The Background - Death Row Cases in the Supreme Court

    11
2

3
4

5
6

7
8
9

10

11

12

13
14

15
16
17
18
19
20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

7

HENRY HEWITT 
JOHN ERICKSON
ERICKSON, BEASLEY & HEWITT 
12 Geary Street, 8th Floor 
San Francisco, California 94108 
Telephone: 415/781-3040
DENISE HULETT
Mexican American Legal Defense and 

Educational Fund 
604 Mission Street, 10th Floor 
San Francisco, California 94108 
Telephone: 415/543-5598
BILL LANN LEE 
STEPHEN M. CUTLER
Center for Law in the Public Interest 
10951 W. Pico Boulevard, Third Floor 
Los Angeles, California 90064 
Telephone: 213/470-3000
ANTONIA HERNANDEZ 
THERESA FAY BUSTILLOS 
Mexican American Legal Defense and 

Educational Fund
634 S. Spring Street, Eleventh Floor 
Los Angeles, California 90014 
Telephone: 213/629-2512

O  v ■! _ ro
\ \

• v t\r\. vjt '
W'oH'r'c ,v

Attorneys for Plaintiffs
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARCHIE BAREFIELD, JR., et al.,
Plaintiffs, 

v.
CHEVRON U.S.A. Inc.

Defendant.

) Case No. C86 2427 TEH 
) Civil Rights 
) Class Action 
)
) PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM 
) OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 
) IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR 
) CLASS CERTIFICATION 
)
) Date: June 1, 1987 
) Time: 10:00 A.M.
) Before The Honorable 
.) Thelton E. Henderson

/
/

P&As/Mtn Class Cert



III.

5. Training
a. Training Policies
b. Plaintiffs' Training Claims

6. Performance Evaluations
a. Evaluation Policies
b. Plaintiffs' Performance Evaluation Claims

7. Absence of Validation Studies
8. Office of Federal Contract Compliance 

Programs Conciliation Agreement

ARGUMENT

24
24
25
25
25
26 
27

27

A.
of RU?3 2?ufatiSfieS A11

1* The Class of Approximately 116 Minority 
Employees Is So Numerous As To Make 
Joinder Impracticable

2. There Are Significant Questions of Law 
and Fact Common to the Class
a. The purported effect of the alleged 

discriminatory employment practices is class wide in scope
b. The alleged discriminatory impact

is the product of uniform employment practices
c. The membership of the class is 

uniform, inasmuch as class members' 
treatment is likely to involve questions

d.

3.

common

e.

The Production Department's emoloy- 
ment practices are determined and 
controlled by a centralized 
management organization
The employment practices at issue 
have remained relatively consistent 
throughout the time period

Jrlaims of Discrimination Are ypical of Those of the Members of theJLclSS

30

30

32

34

36

38

38

39

40

- l i - P&As/Mtn Class Cert



1
2

3

5
6

7
8 
9

10

11

12

13
U
15
1G
17
18
19
20 

21 

22

23
24
25 
2G
27
28

B.

The Named Plaintiffs and Their Counsel
Will Fairly and Adequately Represent theInterests of the Class
a* Plaintiffs' counsel have the necessary 

experience and expertise to prosecute this action
b. There is no evidence that would 

suggest collusion
c* The named plaintiffs' interests 

are not antagonistic to those of 
the remainder of the class

This Action Further Satisfies the Rule 23(b) 
Requirements for Class Certification

IV. CONCLUSION

73 #7
- i n  - P&As/Mtn Class Cert



TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

i.

9

10

11

12

13

14

15 

1G
17

18

19

20 

21 

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Cases
Atonio y. wards Cove Packing Co.,

F. 2d 43 FEP 130 (9th Cir. 1987)
Brady v. Thurston Motor Lines,

726 F.2d 136 (4th Cir.), cert, denied, 
469 U.S. 827 (1984) ---  -----

-Cox v•_American Castiron Pipe ComDanv,
784 F.2d 1546, 1554-55 (11th Cir. 1986)

De Gidio v. Perpich,
612 F.Supp. 1383 (D.Minn. 1985)

De.La Fuente v. Stokely-Van Camp. Inc.,
713 F.2d 225 {11h Cir. 1983) ~

Duncan v. Tennessee,
84 F.R.d . 21 (M.D. Tenn. 1979)

Systems' ''
Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin.

