt P r a c t i c e ( 6 t h ed .
1 9 8 6 ) a t 5 6 4 . " [ A ] p p e i l a t e c o u r t s have
d e a l t p r o m p t l y and s e v e r e l y w i t h s u c h
i n f r a c t i o n s [ b y , f o r exa m p le ] g r a n t i n g a
m o t i o n t o s t r i k e th e ' o f f e n d i n g m a t t e r . ' "
I d . a t 5 6 4 - 6 5 .
P e t i t i o n e r s r e q u e s t e d r e s p o n d e n t s t o
remove t h e r e f e r e n c e s t o the o u t s i d e - t h e -
r e c o r d p r i v a t e s t u d y ; t h e r e s p o n d e n t s
r e f u s e d . A p p e n d i x B. The p e t i t i o n e r s
h a v e l o d g e d w i t h t h e C l e r k o f the Court
th e u n d e r l y i n g d a t a f o r th e p r o j e c t w h ich
t h e r e s p o n d e n t s p r o d u c e d w i t h Mr .
C a r p e n t e r ' s l e t t e r d a t e d March 3, 1989.
8
u n d e r s c o r e s t h e e r r o r i n r e s p o n d e n t s '
a r g u m e n t s .
1. R e s p o n d e n t s s t a t e t h a t t h e
p e t i t i o n e r s ' c l a i m t h a t t h e 1 9 7 9
c h a n g e o v e r f rom p l a n t t o t e s t e r s e n i o r i t y
" r e s t s o n s t a t e m e n t s t h a t a f e w m a le
e m p l o y e e s a l l e g e d l y made a t t h e t h r e e
u n i o n m e e t i n g s i n 1 9 7 9 , " t h a t "no f a c t s
a r e a l l e g e d " t h a t t h e s t a t e m e n t s
" r e p r e s e n t e d t h e v i e w s o f t h e u n i o n
l e a d e r s h i p , " and t h a t i t i s n o t " a l l e g e d
t h a t AT&T knew what had b e e n s a i d a t the
u n i o n m e e t i n g s " o r t h a t anyone f rom AT&T
n e g o t i a t e d t h e new s e n i o r i t y s y s te m f o r
o t h e r than " l e g i t i m a t e b u s i n e s s r e a s o n s . "
Resp . B r . a t 6 - 7 ; s e e a l s o , B r i e f a t 14 -
15 ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ) .
F i r s t , th e h a r s h im p ac t o f th e
new d u a l s e n i o r i t y s y s t e m o n f e m a l e
w o r k e r s p r o v i d e s o b j e c t i v e c i r c u m s t a n t i a l
9
Ke v i d e n c e o f d i s c r i m i n a t o r y i n t e n t . By
d e p r i v i n g women o f th e u se o f s e n i o r i t y
a c c u m u l a t e d i n th e " t r a d i t i o n a l l y " f e m a le
j o b s w h e n t h e y m o v e d t o t h e
" t r a d i t i o n a l l y " male t e s t e r j o b s , th e 1979
s e n i o r i t y s y s t e m has an o b v i o u s a d v e r s e
im p ac t on t h e j o b o p p o r t u n i t i e s o f f e m a le
w o r k e r s . S e e , n . l , s u p r a , and R68B a t 59 ,
147 and 187.
° " D e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r i n v i d i o u s
d i s c r i m i n a t o r y p u r p o s e was a m o t i v a t i n g
f a c t o r dem ands a s e n s i t i v e i n q u i r y i n t o
s u c h c i r c u m s t a n t i a l and d i r e c t e v i d e n c e o f
i n t e n t a s may be a v a i l a b l e . " V i l l a g e o f
Ar l i n g t o n H e i g h t s v . M e t r o p o l i t a n H ousing
D e v e l o p m e n t C o r p . , 429 U. S . 2 5 2 , 266
( 1 9 7 7 ) ; s e e a l s o , Pe r s o n n e l A d m i n i s t r a t o r
o f Mass , v . Fee n e y , 442 U .S . 256 , 279 n.
24 ( 1 9 7 9 ) . S u c h o b j e c t i v e e v i d e n c e
i n c l u d e s t h e f a c t " t h a t t h e l a w [ o r
p r a c t i c e ] b e a r s more h e a v i l y on one r a c e
than a n o t h e r . " W ash ington v . D a v i s , 426
U . S . 2 2 9 , 2 42 ( 1 9 7 6 ) . I n a d d i t i o n ,
" a c t i o n s [ u n d e r t a k e n w h i c h h a v e ]
f o r e s e e a b l e a n d a n t i c i p a t e d d i s p a r a t e
im p ac t a r e r e l e v a n t e v i d e n c e t o p r o v e th e
u l t i m a t e f a c t , f o r b i d d e n p u r p o s e . "
Columbus Bo a r d o f E d u c a t i o n v . P e n i c k , 443
U. S . 4 4 9 , 464 ( 1 9 7 9 ) ; s e e a l s o D a y t on
Boar d o f E d u c a t i o n v . Br inkm an, 443 U.S.
526 , 536 n . 9 ( 1 9 7 9 ) ; Tea m sters v . U n i t e d
S t a t e s , 431 U. S. 324 , 339 n . 2 0 ( 1 9 7 7 ) .
10
S e c o n d , u n i o n o f f i c i a l s a d m i t t e d
t h a t t h e p u r p o s e o f t h e s e n i o r i t y
c h a n g e o v e r was t o " p r o t e c t " t h o s e male
w o r k e r s who w e r e w o r k i n g i n t h e t e s t e r
p o s i t i o n s when f e m a l e w o r k e r s b e g a n t o
move i n t o t h o s e j o b s i n t h e 1 9 7 0 ' s . Mr.
H o l l y , a u n i o n o f f i c i a l , R68C a t 61 , t o l d
p e t i t i o n e r K i n g t h a t t h e T e s t e r C o n ce p t
was i n s t i t u t e d " t o p r o t e c t p e o p l e . . . who
w e r e a l r e a d y t e s t e r s . " R68C a t 2 0 7 - 0 8 ;
s e e , R 6 8 C a t 7 1 - 7 4 . A n o t h e r u n i o n
o f f i c i a l , C r a i g P a y n e , t o l d p e t i t i o n e r
L o r a n c e t h a t s h e "was n o t r e a l l y w anted i n
t e s t i n g . " R68B a t 42 ( C r a i g Payne was a
V i c e P r e s i d e n t o f t h e U n ion , R68B a t 8 6 ) . ® 6
6 C o m p a n y o f f i c i a l s a n d
s u p e r v i s o r s knew t h a t th e i n c e n t i v e t o
change t h e s e n i o r i t y s y s te m came from th e
U n i o n ' s d e s i r e t o p r o t e c t t h e j o b
p o s i t i o n s o f t h e m a l e t e s t e r s and t o
r e l i e v e th e " t e n s i o n " i n t h e p l a n t c a u s e d
b y t h e m a l e w o r k e r s ' h o s t i l i t y t o t h e
advancem ent o f t h e f e m a l e w o r k e r s . R68C
a t 4 8 - 5 4 . In a d d i t i o n , a u n i o n o f f i c i a l ,
S t e v e L o r e n z , t o l d p e t i t i o n e r L o r a n c e t h a t
a member o f "u p p e r m anagem ent ," S k e l t o n ,
11
T h i r d , t h e c o n d u c t o f th e 1979
U n i o n m e e t i n g s d e m o n s t r a t e s t h e
d i s c r i m i n a t o r y p u r p o s e o f t h e s e n i o r i t y
c h a n g e . The f i r s t m e e t in g d e s c r i b e d in
t h e r e c o r d was a t t e n d e d by a p p r o x i m a t e l y
t w e l v e me n , i n c l u d i n g t h e t r e a s u r e r
( B a t t e r s o n ) and v i c e p r e s i d e n t (Payne) o f
t h e U n i o n , and two women ( L o r a n c e and
J o n e s ) . R68B a t 8 4 - 8 9 . "The men . . . were
u p s e t b e c a u s e women were com ing i n w i t h
s e n i o r i t y and . . . b y p a s s i n g them f o r th e
u p g r a d e s . . . . They wanted s o m e t h in g done
t h e m a n a g e r o f m a n u f a c t u r i n g , R68C a t
e x h i b i t 1 5 d , c a l l e d t h e f e m a l e w o r k e r s
" S u z y s ; " t h a t "S u zy s b e l o n g e d o u t making
t h e d a t a s e t s . . . d i d n ' t b e l o n g i n t e s t i n g
and t h a t Suzys were com ing i n and h u r t i n g
t h e m en ." R68B a t 1 1 4 -1 6 ; s e e a l s o 68A at
4 4 -4 5 .
F u r t h e r m o r e , m a n a g e m e n t ' s h o s t i l i t y
t o women m oving i n t o th e t e s t e r p o s i t i o n s
was i l l u s t r a t e d b y t h e f a c t t h a t women
were n o t a f f o r d e d th e same o p p o r t u n i t y t o
work on new j o b s as men, R68B a t 2 8 and
30, and R68C a t 43 , and t h a t men r e c e i v e d
m o r e a s s i s t a n c e a n d t r a i n i n g f r o m
s u p e r v i s o r s th a n women, R68B a t 28 , 35 ,
and 80.
12
a b o u t I t . " R60B a t 34 . "M o st " o f t h e men
p r e s e n t " w e r e c o m p l a i n i n g a b o u t women
com ing i n . " R68B a t 8 7 . 7
T h e U n i o n r e s p o n d e d t o t h e
c o m p l a i n t s f r o m t h e men by c r e a t i n g th e
T e s t e r C o n c e p t . The T e s t e r C o n ce p t was
r a t i f i e d a t t h e J u n e 2 8 , 1 9 7 9 u n i o n
m e e t i n g . Pet . B r i e f a t 9 - 1 0 . I t was "a
v e r y h e a t e d " m e e t i n g w i t h th e men s i t t i n g
on one s i d e o f t h e room and t h e women on
t h e o t h e r s i d e . 8 R68C a t 1 0 1 . U n i o n
m e m b e r s c o m p l a i n e d , o n c e a g a i n , " t h a t
w om en w e r e c o m i n g i n w i t h s e n i o r i t y
7 P e t i t i o n e r L o r a n c e o n l y l e a r n e d
a b o u t t h i s m e e t i n g b e c a u s e she o v e r h e a r d
some t e s t e r s t a l k i n g a b o u t t h e m e e t i n g .
R 6 8A a t 1 7 3 . A p p a r e n t l y , th e men were
h o l d i n g s e v e r a l s e c r e t m e e t i n g s t o w h ich
no women u n i o n members w ere i n v i t e d . R68B
a t 8 9 ; s e e a l s o , R68A a t 3 1 - 3 2 . These
" s e c r e t " m e e t i n g s w ou ld be a f o c u s o f th e
p l a i n t i f f s ' d i s c o v e r y i f t h e y a r e a b l e t o
p u r s u e t h e i r c l a i m s .
8 The r e c o r d i s u n c l e a r as t o how
w e l l and f a i r l y t h e m e e t i n g was p u b l i s h e d .
S e e , R68C a t 8 7 - 8 8 .
13
p a s s i n g t h e men up and t h e y w ere t i r e d o f
i t . " R683 a t 1 0 3 . 9 10
F o u r t h , t h e h o s t i l i t y o f t h e
m a le t e s t e r s t o th e e n t r y o f women i n t o
t e s t e r p o s i t i o n s e x t e n d e d from t h e u n io n
m e e t i n g s t o th e shop f l o o r . For e xa m p le ,
d u r i n g t h e p e r i o d i n 1 9 7 9 w h e n t h e
s e n i o r i t y change was under c o n s i d e r a t i o n ,
o f f e n s i v e p o s t e r s w ere r e p e a t e d l y p l a c e d
" a l l o v e r " t h e w o r k p l a c e . R68B a t 110;
R68A a t 2 8 - 3 0 ; R68C a t 2 3 - 2 5 . Company
s u p e r v i s o r s a n d u n i o n o f f i c i a l s knew
9 P e t i t i o n e r L o r a n c e r e c a l l e d a
s i n g l e woman, whose husband worked as a
t e s t e r , s p e a k i n g i n f a v o r o f t h e s e n i o r i t y
c h a n g e . She s a i d " s h e was in f a v o r o f
[ t h e s e n i o r i t y c h a n g e ] b e c a u s e o f h e r
h u s b a n d [ a n d b e c a u s e t h e women t e s t e r s
w e r e ] t a k i n g b r e a d o f f t h e i r t a b l e . "
R68B a t 104.