417 U.S'. 156 (1974)
Ellis v. Naval Air Rework Facility,

404 F.Supp. 391 (N.D. Cal. 1975)
Garcia v. Gloor,

618 F.2d 264 (5th Cir. 1980)
Gay v. Waiters' and Dairy Lunchmen's Union, 

549 F.2d 1330 (9th Cir. 1977) "
General Tel. Co. of Southwest v.

457 U.S. 147 (1982) ---~
Griffin v. Burns.

570 F.2d 1065 (5th Cir. 1978)
Griffin v. Carlin,

755 F.2d 1516 (11th Cir. 1985)
Harriss v. Pan American World Airways, Inc 

74 F.R.D. 24 (N.D. Cal. 1977) Y"------
Holmes v. Continental Can Co.,

706 F.2d 1144, 1153 (11th Cir. 1983)
Horn v._Associated Wholesale Grocers, inc

555 F. 2d 2 /0 (10th Cir. 1977)---1--- ~ '

37

31

45

31

40

35

30,40

29 

35

30 

30,31

30,38,40

31 

40

33,34,40,44

45

31



I

J

1<
1:
\\

lc
u

it

1C

17

18

19

20
21

22

23

24

25

2G

27

28

Int'l Holders1 and Allied Workers' Local Union No. 164 
— — Ngj-son ,102 F. R. D. 457 (N.D. Cal. 1983) ~

Karan v. Nabisco. Inc.,
17 FEP bU7 (W.D. Pa. 1978)

KirUand v. Hew York State Dep't of Correctional
“ “ (2d Cir. 19/M, cert, denied,-------- 551429 U.S. 823 (1976) ---- -----

Stearns & Fostsr Co
73 F.R.D. 307 (S.D. Ohio 1976)

Kraszewski v. State Farm ins. Co.,
21 FEP 27 (N.D. Cal. 1981)

Kunez v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
37 FEP 124 (E.D. Mo. 1985)

Lynch v. Rank.
604 F.Supp. 30 (N.D. Cal.), aff'd 
747 F.2d 528 (9th Cir. 1984)----~

Martin y. Housing Authority of city of Atlanta 
8 6 F.R.D. 320 (N. D. Ga. 19 80) ~--'

29,30,31
40,42

32

35

31

31
,32,35
,43,45

35

Martinez v. Bechtel Corp.,
11 FEP 898 (N.D. Cal. 1975)

Miller v. Mackey Int'l,
^52 F.2d 4 2; 4 (5th Cir. 1971)

Moore v. NASD,
37 FEP 1738 (D.D.C. 1982)

Nichols v. Mobile Board of Reait-nr.g. inc 
^75F. 2 d 6 7 1 (5th Cir. 1982)

Officers for Justice v. Civil Service Com m ission,688 F.2d 615 (9th Cir. 1982)
Paxton v. Union Nat'l Bank.

688 F.2d 552 (8th Cir. 1932), cert, denied 103 S.Ct. 1772 (1983) ---- —  '
Probe v. State Teachers' Retirement System,

Sagers v. Yellow Freight System. Inc. ,
529 F. 2d 721 (5th Cir. 1976)

Schwartz v. Harp,
108 F.R.D. 279 (C.D. Cal. 1985)

42

31

32,35

35

37,41

33

45

41

44

31

42,43



1

6
7

8 
9

10

11

12

13

14

15 

1G
17

18

19

20 

21 

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Senter v. General Motors Coro.,
53 2 F. 2d 511 (6th Cir.)', cert, denied,
429 U.S. 870 (1976) ---- ------

§P.cial Services Union, Local 535 v. County of Santa Clsr^ 
609 F. 2d 944 (9th Cir".--1979)------- -----~  ^

Urban v. Breier,
401 F.Supp. 706 (E.D. Wis. 1975)

Vuyanich v. Republic Nat'l Bank,
78 F.R.d . 352 (N.D. Tex. 1978)

Walls v. City of Garland.
28 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 316 (N.D. Tex

Walthall v. Blue Shield of California. 
16 FEP 626(N.D. Cal. 1977) '

Weinberger v. Jackson.
102 F.R.D. 839 (N.D. Cal. 1934)

Wetse! v. Liberty Mutual Insurance rv,

1979)

508 F.2d 239 (3d Cir. 
421 U.S. 1011 (1975) cert, denied ,

CL: 73#7

Wofford v. Safeway Stores, Inc.,
78 F.R.d . 460 (N.D. Cal. 1978)

Women's Co.,ittee for Equal Employment Ooportunil-v „ NBC 
' -1 * • R • D • 666 (S.D.N.Y. 1 9 7 6 ) ------- 1--—  -'

Statutes and Regulations 
42 U.S.C. §§ 200Oe et seq.
42 U.S.C. § 1981

California Government Code § 12900 et seq.
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23 (a)

23 (b) (2)
23(b) (3)

45

41,43

31

35

35

37

42

45

39,40

35

6
6
6

Miscellaneous
3B Kennedy' Moore's Federal11 23.05[1], u 23.40-2 (2d ed. 1 9 8 5 ) -------

B‘ SC'(2d ied. P1983)>SSmanf E-mPloyment Discrimination

1,29,30,32
1,29,44,45

45

30,31,43

31,43

- vi -



1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
l:
1!
2(
21
21
2;
2]
2£
2G
27

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
I. INTRODUCTION
II. STATEMENT

A. Pr ior Proceedings
1. Administrative Proceedings
2. Judicial Proceedings

B. Facts
1. Organization

iv
1

2
2
2
6
6
7

a.
b. Northern California Division 

Human Resources Group 7
8

2. Jobs 10
a. Classified Union-represented Positions 11

(1) Operations employees
(2) Maintenance employees
(3) Technicians
(4) Head and Lead Positions

11
12
12
13

b . Salaried Non-represented Positions 14
(1) Operations assistants(2) Foremen
(3) Staff positions
(4) Area foremen
(5) Top management

14
14
15 
15 
15

3. Promotions
15

a.
b.
c.
d.

Salaried Positions 
Classified Positions 
Recent Developments 
Plaintiffs' Promotion Claims

16
17
18 
19

4. Job Assignment 22
a.
b. Assignment Policies 

Plaintiffs' Job Assignment Claims 22
23

P&As/Mtn Class Cert



1

G

7
8 
9

10

11

12

18
14
15 
1G 
17 
IS
19
20 
21 

22 

28
24
25 
2G
27
28

CL:73 #7

I.
INTRODUCTION

By this motion, plaintiffs seek to have this employ­
ment discrimination case certified as a class action pursuant to 
Rule 23(a) and (b)(2) of the Federal Rules of civil Procedure.

The allegations of discrimination in this case center 
on the promotion policies and practices of Chevron U.S.A. Inc.
( Chevron ) at its oil and gas production facilities in the 
southern San Joaquin Valley. The named plaintiffs are black and 
Hispanic employees who have been denied various promotions to 
higher level positions, including supervisory and management 
lobs. Discovery has demonstrated that Chevron's failure in that 
regard is part of a more general pattern -  black and Hispanic 
employees have historically held approximately 30% of the lowest 
level gobs, but have been virtually excluded from more 
responsible and higher paying positions.

Discovery has further shown that Chevron ordinarily 
promotes from within its own ranks to fill higher level posi­
tions. The policies and procedures governing this internal 
promotion system have been uniformly applied and have character­
istics which have consistently been found to foster classwide 
discrimination. For example, promotion opportunities have not 
been posted, employees have lacked a formal method of applying
for promotions, and promotion u* UUion candidates have been evaluated on
the basis of subjective criteria. Further, an essentially all- 
white supervisory workforce designates the employees who are to 
receive the gob assignments and training necessary to qualify 
for higher positions and decides who is to be promoted.

- 1 - P&As/Mtn Class Cert



1
1
1
1
1
li
11
r
u

H
2(
21

2/
2.'j

2-1

25
2fi
27

28

7

For the reasons explained below, plaintiffs contend 
that this type of employment system, in which broadly applicable 
policies and practices have resulted in a manifest racial 
imbalance in the workforce, is properly the subject of a class 
action on behalf of black and Hispanic employe*:es .