10 I n o n e p a r t i c u l a r l y o f f e n s i v e
s e t o f p o s t e r s women were shown " s t a n d i n g
w i t h d r e s s e s , l i k e , a t t h e i r k n e e s , s o c k s
l i k e n y l o n s , o k a y , w i t h money h a n g in g out
o f t h e m . " The p o s t e r s had t h e c a p t i o n
" I ' m a t e s t e r now. I make l o t s o f money.
I have l o t s o f s e n i o r i t y . " R68B a t 109.
14
a b o u t t h e p o s t e r s . R63C a t 2 4 - 2 7 ; R68B a t
110 -1 4 .
2. R e s p o n d e n t s a s s e r t t h a t " [ t ] he
a g r e e m e n t i s a c l a s s i c a c c o m m o d a t io n o f
e m p l o y e r and e m p l o y e e i n t e r e s t s , " Resp .
B r . a t 1 5 ; t h a t i t i s " n a r r o w l y
t a i l o r e d , " i_d . a t 6 ; t h a t i t i s
" r a t i o n a l , " i d . a t 36 ; and t h a t i t i s a
" d e p a r t m e n t a l s y s t e m " l i k e many o t h e r
s y s t e m s , i d . a t 1 4 - 1 5 . R e s p o n d e n t s may
a t t e m p t t o e s t a b l i s h t h e s e p o i n t s i f
t h e r e i s a t r i a l on t h e m e r i t s . However,
t h e s e a r g u m e n t s a r e i r r e l e v a n t t o t h i s
i s s u e p r e s e n t e d on summary judgment and,
i n any e v e n t , t h e p r e s e n t r e c o r d d o e s n o t
s u p p o r t r e s p o n d e n t s ' c o n c l u s i o n s .
F o r e x a m p l e , r e s p o n d e n t s h a v e
n o t e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t th e d i v i s i o n o f the
h o u r l y p a i d j o b s i n t o two s e n i o r i t y u n i t s
q u a l i f i e s a s a s t a n d a r d d e p a r t m e n t a l
s e n i o r i t y s y s t e m r a t h e r t h a n , a s
15
p e t i t i o n e r s m a i n t a i n , a n a r b i t r a r y
d i v i s i o n d e s i g n e d t o a d v a n t a g e m a l e
w o r k e r s o v e r f e m a l e w o r k e r s . ^
F u r t h e r m o r e , r e s p o n d e n t s
m a i n t a i n t h a t t h e T e s t e r C o n c e p t
" a d d r e s s e d t r a d i t i o n a l e m p lo y e r c o n c e r n s "
by c r e a t i n g " s e p a r a t e s e n i o r i t y l i s t s f o r
s k i l l e d and u n s k i l l e d w o r k e r s . " Resp .
Br . a t 4 . R e s p o n d e n t s r e l y on s e v e r a l
a u t h o r i t i e s f o r t h e p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t
e m p l o y e r s g e n e r a l l y p r e f e r s m a l l ,
d e p a r t m e n t a l s e n i o r i t y s y s te m s s e p a r a t i n g
s k i l l e d and u n s k i l l e d w o r k e r s . R esp . Br.
a t 15, n . 1 6 . However, r e s p o n d e n t s f a i l t o
a c k n o w l e d g e t h a t t h e s e same a u t h o r i t i e s
a l s o c o n c l u d e t h a t u n i o n s u s u a l l y p r e f e r
s e n i o r i t y d i s t r i c t s " b r o a d enough i n s c o p e
t o i n c l u d e a i l e m p lo y e e s f o r whom t h e y a r e
l j - R e s p o n d e n t s ' d e s p e r a t e , im p ro p e r
a n d i n c o m p e t e n t a t t e m p t t o r e l y u p o n
o u t s i d e - t h e - r e c o r d f a c t s must be r e j e c t e d .
S e e , n . 4 , s u p r a , and A p p en d ix B.
16
t h e b a r g a i n i n g r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . " Union
C o n t r a c t C l a u s e s (CCH) <][ 5 1 , 4 2 8 ( 1 9 5 4 ) 12
(Emphasis a d d e d ) .
T h e U n i o n , n o t t h e C o m p a n y ,
p r o p o s e d t h e T e s t e r C o n c e p t . R68B a t 1 0 4 -
05 . A c c o r d i n g l y , when t h e Union p r o p o s e d
t h i s s e n i o r i t y c h a n g e , w h i c h s p l i t i t s
b a r g a i n i n g u n i t , i t a d v o c a t e d a p o s i t i o n
c o n t r a r y t o t h e s t a n d a r d and e x p e c t e d
u n i o n p o s i t i o n . T h i s d e p a r t u r e by th e
U n i o n f r o m t h e g e n e r a l p r e f e r e n c e o f
u n i o n s t o a v o i d d i v i s i v e n e s s among th e
members o f a b a r g a i n i n g u n i t s u p p o r t s the
a l l e g a t i o n t h a t t h i s p a r t i c u l a r d e c i s i o n
was m o t i v a t e d by a d i s c r i m i n a t o r y p u r p o s e .
S e e , T e a m s te r s v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , 431 U. S .
a t 356 .
3 . R e s p o n d e n t s b a s e t h e i r 1
1 2 S ^ e a l s o , G. B l o o m & H.
N o r t h r u p , E c o n o m ic s o f Labor R e l a t i o n s 237
( 1 9 8 1 ) ; F . H a r b i s o n , Th e S e n i o r i t y
Pr i n c i p l e i n Union-Management R e l a t i o n s 33
(1939 ) .
17
argu m en ts upon t h e a s s u m p t io n t h a t i t was
c l e a r when th e ag reem ent i n c o r p o r a t i n g the
T e s t e r C o n ce p t was s i g n e d i n 1979 , J o i n t
App. 5 0 - 5 6 , t h a t t e s t e r r a t h e r than p l a n t
s e n i o r i t y w o u l d g o v e r n j o b d o w n g r a d e s .
R e s p . B r . a t 5 , 7 . H o w e v e r , a s
d e m o n s t r a t e d by t h e U n i o n ' s own p o s i t i o n
s t a t e m e n t made i n J a n u a r y 1 98 3 , i t was
n o t c l e a r w h e t h e r t e s t e r o r p l a n t
s e n i o r i t y a p p l i e d t o d o w n g r a d e s u n t i l
a f t e r t h e p e t i t i o n e r s w e r e d e m o t e d .
A p p e n d ix A.
A f t e r t h e p e t i t i o n e r s w e r e
downgraded i n 1982 t h e y r e q u e s t e d t h a t the
U n i o n f i l e a g r i e v a n c e on t h e i r b e h a l f .
When L o c a l 1942 f i l e d a g r i e v a n c e beyond
t h e t e n - d a y p e r i o d e s t a b l i s h e d by t h e
c o n t r a c t , 13 th e p e t i t i o n e r s c o m p la in e d t o
13 T h e C o m p a n y r e j e c t e d t h e
g r i e v a n c e s f i l e d o n b e h a l f o f K i n g ,
B u e s c h e n a n d L o r a n c e b e c a u s e t h e
g r i e v a n c e s w e r e f i l e d more than 10 days
a f t e r t h e j o b d ow n grade . R68A a t e x h i b i t
18
t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l . In an e x p l a n a t i o n o f
i t s a c t i o n s t o t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l , L o c a l
1942 s t a t e d t h a t t h e r e i s a d i s a g r e e m e n t
a b o u t t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e T e s t e r
C o n ce p t b e tw e e n t h e Union and t h e Company.
The U n i o n ' s c o n t e n t i o n
i s t h a t t h e r e w e r e
t h r e e ( 3 ) p r o v i s i o n s
p r o v i d e d f o r e m p l o y e e s
on r o l l e n t e r i n g the
t e s t i n g u n i v e r s e . A l l
o f t h e s e w ere f o r the
upward m ovem ent .
* * * * *
The Com pany 's p o s i t i o n
i s t h a t t h e y i n t e n d t o
a p p l y t h e s a m e
p r o c e d u r e o n t h e
downward t r e n d .
I d . ( E m p h a s i s a d d e d ) . C o n s i s t e n t w i t h
t h e U n i o n ' s c o n t e n t i o n i n 1983 , p e t i t i o n e r
King had b e e n t o l d by Union o f f i c i a l s t h a t
1 0 . The p e t i t i o n e r s m a i n t a i n t h a t the
U n i o n d i s c r i m i n a t o r i i y f a i l e d t o f i l e a
t i m e l y g r i e v a n c e b e c a u s e t h e Union "had
p l e n t y o f n o t i c e [ t o f i l e o n t i m e
i n c l u d i n g ] a w r i t t e n r e q u e s t f r o m
[ L o r a n c e ] t o f i l e a g r i e v a n c e f o r [ t h e
t h r e e p e t i t i o n e r s ] . " R68B a t 176 ; s e e ,
R68A a t 1 8 8 - 8 9 .
19
t e s t e r s e n i o r i t y " w o u l d b e u s e d f o r
u p g r a d e s o n l y " and t h a t p l a n t s e n i o r i t y
w ou ld be u s e d f o r d o w n g r a d e s . R68C a t 119
and 123.
M o r e o v e r , t h e 1 9 8 3 U n i o n
d o c u m e n t i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h i s i s s u e and,
i m p l i c i t l y , t h e U n i o n ' s c o n t e n t i o n t h a t
t e s t e r s e n i o r i t y a p p l i e d o n l y t o u p g r a d e s ,
"had b e e n d i s c u s s e d a t th e Union m e e t i n g s
and t h e s i s t e r had been a d v i s e d t h a t the
U n i o n was i n t h e p r o c e s s o f n e g o t i a t i n g
th e T e s t e r T r a i n i n g Program" and t h a t th e
u n i o n i s " i n a n e g o t i a t i o n s t a g e and
a t t e m p t i n g t o r e s o l v e t h e s e p r o b le m s w i t h
th e C o m p a n y . . . . " A p p en d ix A. C o n s i s t e n t
w i t h t h i s 1983 s t a t e m e n t t h a t th e Union
was s t i l l n e g o t i a t i n g w i t h t h e Company,
p e t i t i o n e r B u e sc h e n was t o l d i n 1981 by
t h e p r e s i d e n t o f th e Union t h a t t h e Union
was s t i l l n e g o t i a t i n g a b o u t t h e T e s t e r
20
C o n c e p t . R68A a t 7 8 - 7 9 . ^
S e n i o r i t y s y s te m s and c o l l e c t i v e
b a r g a i n i n g a g r e e m e n t s o f t e n a r e am biguous
a n d s u b j e c t t o c o n f l i c t i n g
i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s . The m e a n i n g o f s u c h
a g r e e m e n t s i s hammered o u t d u r i n g t h e i r
i m p l e m e n t a t i o n by e m p l o y e r s and by th e
r e s o l u t i o n o f t h e d i s p u t e s t h a t a r i s e from
t h a t i m p l e m e n t a t i o n . To com pe l w o r k e r s ,
as th e r e s p o n d e n t s ' p o s i t i o n r e q u i r e s , t o
f i l e c h a r g e s o f d i s c r i m i n a t i o n b e f o r e s u c h
a g r e e m e n t s a r e im p le m e n te d w ou ld r e q u i r e
t h e f i l i n g o f u n n e c e s s a r y l i t i g a t i o n a b o u t
t h e h y p o t h e t i c a l a p p l i c a t i o n o f u n c l e a r
c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g a g r e e m e n t s and
e m p l o y m e n t p r a c t i c e s . P e t . B r . a t 4 8 -
55; U n i t e d S t a t e s Am ic i C u r i a e B r . a t 2 3 -
24 . 14
14 The T e s t e r C o n c e p t was n e v e r
a p p r o v e d by t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l and n e v e r
i n c l u d e d i n t h e m a s t e r c o n t r a c t b e tw e e n
t h e Union and th e Company. R68C a t 2 1 4 - 1 5 ;
R68B a t 1 2 2 - 2 4 .
21
T h i s c a s e i s a g o o d e x a m p l e .
From 1979 t h r o u g h 1982 i t was u n c l e a r
w h e t h e r t h e new s e n i o r i t y sy s te m a p p l i e d
t o d o w n g r a d e s . The Union m a i n t a i n e d t h a t
i t d i d n o t , and t h e Company m a i n t a i n e d
t h a t i t d i d . I f the p e t i t i o n e r s f i l e d a
c h a r g e b e f o r e t h e y w e r e h a r m e d b y a
d o w n g r a d e , t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t w ould have
b e e n p l a c e d i n t h e p o s i t i o n o f
i n t e r p r e t i n g t h e ag re e m e n t p r i o r t o i t s
a p p l i c a t i o n b y t h e p a r t i e s - - a s su m in g
t h a t t h e c o u r t w ou ld r u l e t h a t th e i s s u e
was r i p e f o r d e c i s i o n .
I I I . RESPONDENTS ASK THE COURT TO ADOPT AN
EXTREME POSITION THAT WAS REJECTED BY
BOTH COURTS BELOW AND THAT NO COURT
HAS ADOPTED.
AT&T a n d L o c a l 194 2 a r g u e t h a t
e m p l o y e e s may n o t m ake a T i t l e V I I
c h a l l e n g e t o an o n g o i n g s e n i o r i t y sys te m
" u n l e s s t h a t c h a l l e n g e i s b r o u g h t w i t h i n
180 d ays o f th e d a t e o f a d o p t i o n . " Resp .
B r . a t 1 7 - 1 8 . T h is e x tre m e p o s i t i o n has
22
n o t b e e n a d o p t e d b y a n y c o u r t and was
e x p l i c i t l y r e j e c t e d by b o t h c o u r t s b e l o w .
As t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t r e c o g n i z e d , th e
r u l e a d v o c a t e d b y r e s p o n d e n t s w o u l d
" e n c o u r a g e [ ] p e o p l e t o b r i n g u n r i p e
c l a i m s a l l e g i n g harms t h a t t h e y may n e v e r
e x p e r i e n c e , " and w o u l d " o n l y c l o g t h e
a l r e a d y o v e r b u r d e n e d c o u r t s w i t h l a w s u i t s
t h a t a r e n o t r i p e . " P e t . A p p . 2 9 a - 3 0 a . ^
S u c h a r u l e w o u l d g u a r a n t e e n e e d l e s s
c o n f r o n t a t i o n r a t h e r t h a n t h e
" [ c ] o o p e r a t i o n and v o l u n t a r y c o m p l i a n c e "
s o u g h t b y C o n g r e s s " a s t h e p r e f e r r e d 15 * * * 19
15 S e e a l s o J o h n s o n v . G e n e r a l
E l e c t r i c , 840 F . 2d 1 3 2 , 136 ( 1 s t C i r .
1988) ( " I t i s u n w ise t o e n c o u r a g e l a w s u i t s
b e f o r e t h e i n j u r i e s r e s u l t i n g f r o m t h e
v i o l a t i o n s a r e d e l i n e a t e d , o r b e f o r e i t i s
e ve n c e r t a i n t h a t i n j u r i e s w i l l o c c u r a t
a l l " ) ; NLRB v . I n t e r n a t i o n a l Bhd . o f
E l e c . Worker s , 827 F . 2 d 530 , 534 ( 9 t h C i r .
19 8 7 ) ; H e i a r v . C r a w fo rd C t y , 746 F . 2d
1190 , 1194 ( 7 t h C i r . 1 9 8 4 ) , c e r t ■ d e n i e d ,
4 7 2 U . S . 1 0 2 7 ( 1 9 8 5 ) ; E E O C__ _v_;_
We s t i n q h o u s e , 725 F . 2d 211 , 219 (3d C i r .
1 9 8 3 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 469 U. S. 820 ( 1 9 8 4 ) .
23
m eans f o r a c h i e v i n g [ T i t l e V I I ' s ] g o a l . "
A l e x a n d e r v . G a r d n e r -D e n v e r Co. , 415 U. S .
3 6 , 44 ( 1 9 7 4 ) . See a l s o Reed v . U n it ed
T r a n s p o r t a t i o n U n i o n , 57 U. S. L. W. 4088 ,
4090 (J a n . 11, 1 9 8 9 ) . 16
T h e c o u r t o f a p p e a l s r e j e c t e d
r e s p o n d e n t s ' p r o p o s e d r u l e f o r th e same
r e a s o n s : " R e q u i r i n g e m p lo y e e s t o c o n t e s t
any s e n i o r i t y s y s te m t h a t m ight some day
a p p l y t o them w o u l d e n c o u r a g e n e e d l e s s
l i t i g a t i o n , " and " w o u l d f r u s t r a t e t h e
r e m e d i a l p o l i c i e s t h a t a r e th e f o u n d a t i o n
o f T i t l e V I I . " P e t . App . 8a . Under
r e s p o n d e n t s ' a p p r o a c h , th e S ev e n th C i r c u i t
n o t e d , " a n y s e n i o r i t y s y s t e m w o u l d be
An e m p l o y e e ' s n a t u r a l d e s i r e t o
s e e k an i n f o r m a l r e s o l u t i o n o r t o a t t e m p t
t o c o m p l y w i t h t h e p o l i c y ' s r e q u i r e m e n t s
( a s d i d p e t i t i o n e r L o r a n c e ) w o u l d be
s t y m i e d b y a f o r c e d m a r c h t o t h e
c o u r t h o u s e a t t h e o u t s e t . See e . g . H e iar
v . C r a w f o r d C t y , 7 4 6 F . 2 d a t 1 1 9 4
( " P e o p l e d o n o t w a n t t o b e g i n t h e i r
employment by s u i n g t h e i r e m p lo y e r o v e r a"
p o l i c y t h a t w i l l a f f e c t them y e a r s l a t e r ,
i f a t a l l . )
24
Immune t o c h a l l e n g e [ 1 8 0 o r ] 300 d a y s
a f t e r i t s a d o p t i o n , " a n d " [ f ] u t u r e
e m p l o y e e s w ou ld t h e r e f o r e have no r e c o u r s e
when c o n f r o n t e d w i t h an e x i s t i n g s e n i o r i t y
s y s t e m t h a t t h e y b e l i e v e t o b e
d i s c r i m i n a t o r y . " I d .
T h e h a r s h n e s s o f r e s p o n d e n t s '
p o s i t i o n i s c h i l l i n g . T h i s p o s i t i o n w ou ld
l a r g e l y i n s u l a t e i n t e n t i o n a l l y
d i s c r i m i n a t o r y employment p r a c t i c e s 17 from
c h a l l e n g e 180 ( o r 300) d a y s a f t e r t h e i r
a d o p t i o n e v e n w i t h r e g a r d t o p e r s o n s n o t
e m p lo y e d by t h e company o r r e p r e s e n t e d by
t h e u n i o n a t t h e t im e o f t h e a d o p t i o n o f
th e p r a c t i c e . A c c o r d i n g l y , an employment
t e s t u s e d f o r p r o m o t i o n a l d e c i s i o n s and
n e u t r a l on i t s f a c e bu t i n s t i t u t e d w i t h an
i n t e n t t o d i s c r i m i n a t e w ou ld be immune t o 1
1 1 R e s p o n d e n t s ' p o s i t i o n w o u l d
a p p l y t o a l l d i s c r i m i n a t i o n c l a i m s
b r o u g h t u nd er T i t l e V I I . R esp . B r . a t 17
n. 21 .
25
c h a l l e n g e by a w o rk e r h i r e d one y e a r a f t e r
the a d o p t i o n o f t h e t e s t . Even th o u g h the
n e w ly h i r e d w o rk e r was harmed by t h e t e s t
o n e w e e k a f t e r h e r e m p l o y m e n t and even
t h o u g h s h e f i l e d a c h a r g e t h e f o l l o w i n g
d a y , t h e r e s p o n d e n t s ' p o s i t i o n w o u l d
r e q u i r e t h e r e j e c t i o n o f t h e c h a r g e as
u n t i m e l y f i l e d .
N ot s u r p r i s i n g l y , no c o u r t has e v e r
em braced t h e e x tre m e v ie w o f T i t l e V I I ' s
f i l i n g r e q u i r e m e n t e s p o u s e d b y
r e s p o n d e n t s .
I V . I N T E R N A T I O N A L A S S O C I A T I O N OF
MACHINISTS V. NLRB DOES NOT SUPPORT
RESPONDENTS' POSITION.
R e s p o n d e n t s r e l y h e a v i l y o n
I n t e r n a t i o n a l A s s o c i a t i o n o f M a c h i n i s t s v .
NL RB , 3 6 2 U . S . 4 1 1 ( 1 9 6 0 ) ( " B r y a n
Ma n u f a c t u r i n g " ) , c o n s t r u i n g t h e s i x - m o n t h
s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s under § 10 ( b ) o f
t h e N a t i o n a l L a b o r R e l a t i o n s A c t , 29
U . S . C . § 1 6 0 ( b ) . S e e , R e s p . B r . a t 18 -
26
2 3 . T h e r e a r e two r e a s o n s t h a t B r y a n
Ma n u f a c t u r i n g d o e s n o t s u p p o r t
r e s p o n d e n t s ' p o s i t i o n : e v e n i f t h e NLRA
l i m i t a t i o n s d o c t r i n e a p p l i e d t o T i t l e V I I ,
I t d o e s n o t b a r t h e p e t i t i o n e r s ' c l a i m s ;
i n a n y e v e n t , t h e NLRA l i m i t a t i o n s
d o c t r i n e d o e s n o t a p p l y .
1. For t h e r e a s o n s s e t f o r t h i n our
p r i n c i p a l b r i e f , Bryan M a n u f a c t u r i n g would
n o t b a r p l a i n t i f f s ' c l a i m s e v e n i f t h a t
d e c i s i o n a p p l i e d In t h e T i t l e VI I c o n t e x t .
In g e n e r a l , p e t i t i o n e r s have m a i n t a i n e d
t h a t B r v a n __M a n u f a c t u r i n g p r e c l u d e s
u n t i m e l y c h a l l e n g e s t o f l a w s i n t h e
e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f o t h e r w i s e l a w f u l l a b o r
p o l i c i e s but d o e s n o t p r e c l u d e an a c t i o n ,
s u c h a s L o r a n c e , a l l e g i n g t h a t t h e
c h a l l e n g e d p o l i c y i s i t s e l f i l l e g a l . P e t .
B r . a t 6 4 - 6 7 .
P e t i t i o n e r s ' p o s i t i o n i s
s u p p o r t e d by t h e r e l i a n c e o f t h e Co u r t i n
27
Brvan M a n u f a c t u r i n g on t he d e c i s i o n o f the
N a t i o n a l Labor R e l a t i o n s Board i n P o t l a t c h
F o r e s t s , I n c . , 87 NLRB 1193 ( 1 9 4 9 ) , as an
e x a m p l e o f t h e c o r r e c t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f
§ 1 0 ( b ) o f t h e NLRA. 362 U.S. a t 419 . In
P o t l a t c h t he Board h e l d t h a t , by " a p p l y i n g
and g i v i n g e f f e c t t o a [ d i s c r i m i n a t o r y ]
s e n i o r i t y p o l i c y " d u r i n g t he l i m i t a t i o n s
p e r i o d o f § 1 0 ( b ) , an e m pl o ye r v i o l a t e d the
NLRA r e g a r d l e s s o f t h e d a t e on wh i ch the
p o l i c y was a d o p t e d . 87 NLRB at 1211 . 18
L i k e AT&T and L o c a l 1942 i n the p r e s e n t
c a s e , t h e r e s p o n d e n t s i n P o t l a t c h a d o p t e d
an i l l e g a l p o l i c y w h i c h d i d n o t c a u s e
The c h a l l e n g e i n P o t l a t c h was t o
a " R e t u r n - t o - W o r k P o l i c y " p r o v i d i n g " t h a t ,
i n t h e e v e n t o f a l a y - o f f r e s u l t i n g f rom a
c u r t a i l m e n t o f o p e r a t i o n s , e m p l o y e e s who
r e t u r n e d t o work . . . d u r i n g t he c o u r s e o f
t h e 1 9 4 7 s t r i k e w e r e t o p o s s e s s
p r e f e r e n t i a l r e t e n t i o n r i g h t s o v e r
[ s t r i k e r s ] . " 87 NLRB a t 1 2 0 8 . As do
r e s p o n d e n t s , t h e e m pl o ye r a r gu ed t h a t " t h e
v a l i d i t y o f t h e . . . p o l i c y i s no l o n g e r
open t o a t t a c k , b e c a u s e i t was e s t a b l i s h e d
some 16 months b e f o r e the f i l i n g o f the
c h a r g e . " I d . a t 1 2 1 0 - 1 1 .