II.
STATEMENT-^

A- Prior Proceedings

1* Administrative Proceedings

Named plaintiffs, black and Hispanic employees of 
defendant Chevron U.S.A. Inc. initiated this action by filing 
administrative charges of discrimination with the California 
Department of Fair Employment and Housing and the United States 
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The charges, the 
earliest of which was filed on April 30, 1985, alleged that 
Chevron discriminated against the individual complainants and 
Dther black and Hispanic employees (hereinafter "minority 
employees") on the basis of race or national origin with respect 

o pr°motion^  assignments, training, and fair performance 
(valuations.—7 Several of the plaintiffs specifically stated

uction of "document ̂ a r e  Consecutively C u m h ^  for P™-eferrea to herein by

”Fr«ci3' JhC-' .complaining of denial of promotions and p! of • ® charge"
ifferential treatment, a discriminftorv w C k  a?si9 ™ e n t s , 
acial slurs ana iohes, ana Tol^tZnTo,

[Cont'd]

2 P&As/Mtn Class Cert



1

/
8
9
10
11

12

13
14 i
15 
10
17
18
19
20 
21 

22

23

24

25 

2G

27

28

that their charges were made "on behalf of [the complainant] and 
all others . . . similarly aggrieved. Plaintiffs expressly 
alleged discriminatory denial of promotions to a range of jobs 
in the Production Department of the Northern California 
Division, Exploration, Land and Production Department for the 
Western Region (hereinafter "Northern California Division"), 
headquartered in Bakersfield, California.

2/ [Cont'd]
othe?rent °n behalf of "[himself] and other Blacks" and "all 
nh * * * sl™i;}-arlY aggrieved"), discovery documents 1953-54 -Charge of Discrimination of Archie Barefield Jr f n L  '
June 14, 1985, as amended ("Barefield charge") (comllalnina of 
denra! of promotions to himself "and other'miLrUUs 9
eoause of [their) race. Black, and ancestry, Hisoanic") die 

covery document 0002; charge of Discrimination of'sOlvadOr 
Monarrez, filed June 26, 1985 ("Monarrez charge") (comolaininq 
of denial of promotions and traininq to "the cl aqq i  ̂̂
Hispanic employees," and being subject to "slurs, comments and 
jokes derogatory to people of [Mexican] ancestry") discovery 
document 0067-68; Charge of Discrimination of De m4iv n Y 
Williams filed June 27, 1985 ("Williams charge") (complaining 
of denial of promotions, training, equal terms and cnnHifinnC3 f 
employment, and being subject to racial slurs and jokes and a °
1955-1pharnd °^f®?siv<f ^environment"), discovery document 1955, Charge of Discrimination of Pete Flores 7r fii a
July 3, 1985, as amended ("Flores charge") {complaining of 
formance evaluations and denial of promotionsto "Sex?can P 
employees on behalf of [himself] and all others • •
larly aggrieved"), discovery document 1952- Cha aVnf A- .
nation of Johnny Coffee, filed Julv 23 iqoc *  ̂ Discnmi
("Coffee charge") (compia^ing o f  L n ^ ! ^  ^ H o ^ n d  iob assignments to himself, other black employees and "a?, ]ob 
... ..similarly aggrieved"), discovery document 0021* charafof 
Discrimination of defence E. Gordon, filed August 7 ? « 39 °£
( Gordon charge") (complaining of being "continualiL' 
for promotion") , discovery document 0044* Charae n / n 1 3e<pted 
tion of Cornell Bert, filed January 29? 1986 ("Be?t 
(complaining of denial of promotions to himself "Blanks other minorities" and "all others , • 3 or
discovery documents 0004-05. Charge’of Eulas T h o m a ^ f ^ P  ' 
March 10, 1986 ("Thomas charge") (complaining S  "den i ^ ^ f  
equal pay and promotional opportunities becausp , °fBlack"), discovery document 0122. cause of [his] race,

charges. FrancieS' A f i e l d ,  Monarrez, Flores, Coffee and Bert

CL:73 #7 - 3 - P&As/Mtn Class Cert



1
1
i:
1:
l-
i:
](
v,

if
n

2(.
21
2‘2

23
21

25
2G
27
28

The California Department of Fair Employment and Hous­
ing conducted an investigation of several of the charges, focus­
ing not only on the individual discrimination claims, but also 
on whether minority employees were subject, as a group, to 
discrimination m  promotions, assignments, training and other- 
wise. see, e.g., discovery documents 016345-47, 016690-93, 
017047-59 (statistical data) . i/