28
e m p l o y e e s an I n j u r y In t h e f orm o f l a y o f f s
u n t i l a r e d u c t i o n i n f o r c e was r e q u i r e d .
H o w e v e r , w i t h e a c h l a y o f f u n d e r t h e
u n l a w f u l p o l i c y t h e c o m p a n y
" d i s c r i m i n a t e d " a g a i n s t e m p l o y e e s who had
e n g a g e d i n p r o t e c t e d u n i o n a c t i v i t y and
t h e r e b y c o m m i t t e d a f r e s h v i o l a t i o n o f t he
NLRA. 87 NLRB a t 1211. 19
1 y I n r e j e c t i n g t h e e m p l o y e r ' s
s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s d e f e n s e t h e Board
e m p h a s i z e d t h a t " [ t ] h e i s s u e i n t h i s c a s e
i s n o t w h et h e r t h e R e s p o nd e nt c o m m i t t e d an
u n f a i r l a b o r p r a c t i c e by i n a u g u r a t i n g t h e
p o l i c y , b u t w h et h e r i t v i o l a t e d t h e law by
c o n t i n u i n g t o m a i n t a i n i t ; m o r e
s p e c i f i c a l l y by a p p l y i n g and g i v i n g e f f e c t
t o i t __i n__. . . . l a y - o f f s [ w h i c h ] o c c u r r e d
w e l l w i t h i n t h e s t a t u t o r y p e r i o d l i m i t e d
by S e c t i o n 1 0 ( b ) . " I d . a t 1211 ( e mp ha s i s
a d d e d ) .
B e c a u s e a n i n d e p e n d e n t v i o l a t i o n
o c c u r r e d w i t h e a c h a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e
u n l a w f u l p o l i c y , t h e Bryan M a n u f a c t u r i n g
C o u r t c i t e d P o t l a t c h a s a c a s e w h e r e
e v i d e n c e o f t h e d i s c r i m i n a t o r y m o t i v e a t
work i n t h e i n i t i a t i o n o f t h e p o l i c y was
p r o p e r l y " u s e d t o i l l u m i n a t e c u r r e n t
c o n d u c t c l a i m e d i n i t s e l f t o be an u n f a i r
l a b o r p r a c t i c e . " 362 U.S . a t 4 1 9 - 2 0 . The
f a c t t h a t , as t h e Board g o e s on t o s a y ,
t h a t " [ e j v e n w i t h o u t s u c h c o n s i d e r a t i o n
. . . t h e a l l e g a t i o n s . . . wo ul d have be e n
29
2. M o r e o v e r , r e c e n t d e c i s i o n s o f
t h i s C o u r t s t r o n g l y s u g g e s t t h a t t h e
r e s t r i c t i v e l i m i t a t i o n s d o c t r i n e o f Bryan
M a n u f a c t u r i n g i s p r o p e r l y c o n f i n e d t o the
n a r r ow a r e a w i t h i n t h e NLRA g o v e r n i n g
i n d i v i d u a l c h a l l e n g e s t o a l l e g e d l y u n f a i r
l a b o r p r a c t i c e s i n b a r g a i n e d - f o r
a g r e e m e n t s .
In D e l C o s t e l l o v . T e a m s t e r s , 462
U.S. 151 ( 1 9 8 3 ) , t h e Court d e s c r i b e d the §
1 0 ( b ) l i m i t a t i o n s p e r i o d as s p e c i f i c a l l y
" a t t u n e d t o . . . t h e p r o p e r b a l a n c e be t we e n
t h e n a t i o n a l i n t e r e s t s i n s t a b l e
b a r g a i n i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p s and f i n a l i t y o f
f ound amply s u p p o r t e d by" p r o o f o f f a c t s
w i t h i n t h e l i m i t a t i o n s p e r i o d , 87 NLRB a t
1211, d o e s n o t a l t e r t h i s p r i n c i p l e . That
t h e c h a l l e n g e d p o l i c y i n P o t l a t c h empl oyed
an o v e r t d i s t i n c t i o n be t ween s t r i k e r s and
n o n - s t r i k e r s d o e s n o t v i t i a t e t h e
p r i n c i p l e o f t he c a s e - - f o r whi ch i t i s
c i t e d i n Bryan M a n u f a c t u r i n g - - t h a t the
c u r r e n t c o n d u c t c o n s t i t u t e d b y t h e
a p p l i c a t i o n o f a p o l i c y " c l a i m e d i n
I t s e l f t o b e " u n l a w f u l , 362 U.S. a t 420 ,
i s a c t i o n a b l e r e g a r d l e s s o f t he d a t e o f
i t s o r i g i n a l a d o p t i o n .
30
p r i v a t e s e t t l e m e n t s , and an e m p l o y e e ' s
i n t e r e s t i n s e t t i n g a s i d e what he v i e w s as
an u n j u s t s e t t l e m e n t und er t h e c o l l e c t i v e
b a r g a i n i n g s y s t e m . " I d . a t 171 ( q u o t i n g
U n i t e d Pa r c e l S e r v i c e v . M i t h c e l l , 451
U . S . 5 6 , 7 0 - 7 1 ( .198 1) ( S t e w a r t , J . ,
c o n c u r r i n g ) ) . I n r e f u s i n g t o a p p l y §
1 0 ( b ) t o a c l a i m e d v i o l a t i o n o f an
e m p l o y e e ' s f r e e s p e e c h a s t o u n i o n
m a t t e r s , t h i s C o u r t i n R e e d v . U n i t e d
Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n U n i o n , 57 U. S . L . W. a t 4092
c o n c l u d e d b o t h t h a t t he f e d e r a l i n t e r e s t
i n r e p o s e i n c o l l e c t i v e l y b a r g a i n e d
a g r e e m e n t s i s n o t c e n t r a l t o t h e g o a l o f §
1 0 1 ( a ) ( 2 ) o f t h e L a b o r - M a n a g e m e n t
R e p o r t i n g and D i s c l o s u r e A c t (LMRDA), 29
U . S . C . § 4 1 1 ( a ) ( 2 ) , a n d t h a t a
c o u n t e r v a i l i n g f e d e r a l i n t e r e s t i n t h e
p r o t e c t i o n o f f r e e s p e e c h i n f o r m s t h e
LMRDA.
In p a r t i c u l a r , t h e Court r e l i e d upon
31
t h e f u n d a m e n t a l i n d i v i d u a l I n t e r e s t s i n
f r e e s p e e c h m od e l ed on t he B i l l o f R i g h t s
and p r o t e c t e d by t h e LMRDA. 57 U . S .L . W.
a t 4 0 9 0 . T h i s d i f f e r e n t b a l a n c e o f
i n t e r e s t s , t h e Court h e l d , p r e c l u d e d t h e
a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e n a r r o w § 1 0 ( b )
l i m i t a t i o n p e r i o d .
T i t l e V I I a l s o d o e s n o t s h a r e the
o v e r r i d i n g l e g i s l a t i v e i n t e r e s t i n t h e
s t a b i l i t y o f c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g
a g r e e m e n t s t h a t l e d t o § 1 0 ( b ) and t o i t s
r e s t r i c t i v e s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s
d o c t r i n e f o r some c l a i m s under t he NLRA.
A l t h o u g h r e s o l u t i o n o f d i s p u t e s i s one
o b j e c t i v e o f T i t l e V I I , t h i s s t a t u t e ,
l i k e t h e LMRDA, " i m p l e m e n t s a f e d e r a l
p o l i c y . . . t h a t s i m p l y had no p a r t i n the
d e s i g n o f a s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s f o r
u n f a i r l a b o r p r a c t i c e c h a r g e s , " R e e d , 57
U. S .L . W. a t 4092 , and t h a t w e i g h s h e a v i l y
a g a i n s t t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f a r e s t r i c t i v e
32
l i m i t a t i o n s p e r i o d .
The Co u rt i n Reed e m p h a s i z ed t h e need
f o r t h e l i m i t a t i o n s p e r i o d t o "ac commodat e
t h e p r a c t i c a l d i f f i c u l t i e s f a c e d by
§ 1 0 1 ( a ) ( 2 ) p l a i n t i f f s , w h i c h i n c l u d e
i d e n t i f y i n g t h e i n j u r y , d e c i d i n g i n t he
f i r s t p l a c e t o b r i n g s u i t a g a i n s t and
t h e r e b y a n t a g o n i z e u n i o n l e a d e r s h i p , and
f i n d i n g an a t t o r n e y . " 57 U . S . L . W . a t
4 0 9 0 . S e e a l s o , O w en s v . O k u r e , 57
U. S .L . W. 4065 ( J an . 10, 1 9 8 9 ) . I d e n t i c a l
o b s t a c l e s f a c e T i t l e V I I p l a i n t i f f s . S e e ,
P e t . B r . a t 4 8 - 5 5 . A w a r e o f t h e s e
o b s t a c l e s i n amending T i t l e VI I i n 1972,
C o n g r e s s e x p l i c i t l y a p p r o v e d d e c i s i o n s
h a v i n g "an i n c l i n a t i o n t o i n t e r p r e t [ t h e
§ 7 0 6 ( e ) ] t ime l i m i t a t i o n s o as t o g i v e
t h e a g g r i e v e d p e r s o n t h e maximum b e n e f i t
o f t h e l a w . " S e c t i o n - b y - s e c t i o n a n a l y s i s
o f E q u a l E mp l o y m e n t O p p o r t u n i t y A c t o f
1 9 7 2 , P . L . 9 2 - 2 6 1 , 118 C o n g . R e c . 7167
33
(March 6, 1 9 7 2 ) . 20
^ u R e s p o n d e n t s r e l y o n t h e
l e g i s l a t i v e h i s t o r y o f t he 1972 amendments
t o T i t l e V I I t o s u p p o r t t h e p o s i t i o n t h a t
s e c t i o n 7 0 6 ( e ) s h o u l d be i n t e r p r e t e d i n
l i g h t o f t h e § 1 0 ( b ) l i m i t a t i o n s p e r i o d o f
t h e NLRA. B r i e f a t 18 n . 2 2 . But t h a t
h i s t o r y i n d i c a t e s t h a t C o n g r e s s m e r e l y
a d o p t e d a l i m i t a t i o n s p e r i o d " s i m i l a r " t o
t h a t i n t h e l a b o r s t a t u t e . I t i n no way
s u p p o r t s t h e c o n t e n t i o n t h a t C o n g r e s s
m e a n t t o i n c o r p o r a t e i t s r e s t r i c t i v e
l i m i t a t i o n s d o c t r i n e . I n f a c t , i t i s
c l e a r f rom t h e same l e g i s l a t i v e h i s t o r y
t h a t C o n g r e s s i n t e n d e d t o e n d o r s e t h e
d o c t r i n e o f c o n t i n u i n g v i o l a t i o n s and
d e c i s i o n s i n t e r p r e t i n g t h e s t a t u t e o f
l i m i t a t i o n s a s r u n n i n g " f r o m t h e l a s t
o c c u r r e n c e o f t h e d i s c r i m i n a t i o n and n o t
f r o m t h e f i r s t o c c u r r e n c e . . . and o t h e r
i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s o f t he c o u r t s m a x i m i z i n g
t h e c o v e r a g e o f t h e l a w . " S e c t i o n - b y
s e c t i o n a n a l y s i s , 118 C o n g . R e c . 7167
(March 6, 1 9 7 2 ) .
I n a d d i t i o n , r e s p o n d e n t s s u p p o r t
t h e i r c o n t e n t i o n b y r e f e r r i n g t o F o r d
Motor Co. v . EEOC, 458 U.S . 219 , 226 n . 8
( 1 9 8 2 ) , w h i c h c i t e s o n l y t he p a t t e r n i n g o f
T i t l e V I I ' s r e m e d i a l p r o v i s i o n . S e c t i o n
7 0 6 ( g ) , o n t h e a n a l o g o u s s e c t i o n o f t he
NLRA. Even i n t h a t c o n t e x t , Fo r d Motor
C o ■ c a u t i o n s t h a t " [ t ] h e p r i n c i p l e s
d e v e l o p e d under t h e NLRA g e n e r a l l y g u i d e ,
b u t d o n o t b i n d , c o u r t s i n t a i l o r i n g
r e m e d i e s under T i t l e V I I . " I d .
T h e r e i s n o s u p p o r t f o r t h e
p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t C o n g r e s s i n t e n d e d t o
i n c o r p o r a t e i n T i t l e V I I t h e r e s t r i c t i v e
34
The p o l i c y u n d e r l y i n g T i t l e V I I , o f
c o u r s e , s e e k s t h e e l i m i n a t i o n o f
e m p l o y m e n t d i s c r i m i n a t i o n . " C o n g r e s s
i n d i c a t e d t h a t i t c o n s i d e r e d t h e p o l i c y
a g a i n s t d i s c r i m i n a t i o n t o b e o f t h e
' h i g h e s t p r i o r i t y . ' " A 1 e x a n d e r v .
G a r d n e r - D e n v e r Company, 415 U. S. 36, 47
( 1 9 7 4 ) , q u o t i n g Newman v . P i q q i e P a r k
E n t e r p r i s e s , 390 U . S . 4 0 0 , 402 ( 1 9 6 8 ) .
T h e r i g h t t o b e f r e e o f e m p l o y m e n t
d i s c r i m i n a t i o n i s t h i s A c t ' s e q u i v a l e n t o f
t h e f r e e s p e e c h p r o t e c t i o n o f t h e LMRDA.
C o n g r e s s s p e c i f i c a l l y i n t e n d e d t o a c h i e v e
t h i s i m p o r t a n t n a t i o n a l g o a l t h r o u g h T i t l e
V I I a c t i o n s b r o u g h t by p r i v a t e l i t i g a n t s
O 1a c t i n g a s " p r i v a t e a t t o r n e y s g e n e r a l . "
l i m i t a t i o n s d o c t r i n e o f t h e NLRA.
2 1 T i t l e V I I c h a r g e s and l a w s u i t s
" p r o v i d [ e ] t h e ' s p u r o r c a t a l y s t wh i ch
c a u s e s e m p l o y e r s a n d u n i o n s t o s e l f
e x a m i n e a n d t o s e 1 f - e v a 1 u a t e t h e i r
e m p l o y m e n t p r a c t i c e s and t o e n d e a v o r t o
e l i m i n a t e , s o f a r as p o s s i b l e , t he l a s t
v e s t i g e s ' o f t h e i r d i s c r i m i n a t o r y
35
In v i e w o f t h e s t r o n g f e d e r a l i n t e r e s t i n
e r a d i c a t i n g e m p l o y m e n t d i s c r i m i n a t i o n
t h r o u g h p r i v a t e a c t i o n s , t h e b a l a n c e o f
i n t e r e s t s u n d e r l y i n g § 1 0 ( b ) o f t he NLRA
a s i n t e r p r e t e d i n B r y a n M a n u f a c t u r i n g
s i m p l y d o e s n o t a p p l y i n t he c o n t e x t o f
T i t l e V I I .
V. THE COURT'S PRIOR DECISIONS PROVIDE
THAT A SENIORITY SYSTEM DESIGNED TO
DISCRIMINATE MAY BE TIMELY CHALLENGED
BY AN INTENDED VICTIM WHEN SHE IS
HARMED BY THE OPERATION OF THE
SYSTEM.
R e s p o n d e n t s c o n t e n d t h a t p r i o r T i t l e
V I I d e c i s i o n s o f t h i s Co u r t e i t h e r
” [ i ] r r e l e v a n t , " R e s p .. Br . a t 2 5,
s u p p o r t r e s p o n d e n t s 1 e x t r e m e
i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f § 7 0 6 ( e ) . I d . a t 2 3 - 2 5 ,
3 9 - 4 4 . P e t i t i o n e r s submi t t h a t , t o the
c o n t r a r y , t h e s e d e c i s i o n s d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t
a n e m p l o y e e m a y c h a l l e n g e a n
p r a c t i c e s . " T e a m s t e r s , 431 U. S. a t 364
" (q uo t i ng A l b e m a r l e Paper Co. v . Moody , 4 2 2
U.*S. 405 , 4 1 7 - 1 8 ( 1 9 7 5 ) ) ' .
36
i n t e n t i o n a l l y d i s c r i m i n a t o r y p o l i c y
w h e n e v e r t h a t p o l i c y i s a p p l i e d t o her
d e t r i m e n t . S e e , P e t . B r . a t 2 5 - 4 4 .
I n Bazemore v . F r i d a y , 478 U. S. 385
( 1 9 8 6 ) , t h e C o u r t d e c l a r e d t h a t e a c h
a p p l i c a t i o n o f a d i s c r i m i n a t o r y p a y
p r a c t i c e i s " a w r o n g a c t i o n a b l e u n d e r
T i t l e V I I , r e g a r d l e s s o f t h e f a c t t h a t
t h i s p a t t e r n w a s b e g u n p r i o r t o t h e
e f f e c t i v e d a t e o f T i t l e V I I . " I d . a t 3 9 5 -
96 . The v i o l a t i o n i n Bazemore was s i m p l y
t h a t t h e c u r r e n t a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e pay
p r a c t i c e " p e r p e t u a t e d " t h e d i s c r i m i n a t o r y
e f f e c t s o f a p r a c t i c e e s t a b l i s h e d b e f o r e
T i t l e VI I became e f f e c t i v e . I d . 395.
The pay p r a c t i c e was c u r r e n t l y a p p l i e d i n
a n e u t r a l m a n n e r a n d n o i n t e n t i o n a l
d i s c r i m i n a t i o n , o t h e r t h a n t h e
p e r p e t u a t i o n o f p r i o r d i s c r i m i n a t i o n , was
e s t a b l i s h e d .
S i m i l a r l y , t h e f a c t t h a t t h e
37
i n t e n t i o n a l l y d i s c r i m i n a t o r y s e n i o r i t y
p o l i c y i n t h i s c a s e was o r i g i n a l l y a d o p t e d
o u t s i d e t h e l i m i t a t i o n s p e r i o d c a n n o t
p r o t e c t i t f rom c h a l l e n g e a t t h e t im e i t
i s a p p l i e d t o t h e d e t r i m e n t o f f e m a l e
O pe m p l o y e e s .
D i s c u s s i n g a s e n i o r i t y s y s t e m a d o p t e d
o u t s i d e t h e s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s , t he
Court i n U n i t e d A i r L i n e s , I n c , v . E v a n s ,
431 U. S. 553 ( 1 9 7 7 ) , e n d o r s e d p e t i t i o n e r s '
c o n t e n t i o n t h a t T i t l e V I I " d o e s n o t
f o r e c l o s e a t t a c k s on t he c u r r e n t o p e r a t i o n
o f s e n i o r i t y s y s t e m s w h i c h a r e s u b j e c t t o
c h a l l e n g e a s d i s c r i m i n a t o r y . " I_d. a t
560 . Evans ' p a r t i c u l a r c l a i m was b a r r e d
b e c a u s e s he d i d n o t a l l e g e any i l l e g a l i t y
i n t h e s e n i o r i t y s y s t e m . As t h e Court
p p
T h i s c o n c l u s i o n i s c o n s i s t e n t
w i t h g e n e r a l c i v i l r i g h t s d o c t r i n e wh i ch
p e r m i t s a c h a l l e n g e t o an u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l
p o l i c y whenever i t i s g i v e n e f f e c t . See
e . q . , M o b i l e v . B o l d e n , 4 4 6 U . S . 55
( 19 8 0) ; V i l l a g e o f A r l i n g t o n H e i g h t s v .
M e t r o p o l i t a n Hous i ng C o r p . , s u p r a .
38
e x p l a i n e d i n B a z e m o r e v . F r i d a y , t h e
r e s u l t i n Evans wo ul d have be e n d i f f e r e n t
had p l a i n t i f f a l l e g e d t h a t " t h e s e n i o r i t y
s y s t e m i t s e l f was i n t e n t i o n a l l y d e s i g n e d
t o d i s c r i m i n a t e . " S u c h a c o n t e n t i o n —
i d e n t i c a l t o t h a t a l l e g e d by p e t i t i o n e r s
h e r e - - wo ul d have p r o p e r l y a s s e r t e d t h a t
d e f e n d a n t was " e n g a g e d i n d i s c r i m i n a t o r y
p r a c t i c e s a t t h e t i m e " t h e s u i t was
b r o u g h t and woul d t h e r e f o r e have made o u t
a v i o l a t i o n o f T i t l e V I I . A c c o r d i n g l y , a
" p r e s e n t v i o l a t i o n e x i s t s " by v i r t u e o f
t h e c u r r e n t o p e r a t i o n o f an i n t e n t i o n a l l y
d i s c r i m i n a t o r y s y s t e m r e g a r d l e s s o f t he
r e m o t e n e s s o f i t s o r i g i n a l a d o p t i o n .
B a z e m o r e , 478 U. S. a t 396 n . 6 .
As d e s c r i b e d i n p e t i t i o n e r s ' m a i n
b r i e f , n u m e r o u s d e c i s i o n s o f t h e Court
s u p p o r t t he p o s i t i o n t h a t t h e s t a t u t e o f
l i m i t a t i o n s f o r c h a l l e n g e s t o a n
i n t e n t i o n a l l y d i s c r i m i n a t o r y p o l i c y runs
39
f r o m t h e d a t e o f i t s m o s t r e c e n t
a p p l i c a t i o n t o t h e d e t r i m e n t o f a
p r o t e c t e d c l a s s m e m b e r . I n A m e r i c a n
T o b a c c o Co . v . P a t t e r s o n , 4 5 6 U . S . 6 3
( 1 9 8 2 ) , f o r e x a m p l e , t h e C o u r t assumed
t h a t a p o l i c y a l l e g e d t o be t h e r e s u l t o f
i n t e n t i o n a l d i s c r i m i n a t i o n c o u l d b e
c h a l l e n g e d as l o n g as i t was i n o p e r a t i o n .
T h e C o u r t r e j e c t e d t h e E E O C ' s
a d v o c a c y o f a d i s t i n c t i o n f o r p u r p o s e s o f
§ 7 0 3 ( h ) c o v e r a g e be tw ee n s e n i o r i t y p l a n s
a d o p t e d b e f o r e and t h o s e s y s t e m s a d o p t e d
a f t e r t h e e f f e c t i v e d a t e o f T i t l e V I I . In
s o c o n c l u d i n g , t h e C o u r t i m p l i c i t l y
a p p r o v e d c h a l l e n g e s t o t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f
d i s c r i m i n a t o r y p o l i c i e s a d o p t e d o u t s i d e
t h e 1 8 0 - d a y l i m i t a t i o n s p e r i o d . 456 U. S.
a t 70. The Court n o t e d t h a t i n P a t t e r s o n
o n e T i t l e V I I c h a l l e n g e ( a l l e g i n g r a c e
d i s c r i m i n a t i o n ) wa s f i l e d w i t h i n t h e
s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s p e r i o d a f t e r t he
40
p o l i c y ' s a d o p t i o n and a s e c o n d c h a l l e n g e
( a l l e g i n g s e x d i s c r i m i n a t i o n ) was f i l e d
be y ond t h a t p e r i o d . 456 U. S. a t 70, n. 4.
The C o u r t e x p r e s s e d no h e s i t a t i o n as t o
t he t i m e l i n e s s o f t h e l a t t e r c h a l l e n g e by
e m p l o y e e s t o whom t h e c h a l l e n g e d p o l i c y
had a p p l i e d s i n c e i t s a d o p t i o n and f o r a
p e r i o d l o n g e r t h a n t h e l i m i t a t i o n s
p e r i o d . 22
P a t t e r s o n s u p p o r t s t h e c o n c l u s i o n
t h a t a c h a l l e n g e t o an i n t e n t i o n a l l y
d i s c r i m i n a t o r y s e n i o r i t y p o l i c y i s t i m e l y
i f f i l e d w i t h i n t h e s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s
p e r i o d r u n n i n g f rom t h e d a t e o f i t s most
r e c e n t a p p l i c a t i o n .