On October 18, 1985, named plaintiffs filed a charge
against Chevron with the Office of Federal Contract Compliance
Programs of the United States Department of Labor. They claimed
that Chevron had failed to comply with the antidiscrimination
provisions of Executive Order 11246 and had

violated its obligations under the nondis­
crimination and affirmative action provi­
sions of its federal contracts by failing to 
tram, promote, assign Blacks and Hispanics 
to and for higher level jobs within their 
lines of progression and by retaliation and 
harassment on the basis of [complainants'] 
race, color and national origin.

See Exhibit A, at 3, to Declaration of Leon E. Francies, Jr. in 
Opposition to Motion to Transfer, filed July 21, 1986 (herein­
after "Francies Declaration Exhibit"). The Office of Federal 
Contract Compliance Programs conducted an extensive investiga­
tion, resulting in the issuance of a Notification of Results of 
investigation on July 13, 1986, several months after the filing 
3f thS inStant lawsuit. Id. The Notification concluded that 
lamed plaintiffs "have been discriminated against because of 
’heir race, color and national origin through disparate

4 P&As/Mtn Class Cert



1

1

1

i :

i-

1;

1(

Y

If
H

2(
21

25
23
21

25

2G
27
28

7

treatment 
tions . .

supported 
evidence, 
employees

in job assignments, training, [and] promo- 
• • Id. at 15.

The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs 
its findings of discrimination with statistical 
as well as evidence of practices affecting minority 
generally in the Northern California Division:

H 1™  ^oaJ-USi°n.iS suPP°rted by a concentra­tion (3 8 o) of minorities in Operatives, a low 
representation in Craftsmen (23%) which is the 
logical line of progression from Operatives 
and is contrasted by a total lack of represen- 
ation of Blacks and Hispanics in Officials &

aPd a fe^ere under-representation (1.9o Blacks and 0.6% Hispanics) in Profes- s i on 3. _L s •

This conclusion is also supported by a promo­
tion procedure which is entirely reliant on 
subjective evaluations and recommendations by 
Leads, Head Operators and Foremen, positions7 
which are dominated by nonminority males. . . .  1

Policies in general 
nated to employees. are not widely dissemi—

Training and exposure of the tyoe 
broaden knowledge and experience 
requirements of higher level jobs 
tively assigned. . . .

necessary 
to fulfill 
is selec-

to

-  at 15'16’ The Notification further noted that Chevron had 
failed to comply with a Conciliation Agreement between the 
Iff ice of Federal Contract Compliance Programs and Chevron, 
fhich called for Chevron to overcome a severe underutilization" 
>f blacks and Hispanics in managerial and professi<
:d. at 14-15.

onal j obs.

5 P&As/Mtn Class Cert



1
1
1
1
1
1:
11
r
1!
H
2f
21

2i
2.1

21
25
2G
27

2. Judicial Proceedings 
This lawsuit was filed by the named plaintiffs on 

Hay 12, 1986 as a class action to enforce Title VII of the Civil 
Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et sea., the 
Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. S 1981, and the California 
Fair Employment and Housing Act, Government Code § 12900 et 
—  "  on behalf of blacks and Hispanics employed in the Northern 
California Division. Complaint, at 2.V Plaintiffs claim that 
Chevron operates a discriminatory internal promotion system in 
which white employees receive a disproportionate share of the 
higher level jobs. Minority employees have been, and continue 
to be, totally excluded from some higher level jobs. The com­
plaint alleges that promotion decisions are made on a subjective 
basis, by a virtually all-white managerial workforce, without 
objective criteria or guidelines. Id. at 7-8. Nepotism, 
preference for white employees, and discrimination in job 
assignments, training, and compensation are also alleged. id. 
>lainti££s assert that all of these practices constitute