R e s p o n d e n t s ' c o n t e n t i o n t h a t t h e
" f a c i a l l y n e u t r a l " n a t u r e o f t h e
The C o u r t a l s o i n d i c a t e s t h a t
" p e r s o n s w h o s e e m p l o y m e n t b e g i n s more
than 180 d ays a f t e r an e m p l o y e r a d o p t s a
s e n i o r i t y s y s t e m " may, c o n t r a r y t o the
e x t r e m e p o s i t i o n o f r e s p o n d e n t s , s e e ,
S e c t i o n I I I , s u p r a , f i l e a t i m e l y c h a r g e .
456 U. S. a t 70.
41
c h a l l e n g e d p o l i c y I s somehow s i g n i f i c a n t
i s b e l i e d by t he c a s e law. The r e l e v a n t
i n q u i r y i s w h e t h e r " d i f f e r e n c e s i n
employment c o n d i t i o n s " a r e " t h e r e s u l t o f
an i n t e n t i o n t o d i s c r i m i n a t e b e c a u s e o f
r a c e , c o l o r , r e l i g i o n , s e x , o r n a t i o n a l
o r i g i n . " S e e e . g . C a l i f o r n i a B r e w e r s
A s s o c i a t i o n v . B r y a n t , 444 U. S. 598 , 611
( 1 9 8 0 ) . The C o u r t ' s T i t l e V I I c a s e s do
n o t s u p p o r t t he s u g g e s t i o n t h a t a p o l i c y
d e l i b e r a t e l y d e s i g n e d t o d i s a d v a n t a g e
women i s p r o t e c t e d a g a i n s t s u b s e q u e n t
c h a l l e n g e i f t h e mechanism c h o s e n d o e s n o t
i n v o l v e o v e r t d i s t i n c t i o n s b a s e d o n
g e n d e r .
Where an e m p l o y e r and u n i o n a p p o r t i o n
s e n i o r i t y c r e d i t s i n a manner d e s i g n e d t o
d i s c r i m i n a t e a g a i n s t f e m a l e w o r k e r s , t he
f a c t t h a t t h e y i m p l e m e n t t h e s c h e m e
t h r o u g h t h e " n e u t r a l " o p e r a t i o n o f t he
s e n i o r i t y s y s t e m d o e s n o t v i t i a t e t h e
42
d i s c r i m i n a t i o n . 24 The f a c t t h a t t h e
c o m p a n i e s and u n i o n s a t t e m p t t o c o n c e a l
t h e i r i n t e n t i o n a l l y d i s c r i m i n a t o r y
c o n d u c t s h o u l d n o t s h i e l d them f rom T i t l e
V I I l i a b i l i t y . 25
24 F o r e x a m p l e , i t w o u l d n o t b e
p e r m i s s i b l e f o r a u n i o n and e m p l o y e r t o
d e c i d e t h a t , b e c a u s e a p a r t i c u l a r d i v i s i o n
w a s p r e d o m i n a t e l y f e m a l e , s e n i o r i t y
c r e d i t f o r s e r v i c e i n t h a t d i v i s i o n wou l d
be awarded a t a r a t e h a l f t h a t o f t h e r e s t
o f t h e p l a n t . S u c h a p o l i c y , a l t h o u g h
" f a c i a l l y n e u t r a l , " c l e a r l y c o n s t i t u t e s an
" u n l a w f u l e m p l o y m e n t p r a c t i c e " u n d e r
S e c t i o n 7 0 3 ( a ) o f T i t l e V I I . A l t h o u g h
l a c k i n g an e x p l i c i t g e n d e r d i s t i n c t i o n ,
e a c h o p e r a t i o n o f t h i s i n t e n t i o n a l l y
d i s c r i m i n a t o r y s e n i o r i t y p o l i c y wo u l d be
a c t i o n a b l e . S e e , U n i t e d S t a t e s Ami c i
C u r i a e Br . a t 16 n . 1 9 .
25 T h e r e s p o n d e n t s c o m p a r e t h e
a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e i r p r o p o s e d s t a n d a r d t o
" f a c i a l l y l a w f u l " w i t h t h e i r s t a n d a r d ' s
a p p l i c a t i o n t o " f a c i a l l y u n l a w f u l "
s e n i o r i t y s y s t e m s . See e . g . , Re sp . B r . a t
3 1 . T h i s c o m p a r i s o n i s m e a n i n g l e s s ; no
company o r u n i o n I s g o i n g t o b r o a d c a s t i n
c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g a g r e e m e n t i t s
i n v i d i o u s i n t e n t by i n s t i t u t i n g an o v e r t l y
d i s c r i m i n a t o r y s e n i o r i t y s y s t e m . S e e ,
U n i t e d S t a t e s v . _B d . o f S c h o o l
Co m m i s s i o e n r s , 573 F . 2 d 4 0 0 , 412 ( 7 t h
C i r . ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 439 U. S. 824 ( 1978 )
( " I n a d a g e when i t i s u n f a s h i o n a b l e f o r
s t a t e o f f i c i a l s t o o p e n l y e x p r e s s r a c i a l
43
R e s p o n d e n t s ' r e l i a n c e o n D e l a w a r e
S t a t e C o l l e g e v . R i c k s 449 U. S . 250
( 1 9 8 0 ) , i s a l s o m i s p l a c e d . L i k e t h e
p l a i n t i f f i n E v a n s , t he p l a i n t i f f i n R i c k s
c h a l l e n g e d a d i s c r e t e a c t o f a l l e g e d
d i s c r i m i n a t i o n a g a i n s t him - - i n h i s c a s e ,
t h e d e c i s i o n o f a c o l l e g e b o a r d o f
t r u s t e e s t o deny him t e n u r e . A l s o l i k e
t h e p l a i n t i f f i n E v a n s , t h e p l a i n t i f f i n
R i c k s f a i l e d t o f i l e h i s c h a r g e o f
d i s c r i m i n a t i o n w i t h i n t he s t a t u t o r y p e r i o d
a f t e r t h i s d i s c r e t e a c t o c c u r r e d . He d i d
n o t a l l e g e o r p r o v e t h a t he was harmed by
t h e c o n t i n u i n g o p e r a t i o n o f a n y
d i s c r i m i n a t o r y s y s t e m o r p o l i c y ; r a t h e r
" t h e o n l y a l l e g e d d i s c r i m i n a t i o n o c c u r r e d
- - a n d t h e f i l i n g l i m i t a t i o n s p e r i o d s
t h e r e f o r e c o mme n ce d - - a t t h e t ime the
t e n u r e d e c i s i o n was made and communicated
h o s t i l i t y , d i r e c t e v i d e n c e o f o v e r t
b i g o t r y w i l l be i m p o s s i b l e t o f i n d . " )
44
t o R i c k s . " 449 U. S. a t 258 ; s e e a l s o , 449
U. S . a t 258 n . 9.
As d e m o n s t r a t e d i n o u r p r i n c i p a l
b r i e f , t h e Co u r t i n i t s p r i o r T i t l e VI I
s e n i o r i t y c a s e s has r e p e a t e d l y r e c o g n i z e d
t h e o p e r a t i o n o f an i l l e g a l s e n i o r i t y
s y s t e m as an u n l a w f u l employment p r a c t i c e ,
w i t h o u t r e g a r d t o t h e d a t e on w h i c h t he
s y s t e m was a d o p t e d o r t h e d a t e on w h i c h
t h e p l a i n t i f f i n i t i a l l y became s u b j e c t t o
t h e s y s t e m . P e t . B r . a t 3 1 - 4 4 . N o t h i n g
i n E v a ns , R i c k s , B a z e m o r e , o r any o t h e r
d e c i s i o n o f t h i s C o u r t s u p p o r t s a
d e p a r t u r e f r o m t h i s w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d
p r i n c i p l e ,
C o n c l u s i o n
P e t i t i o n e r s r e s p e c t f u l l y r e q u e s t t h a t
t h e Co u rt r e v e r s e t h e judgment o f t he
45
S e v e n t h C i r c u i t .
R e s p e c t f u l l y s u b m i t t e d ,
JULIUS LeVONNE CHAM3ERS
NAACP L e g a l D e f e n s e and
E d u c a t i o n a l Fund, I n c .
99 Hudson S t r e e t
S i x t e e n t h F l o o r
New York , New York 10013
BARRY GOLDSTEIN*
PAUL HOLTZMAN
NAACP Le g a l D e f e n s e and
E d u c a t i o n a l Fund, I n c .
1275 K S t r e e t , N.W.
S u i t e 301
Was h i ng to n , D. C. 20005
( 202) 6 8 2 - 1 30 0
PATRICK 0. PATTERSON
NAACP L e g a l D e f e n s e and
E d u c a t i o n a l Fund, I n c .
634 South S p r i n g S t r e e t
S u i t e 800
Los A n g e l e s , CA 90014
BRIDGET ARIMOND
14 West E r i e S t r e e t
C h i c a g o , I l l i n o i s 60610
A t t o r n e y s f o r P e t i t i o n e r s
P a t r i c i a A. L o r a n c e , e t a l .
^Counse l o f R e c o r d
APPENDIX A - E x h i b i t 11 t o t h e
D e p o s i t i o n o f P e t i t i o n e r B u e s c h e n ,
R . 6 8 A , e x h i b i t 11.
3fntcrnaiionnl iB rn i Ii rrIi no^ nf tlrririral lilnrkrrs
1741 JERICHO ROAD
AURORA, IL 60506
L O C A L 19 4 2 TELEPHONE 859-2333
* ’ * — *
January 12, 1983
James P. Conway
Sixth District Vice President
373 Schmale Rd., Suite 201
Carol Stream, Illinois 60187
Dear Sir and Srother:
JAN 1 3 1983
SIXTH DISTRICT, I.B.E.W.
Re: Three letters of complaint.
In resoonse to your letter dated 12-20-82. In 1978 this Local entered
into negotiations with the Montgomery shop. As to what is referred to,
it is the Montcomery Works Tester Training Program. This program was
oricinally designed to further train the testers presently on roll as
well as to Drovide a means by which the non-testers on roll coulo ob
tain the necessary training to become testers. This was made part of
the contract in 1980. (See tabs'1 « 2) It was further agreed curing
1980 bargaining that the Cbmpany would negotiate and prepare a booklet
(Copy enclosed), to pass out to all testers.
The Union and the Company have spent several hours attempting to nego
tiate the Tester Training Program. The final meeting was helc on 12-21
82 with J.E. McGovern, Bargaining Agent, Western Electric Company,
wherein we were unable to agree on tabs 3,4,5,6,s7. At that time the
Company was advised by me that grievances would be issued on behalf
of all testers involved. (See attached letters for each oi the indiviu
uals involved).
Fraternally,
.'/James Cappleman
' - President & Business Manager
I.B.E.W, Local 1942
JC/ia
Enc .
EXHI B I T
4 oescu & i
U__
Sister P.A. Lorance £#809857
This particular issue had been discussed at the Union meetings and
the sister had been advised that the Union was in the process of
negotiating the Tester Training Program.
The Union's contention is that there were three (3) provisions provided
for employees on roll entering the testing universe. All of these were
for the upward movement.
1) . Employees spend five (5) years in a tester universe before
being able to bridge Montgomery service for the upward
movement.
2) . Obtain the same amount of service as other testers in the
universe.
3) . Completion of the five (S) modules in the Tester Training
Program.
The Company's position is that they intend to apply the same procedure
on the downward trend. The specific information on P.A. Lorance is;
she has a 4-8-70 Montgomery service date. She entered the testing uni
verse from a 32 grade to a 35 grade on 10-3C-78. She has passed four
(4) modules as to date. She was downgraded from a 38 grade tester on
11/15/82 to a 37 grade tester.
There are presently sixty-seven (67) 38 grade testers with less Mont
gomery service.
Grievances were issued on her hehalf, (copies attached), and still at
the present time the Company is taking the position that these griev
ances are untimely. We still contend that since we were in a negotia
tion stage and attempting to resolve these problems with the Company,
that our time frame started 12-21-82.