5/
o Kern -ope of the case
ut on March 23, 1987, plaintiffs m™, a *. Callfornia Division,
o broaden the scope o f ^ ^ L e  to I^clud^'th^ ^  ^ ^ ^ - t
alifornia Division, which extends b e y o n d ' K e r n ^ o u ^ v V 0^ 6™  
he southern San Joaquin Valley. The net effect C°Ver
raendment is to increase from three to four fhfn f. the reduction areas, see infra, at n,Umber of
ach production aria carries out the same tvnp^f*0 c°raplaint* 
perations, and its employees are subject toPfhr» production

iea°e
3ministrative charge was filed FebruaJy^S^igs?1^ ^ f* HiS 
Lscovery documents 1956-57 (complaining of'denfli 3 supervisory and managerial pos i t i o n s ^  °f promotions
Jther Hispanic and Black employees " behJ1f °f himself and
: job assignments and on-the-job t^aining?0"^1*111109 °f denial

6 P&As/Mtn Class Cert



, * t k

1 disparate treatment of blacks and Hispanics, and have resulted
2
3

in continuing disparate impact upon those minority employees.

4 B. Facts
5 1. Organization
C a. Northern California Division
7 Chevron is a national corporation with headquarters in
8 San Francisco, engaged in the production and sale of petroleum
9 and natural gas. The Northern California Division, the subject
10 Of this action, has drilled for and produced crude oil, gasoline
11 and natural gas in the south central San Joaquin Valley for many
12 years. See discovery document 100016. The Northern California
13 Division is headed by a division manager who reports directly to
11 the general manager of the Production Department of the Western
15 Region in San Ramon, California ("Western Region"). See
10 discovery document 100708.-/ Headquartered in Bakersfield,
17 California, the Northern California Division had 643 employees
18 at approximately the time the administrative charges were filed
19 in 1985. See infra, at 20.-/
20 The Northern California Division is organized into
21 four oil and gas production areas: (1) the Bakersfield Area,
22
23

near the city of Bakersfield in Kern County; (2) the Taft Area, 
near the city of Taft in Kern County; (3) the Cymric Area, in

24
25
20
27

„ . Y  Th! Western Region oversees all production of 

Proauction D e p a r t ?  “ d

28

CL:7 3 # 7

7/- This total excludes enqineer „ .. . 
neither of which this lawsuit covers. 1 P°sltlons'

" 7 - P&As/Mtn Class Cert



*

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
r
1!
1!
2(
2:
2 :

2:
2:
2:
2C

27

28

the western part of Kern County; and (4) the Coalinga/Kettleman 
Area, outside of Kern County. Each of these areas is managed by 
an area superintendent who reports to the operations superin­
tendent. Discovery document 100688.

The Northern California Division also includes a 
department called Shop and Field Services ("Field Services") 
which consists of craft employees who maintain and repair the 
equipment and plants throughout all four production areas. The 
headquarters, training facilities and shops for Field Services 
are located in the Taft Area. The department is managed by a 
maintenance superintendent who also reports to the operations 
superintendent. See discovery document 100112.

In addition, the Northern California Division has var­
ious support departments, each with its own department head: 
Production Engineering, Drilling, Environmental, and Design and 
Construction Engineering. See discovery documents 020774, 
020776-80.

The heads of the various support departments, along 
with the operations superintendent who manages the production 
areas and Field Services, all report to the division manager.
See discovery document 100112; Smith Deposition, at 356-57.

b. Human Resources Grouo " ------- ----
The Human Resources Group in Bakersfield is the per­

sonnel office for the entire Northern California Division, as 
well as other Chevron entities in the Bakersfield area. Deposi­
tion of George C. Smith (hereinafter "Smith Deposition"), at 
5-11, 38-42. The Human Resources Group is headed by the Human

8 P&As/Mtn Class Cert



t p

1

1
1
1

1

1,
11
r

1!
1!
2(
21
2i
2,:
21

25
2G
27
28

7

Resources Area Manager, who reports to the Human Resources Group 
for the Western Region in San Ramon. id. at 180-81. The Human 
Resources Group coordinates and reviews Northern California Div­
ision hiring, promotions, transfers, job assignments, perfor­
mance evaluations, and terminations, all in accordance with 
policies set forth in Chevron’s corporate personnel manuals, 
Western Region and Division-level instructions, and the collec­
tive bargaining agreement between the Western Region and the 
International Union of Petroleum and Industrial Workers, SIUNA, 
AFL-CIO (hereinafter "collective bargaining agreement"). id. at 
5-11, 70, 81, 92-94, 133-37, 180, 186-87, 200, 205-06, 209-12.
The Human Resources Group maintains copies of Northern Califor­
nia Division personnel records and files, including promotion, 
job assignment, training, and performance evaluation logs and 
files. Id. at 5-6, 70, 81, 92-94, 139, 265-66; Deposition of 
Rosie Ortega (hereinafter "Ortega Deposition"), at 84-101.