Sister Lorance sent me a letter dated 11-9-82 whereing she gave me
five (5) days to respond. Subsequently I was attending a EM3 Council
Meeting in Columbus, Ohio and was unable to do so.
Sister J.K. King - £#805595
This particular issue had been discussed at the Union meetings and
the sister had been advised that the Union was in the process of
negotiating the Tester Training Program.
The Union's contention is that there were three !3) provisions provided
for employees on roll entering the testing universe. All of these were
for the upward movement.
Sister King sent me a letter dated 11-4-82 wherein she cave me
five (5) days to respond. Subsequently I was attending a EM3 Council
meeting in Columbus, Ohio and was unable to do so.
1) . Employees spend five (5) years in a tester universe before
being able to bridge Montgomery service for the upward movement.
2) . Obtain the same amount of service as other testers in the
universe.
3) . Completion of the five (5) modules in the Tester Training
Program.
The Company's position is that they intend to apply the same procedure
on the downward trend. The specific information on J.K. King is; she
has a 5-4-71 Montgomery service date. She entered the testing universe
from a 32 grade to a 35grade on 2-25-80. She has passed three (3) of
the testing modules as to date. She was downgraded from a 37 grade
tester to a 36 grade tester on 8/23/82.
There are presently thirty-two (32) 37 grade and sixty-one (61) 35 grade
testers with less Montgomery service.
Grievances were issued on her behalf, (copies attached), and still at
the present time the Company is taking the position that these griev
ances are untimely. We still contend since we were in a negotiation
stage and attempting to resolve these problems with the Company, that
our time frame started 12-21-82.
Sister C.D. Bueschen - £*809256
This particular issue had been discussed at the Union meetings and
the sister had been advised that the Union was in the process of
negotiating the Tester Training Program.
The Union's contention is that there were three (3) provisions provided
for employees on roll entering the testing universe. All of these were
for the upward movement.
1) . Employees spend five (5) years in a tester universe before
being able to bridge Montgomery service for the upward movement.
2) . Obtain the same amount of service as other testers in the
universe.
3) . Completion of the five (5) modules in the Tester Training
Program.
The Company's position is that they intend to apply the same procedure
on the downward trend. The specific information on C.D. Bueschen is;
she has a 2-2-70 Montgomery service date. She entered the testing uni
verse from a 32 grade to a 35 grade on 11-30-30. She has passed one (1)
of the testing modules as to date. She was downgraded from a 35 grade
tester on 11-15-82 to a 33 grade utility operator.
There are presently one hundred four (104) 36 grace testers with less
Montgomery service; thirty-five (35) - 37 grade testers, seventy-nine
(79) - 38 grade testers, and one (1) - 39 grade testing layout operator.
Grievances were issued on her behalf, (copies attached), and still at
the present time the Company is taking the position that these griev
ances are untimely. We still contend since we were in a negotiation
stage and attempting to resolve these oroblems with the Company, that
our time frame started 12-21-82.
Sister Bueschen sent me a letter dated 11-4-82 wherein she cave me
five (5) days to respond. Subsequently I was attending a EM3 Council
Meeting in Columbus, Ohio and was unable to do so.
APPENDIX B - C o r r e s p o n d e n c e R e g a r d i n g t h e
U s e b y R e s p o n d e n t s i n t h e i r B r i e f o f
O u t s i d e - t h e R e c o r d F a c t s and a P r i v a t e l y
C o mm i s s i o ne d R e s e a r c h P r o j e c t :
1. L e t t e r f ro m B a r r y G o l d s t e i n , c o u n s e l
f o r p e t i t i o n e r s , t o S u s a n K o r n ,
s e n i o r l a b o r a n a l y s t , BNA P l u s ,
March 1, 1989 .
2. L e t t e r f r o m P a u l W o j c i k , g e n e r a l
c o u n s e l o f BNA, t o B a r r y G o l d s t e i n ,
March 1, 1989 .
3. L e t t e r f r o m B a r r y G o l d s t e i n t o Rex
Lee and S t e p h e n F e i n b e r g , c o u n s e l f o r
r e s p o n d e n t s , March 2, 1989 .
4. L e t t e r f r o m D a v i d C a r p e n t e r , c o u n s e l
f o r r e s p o n d e n t s , t o B a r r y G o l d s t e i n ,
March 3, 1989 .
5. L e t t e r f ro m B a r r y G o l d s t e i n t o Dav i d
C a r p e n t e r , March 3, 1989 .
6. L e t t e r f ro m D av id C a r p e n t e r t o B a r r y
G o l d s t e i n , March 6, 1989 .
NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE
AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC.
tUgimJOffiu
Suite 301
1275 K Street. N W
Wajhington, DC 20005 (202)682-1300 Fax:(202)682-1312
HAND-DELIVER
March 1, 1989
M s . Susan Korn
BNA Plus, Room 215
1231 25th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20037
Dear Ms. Korn:
As I told you yesterday by telephone, I just learned that
the Appendix to the Respondents' Brief in Lorance v . AT&T
Technologies, No. 87-1428, entitled "Contracts with Departmental
Seniority," was prepared by a section of the Bureau of National
Affairs called "BNA Plus." There was no reference in the brief,
which I have sent to BNA, to the source of the data other than
BNA. 1
By telephone yesterday I requested a copy of the "report,"
if any, from which this chart was taken. You told me that this
was a "customized" job. I requested all the information about
the chart; for example, there is no indication as to how the so-
called "representative sample," see, Resp. Brief at 15 n.15, was
determined, how "departmental" was defined, or even the dates for
the contracts. You told me that it was contrary to BNA policy to
release the "specifications" for a "customized" job or even the
name of the client.
This BNA work-product, assuming that it has not been altered
in any way, can not be evaluated without BNA providing the
“specifications" for the job, and the supporting information
about the sample, the definitions used, etc. Of course, it is
important to evaluate not only the validity of BNA's work
product, but also whether BNA's work product has been properly
1 There is no reference in the Table of Authorities to
the BNA report. The only reference in the Brief to the source
for the report is "Appendix to this Brief," Resp. Brief at 15
n. 15. The Appendix only refers to the "Statistics of Bureau of
National Affairs on Departmental Seniority Systems;" there is
also a copyright 1989 by The Bureau of National Affairs."
The NAACP Legal Defense 6c Educational Fuad, Inc. (LDF) is oot part
o f the National Asaocsadoo for the Advancement o f Colored People
(NAACP) although LDF was founded by the NAACP and shares its
commitment to equal rights. LDF has had for over 30 years a separate
Board, program, staff, office and budget.
NtiomJ Office
Suite MOO
99 Hudson Street
New York. NY 10013
(212) 219-1900
Fa*: (212) 226-7592
Regmtel Office
Suite 800
634 S. Spring Street
Los Angeles. CA 90014
(213) 624-2405
Fax:(211)624-0075
M s . Susan Korn
March 1, 1989
Page 2
used by AT&T Technologies and the Union. Obviously, this
evaluation can not even be begun without the supporting
information, methodology and definitions used to prepare this
chart.
The petitioners reply brief is due on March 7. I need the
above information immediately in order to determine whether and,
if so, in what matter a reply should be made to this BNA work-
product .
If a BNA "client" uses, as here, in a Supreme Court Brief a
customized product from BNA without revealing that it is such a
product or setting forth all of the information necessary for an
evaluation of the BNA product, then BNA should reveal all of the
necessary information in order to assure that neither the Court
is misled nor opposing parties harmed.
I know that it is not BNA who has sought to introduce facts
from outside of the Record into the argument before the Supreme
Court. But since, as I have been told, BNA "prepared" these
facts, BNA has a responsibility for the use or misuse of its
product.
As a result of the time requirements for filing a reply
brief, I would appreciate an immediate response.
Very truly yours,
Barry uoiasiein
BG:oet
T H E B U R E A U O F N A T I O N A L A F F A I R S , I N C .
Barry Goldstein
NAACP Legal Defense and
Educational Fund, Inc.
Suite 301
1275 K Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005
Dear Mr. Goldstein:
Your letter to Susan Korn has been referred to me fot a reply.
The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., does not reveal the identity of its
subscribers, the products they subscribe to, or the nature of any research
done on their behalf. Such information is guarded in order to protect the
privacy rights of our customers and the proprietary rights of BNA in its
customer lists.
Your inquiries concerning the source and nature of information used in a
court brief, and the question of whether such use is proper or improper, would
be more properly directed to those filing the brief.
Paul N. W ojcik
Vice President, General Counsel,
and Assistant Secretary
Direct Dial: (2 0 2 ) 452-5739
March 1, 1989
Yours truly
1231 Twenty-fifth Street, Northwest, Washington, DC 20037 □ Telephone (202) 452-4200 □ TELEX; 285656 BNAI WSH
M arch 2 , 1989
Rex E. Lee, Esquire
c/o David W. Carpenter, Esquire
Sidley & Austin
One First National Plaza
Chicago, Illinois 60603
Stephen J. Feinberg, Esquire
Asher, Pavalon, Gittler
& Greenfield, Ltd.
Two North LaSalle Street
Chicago, Illinois 60602
Re: Lorance v. AT&T Technologies, Inc.
Dear Mr. Lee and Mr. Feinberg:
By this letter I am requesting that you agree to remove the
Appendix and the entire reference to the Appendix, the last
sentence in footnote 15 on page 15, from Respondents' brief. The
Appendix contains entirely outside-the-record facts prepared, as
I understand it, expressly for the Respondents. The facts are
unpublished and unavailable. There is no way for the Petitioners
to verify or evaluate the "facts" contained in the Appendix. The
extra-record material in improper and should be stricken from the
Respondents' Brief. R. Stern, E. Gressman, S. Shapiro, Supreme
Court Practice (Sixth ed. 1986) at 564-65.
As I set forth in the enclosed letter to Ms. Susan Korn, an
employee of BNA Plus, I have determined that the material
enclosed in the Appendix to Respondents' Brief in Lorance and
referred to on page 15, in the last sentence of footnote 15,
does not come from a published source. Rather, I have been
informed by BNA that it was a "customized" job prepared to
certain "specifications" for an unnamed "client."
Other than a general reference to BNA there is no source
cited for the data and conclusions submitted to the Court in the
Appendix and footnote 15 of the Brief. As stated in the letter
to BNA:
This BNA work-product, assuming that it
has not been altered in any way, can not be
e v a l u a t e d w i t h o u t B N A p r o v i d i n g the
" s p ecifications" for the job, and the
supporting information about the sample, the
definitions used, etc. Of course, it is
1275 K Street, N.W., Suite 301, Washington, D.C. 20005 202/682-1300 Fax: 202/682-1312 M odem: 202/682-1318
Rex E. Lee, Esquire
Stephen J. Feinberg, Esquire
March 1, 1989
Page 2
important to evaluate not only the validity
of BNA's work product, but also whether BNA's
work product has been properly used by AT&T
Technologies and the Union. Obviously, this
evaluation can not even be begun without the
supporting information, methodology and
definitions used to prepare this chart {in
the Appendix]
BNA refused to produce any information or even the name of
its client "in order to protect the privacy rights of our
customers and the proprietary rights of BNA in its customer
lists." Letter from Paul N. Wojcik, General Counsel, BNA, to
Barry Goldstein, dated March 1, 1989. (The letter is enclosed).
BNA directed the Petitioners' "inquiries concerning the source
and nature of information used ... to those filing the brief."
Id.
The Supreme Court "has consistently ... condemned" the
practice by counsel of "attaching to a brief [as Respondents'
counsel have ddne in Lorance1 some additional or different
evidence that is not part of the certified record." Supreme
Court Practice at 564. As noted in Supreme Court Practice,
"appellate courts have dealt promptly and severely with such
infractions [by, for example] granting a motion to strike the
'offending matter.'" Id. at 564-65.
The material in the Respondents' Brief is particularly
troublesome because there is no reference in the Brief to the
fact that the material resulted from a privately commissioned
study that is unavailable to the Court, opposing counsel, or the
public. Nevertheless, the Respondents refer to their private
study as a "representative sample of collective bargaining
agreements." Id. at 15 n.15.
Of course, the extra- r e c o r d facts presented in the
Defendants' Brief do not fall under "the so-called Brandeis brief
technique in bringing to the Court's attention published material
containing facts which bear upon the reasonableness of
legislation." Supreme Court Practice, at 565 (Emphasis added).
The Respondents seek to introduce before the Supreme Court
unpublished material; moreover, the facts are privately
developed, irrelevant to the reasonableness of any legislation,
and submitted without any foundation or authentication. The
presentation of these facts would be inadmissible before the
district court since no foundation has been established; to say
the least, it is inappropriate that the Respondents have sought
to present to the Supreme Court this unpublished, outside-the-
record material from some unidentified "sample."
Rex E. Lee, Esquire
Stephen J. Feinberg, Esquire
March 1, 1989
Page 3
Since the Petitioners' Reply Brief is due on March 7, 1989,
the Petitioners must have a reply by 3:00 p.m. on Friday, March 3
as to whether the Respondents will agree to remove the Appendix
and footnote 15 from their Brief. If we do not receive such a
commitment, then we will have to respond to the Respondents' use
of this material in our Reply Brief.
I have had this letter sent by fax to David Carpenter (312-
853-7312), Stephen J. Feinberg (312-263-1520), and Charles C.
Jackson (312-269-8869) on March 2. A copy was also sent by
Federal Express to each of these attorneys for delivery on March
3 „ I also sent a copy, hand-delivered, to Robert Weinberg on
March 2.
BG:oet
Enclosure
cc: Robert Weinberg, Esquire
Charles C. Jackson, Esquire
Richard J. Lazarus, Esquire
Donna J. Brusoski, Esquire
Very truly yours
Barry Goldstein
8040 CENTURY PARK EAST
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 0OOO7
813: BB3-8IOO TELEX 18-1301
880 MADISON AVENUE
NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10080
818: <Ud- 8100 TELEX 07-1606
1788 EYE STREET, N.W.
WASHINGTON, D C- 80006
808: 480-4000 TELEX 80-463
S i d l e y & A u s t i n
A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS
O n e F i r s t N a t i o n a l P l a z a
C h i c a g o , I l l i n o i s 6 0 6 0 3
T e l e p h o n e 3 1 2 : 8 5 3 - 7 0 0 0
T e l e x 2 5 - 4 3 6 4
March 3, 1989
18 KINO WILLIAM STREET
LONDON, EC4N 7SA, ENGLAND
441: 681-1616 TELEX 084186
6 SHBNTON WAY
SINGAPORE 0106
68: 884-8000 TELEX 88784
Barry Goldstein, Esq.
NAACP Legal Defense and
Educational Fund, Inc.
1275 K Street, N.W.
Suite 301
Washington, D.C. 20005
Re: Lorance v. AT&T Technologies
No. 87-1428 (U.S. Supreme Court)
Dear Mr. Goldstein:
This is a reply on behalf of both respondents to your
letter of yesterday, March 2, 1989. We were surprised to learn
both that you decided at this late date to review the BNA
materials discussed in our brief (filed January 23, 1989) and
that BNA denied you access to them. We have therefore telephoned
BNA and consented to the release of any material which cannot be
released without our consent. In addition, we are enclosing
herewith the materials that BNA would not show you and that it
provided us: (1) its statement of research methodology and
results, (2) its computer printout of the contracts, and (3) the
table analyzing contracts with departmental seniority. We are
faxing this material to you today and are separately sending it
Federal Express for delivery tomorrow.
We trust that this fully addresses your concerns on
what should be a noncontroversial point: that departmental
seniority systems are commonplace.
Very truly yours,
David W. Carpenter
DWC:dsg
Enclosures
cc: Rex E. Lee (w/o enclosures)
Charles C. Jackson (w/o enclosures)
Stephen J. Feinberg (w/o enclosures)
Robert M. Weinberg (w/o enclosures)
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY & RESULTS
BNA PLUS, the custom research and document retrieval division o f The Bureau of
National Affairs, Inc., surveyed collective bargaining agreements in BNA’s sample file o f 399
contracts to determine the prevalence o f departmental seniority provisions in collective
bargaining contracts.
The Bureau o f National Affairs, Inc. is a private, employee-owned publishing company
specializing in labor, business, tax, legal, environment, and economic issues. BNA maintains a
collection o f more than 3,000 agreements, which is maintained primarily for the company’s
Collective Bargaining Negotiations and Contracts service. The file also is used for research
purposes. The collection is kept up to date with the latest contract renewals or amendments.
Within the collection, a sample o f approximately 400 contracts is maintained with regard to a
cross section o f industries, unions, number o f employees covered, and geographical areas. The
sample is the basis for the CBNC analysis o f basic patterns in union contracts, conducted every
three years.
To determine the prevalence o f departmental seniority provisions by industry, BNA
PLUS labor analysts researched the contracts in the sample database (a listing o f the contracts,
by industry, is attached). One contract has been deleted from the sample and one was unavail
able for examination. O f the 398 contracts examined, 359 (90 percent) contained language
regarding seniority. For the purposes o f this research, as agreed. BNA PLUS included as depart
mental seniority those instances where seniority is based on some subunit o f the workforce
(departments, sections, occupational groups, etc.) rather than length o f service at a plant or with
the company.
The project was coordinated by the BNA PLUS senior labor analyst, who has extensive
experience in the labor area. In addition, the CBNC managing editor was available for consulta
tion. A summary o f findings is presented in the attached table.
Managing Editor, CBNC
Susan Korn
Senior Labor Analyst, BNA PLUS
Copyright © 1989 by The Buraau o f National Affairs, Inc.
NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE
AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC.
Regional Office
Suite 301
1275 K St. NW
Washington DC 20005 202/682-1300 Fax: 202/682-1312
March 3, 1989
David W. Carpenter, Esquire
Sidley £ Austin
One First National Plaza
Chicago, IL 60603
RE: Lorance v. AT&T Technologies
No. 87-1428
Dear Mr. Carpenter:
I have received the letter dated March 3rd, from both
respondents in response to my letter of March 2nd. The response
does not address the concerns of the Petitioners.
For the reasons set forth in my letter of March 2, 1989, the
outside-the-record material contained in the Respondents' Brief
should be stricken.
In addition, the documents that you enclosed with the March
3, 1989 letter inadequately describe the private project that
you sponsored. (We will lodge these documents with the Supreme
Court if the material is not removed from the Brief) . For
example, the documents do not describe the seniority provisions
from the contracts. All that is listed is the company name,
industry, "sic* code, and the expiration date for the contract.
This is particularly important because these documents make
clear that the chart contained in the Appendix to Respondents'
Brief is mislabeled and misleading. The page listed as "Research
Methodology £ Results* states as follows:
For the purpose of this research, as agreed.
BNA Plus included as departmental seniority
those instances where seniority is based on
some subunit of the workforce <departments-
sections. occupational groups■ etc.1 rather
than length of service at a plant or with the
company. (Emphasis added)
Contribution} me
ieinctM e for VS .
income tax purpose}.
The NAACP Legal Defense 6c Educational Fund. Inc. (LDF) is not part
o f the National Association for the Advancement o f Colored People
(NAACP) although LDF was founded by the NAACP and shares its
commitment to equal rights. LDF has had for over 30 years a separate
Board, program, staff, office and budget.
Notional Office
Suite MOO
99 Hudson Street
New York, NY K1013
212/219-1900
Fax; 212/226-7592
Regional Office
Suite 800
634 S. Spring St.
Los Angeles CA 90014
21V624-240S
Fax: 212/624-0075
David W. Carpenter
March 3, 1989
Page 2
BNA Plus, 'the custom research and documental retrieval
division of The Bureau Of National Affairs, Inc.' apparently
'agreed' with AT&T Technologies to call departmental any measure
of seniority, 'department[al], section[al], occupational, etc.*
As is clear from the research methodology statement, BNA
agreed to call any seniority system other than plant or company
seniority a departmental seniority system.
On the basis of the research methodology statement, BNA Plus
and the Respondents could as easily have called the less than
plant seniority contracts 'sectional* or 'etc.* seniority
contracts.
Moreover, the Record in this case does not indicate whether
or not the seniority system developed in 1979, which counted
seniority earned in non-tester jobs differently than seniority
earned in tester jobs, should properly be classified as
"occupational,' 'departmental,' or 'sectional' seniority. The
system appears more likely to be an 'occupational' system, that
is, one that distinguishes the tester occupations from other
occupations, rather than a departmental system.
In any event, the critical point is that there is nothing in
the documents provided by BNA that establishes any foundation for
comparing the system in the Montgomery Works with those systems
summarized in the chart included as an Appendix to the
Respondents' Brief. At trial, the plaintiffs may show that the
system adopted by the IBEW and AT&T Technologies dividing the
seniority in the plant and pitting one group of bargaining unit
employees against another was an arbitrary and irrational system
unlike the vast majority of other contracts.
There is no information in the BNA 'sample' that is
inconsistent with Petitioners' position. In fact, an analysis of
the contracts evaluated by BNA (under the direction of the
attorneys for AT&T Technologies) may establish the plaintiffs'
position.
Finally, you should not be 'surprised' that we want to
review the BNA material at this 'late date.' There is no
reference in the Respondents' Brief to the fact that this a
' c ustomized' job done at the d i r e c t i o n and by the
'specifications' set by AT&T Technologies. Frankly, we never
David W. Carpenter
March 3, 1989
Page 3
would have thought that the Respondents sought to submit such
outside-the-record material to the Supreme Court. Accordingly,
we only checked the reference towards the end of the preparation
of the Reply Brief.
For the reasons set forth in this letter and in the March
2nd letter, the material prepared by BNA should be stricken from
the Brief because it is improper outside-the-record evidence and
because it is misleading and unreliable.
Very truly yours
Barry Goldstein
BG:vyt
cc: Charles C. Jackson, Esquire
Robert M. Weinberg, Esquire
Stephen J. Feinberg, Esquire
S i d l e y <Sc A u s t i n
A PAHTKfiHSE1P INCLUDING PBOFESSIONAL GOBPO RATIONS
8040 CENTURY PARK BAST
LOS ANOELES, CALIFORNIA 00007
813: BBO-SIOO TELEX 16-1301
O n e F i r s t N a t i o n a l P l a z a
C h i c a g o , I l l i n o i s 6 0 6 0 3
I a l EPH O N B 3 1 2 : 8 5 3 - 7 0 0 0
T e l e x 2 5 - 4 3 6 4
IS KINO WILLIAM STB BBT
LONDON, KC4N TSA, ENGLAND
080 MADISON AVENUE
NEW TORE, NXW YORK 10088 SINOAPOBE o w e
88 884-0000 TELEX 80784818: 418-8100 TELEX 07*1080
Wa s h in g t o n , b .c 00000
808: 480-4000 TELEX 08-403
March 6, 1989
BY TELECOPY
Barry Goldstein, Esq.
NAACP Legal Defense and
Educational Fund, Inc.
1275 K Street, N.W.
Suite 301
Washington, D.C. 20005
This is the response of both respondents to your letter of March
3, 1989. As we understand your objection to our use of BNA materials, it
is that the chart is "mislabeled" and "misleading" because it uses the
term "departmental seniority" to refer to all seniority systems where
seniority is based on some subunit of the workforce fe.o., a department,
a section, or an occupation) rather than length of service in the plant
or with the company. We used the term departmental seniority system in
this way because that phrase, in common parlance, encompasses all such
systems. That is how the term was used, for example, in the other
materials cited in our Brief (pp. 14-15 nn.15-16) to which you have not
objected. In any event, it makes no difference whether such systems are
called a "sectional" seniority system, an "occupational system," or a
"group seniority" system. The point is that the materials in BNA's
publicly-accessible database shows that however these systems are
denominated, seniority systems (like AT&T's) that measure seniority based
on service in a subunit of a company are commonplace. That is the only
point that any of the materials we cited in footnotes 15 and 16 was
intended to make.
Please let us know if we can do anything else to address your
Re: Lorance v. AT&T Technologies
No. 87-1428 (U.S. Supreme Court)
Dear Mr. Goldstein
concerns
Very truly yours
I
DWCsdsg
cc: All Counsel
MAR G ’ 8 9 1 3 : 2 6
PA GE . 0 0 2