The Human Resources Group also prepares an annual 
affirmative action plan -  including numerical goals and an 
evaluation of the progress made toward meeting those goals -  for 
the operations headquartered in Bakersfield. See discovery doc­
ument 100030; Smith Deposition, at 189-99; Deposition of Robert 
Jiminez (hereinafter "Jiminez Deposition"), at 53-64. And 
finally, the Group conducts audits of all Northern California 
Division personnel actions. Discovery document 100030. The 
Plans and audits, covering the entire Northern California Divi­
sion, are submitted to Chevron's Equal Employment Opportunity
Compliance Staff, located in San Francisco. Smith Deposition, at 
189-99.

9 P&As/Mtn Class Cert



c

7
8 
9

10

11

12

13
1-1

13
10

17
18
19
20 

21 

22 

23 
21 

25 
2G

27
28

2. Jobs

Pursuant to corporate policy, the Northern California 
Division staffs its positions by hiring new employees into low 
level trainee jobs, and advancing them by promotion and transfer 
to higher level jobs. Smith Deposition, at 205-06, 209-12; 
Jiminez Deposition, at 25. Higher level jobs are filled by 
outside hiring only if there are no incumbent employees 
qualified for promotion. Id. This basic promotion-from-withi„ 
policy has been in effect for many years.

Following is a description of categories of jobs 
within the Northern California Division, excluding engineer and 
clerical jobs, which are not the subject of this litigation. 
Specific positions are defined in job descriptions developed by 
the western Region and Northern California Division, see, e.g., 
discovery document 100115, and salary ranges are set eitheT^ 
the corporate level or by the single collective bargaining

CL: 73sf 7

8/ For example, Chevron's affirmative micontain the following statement:  ̂ Plans

New employees are not be added to the neuron k 
needs can be filled through transfers or? i  en 
within the department or from other denarhmont- 10ns 
organizations within the Coroorate familv ^
of preference in filling vacancies for re’ °rderments is normally as follows- regular assign-

2.

3.

surplus'pos it ions f16' ernpl° ^ es occupying

employees?1” Pr°m°tion other qualified

Employment of outside applicant. 
— • 7 •_' discovery document 100096 (1983 plan)

-  10 - P&As/Mtn Class Cert



k k

(

t

l

r*
(
t

i

r

1C
11
i/
1C:
U

15
1 (i
17
18
1(J
20

21

22

23
24
25
2G
27
28

7

agreement. See Smith Deposition, at 47-50; discovery documents 
100337-38.

a• Classified Union-represented Positions
(̂-1 Operations employees. Operations employees 

usually are assigned to the production areas and Field Services. 
See discovery documents 020170-83, 020774-80. The entry level 
job in operations in the four production areas is oilfield 
operator trainee. A trainee is advanced to oilfield operator B 
after a year of classroom and on-the-job training, and is then 
eligible for promotion to the full journeyman classification of 
oilfield operator A or higher level jobs. See Smith Deposition, 
at 405; discovery documents 100630, 20263-307. Operators 
maintain the proper rates of production of various kinds of 
wells and surface producing equipment, and perform maintenance 
and minor repairs. See discovery documents 100143-50.

Oilfield operator is the predominant job category in 
the Northern California Division. In 1985, a total of 307 (or 
48%) of the Northern California Division's 643 employees were 
operators. See infra, at 20. Oilfield operators are eligible 
for promotion or transfer to jobs in the other categories, i.e., 
as maintenance employees, technicians, heads and leads, hnd 
salaried employees. See discovery documents 020263-307 (log of

9/ In 1985, according to the collective bargaining agreement, operator A employees were paid $13.99 per hour 
operator 3 employees were paid 513.42 per hour, and operator 
trainees had a 510.68 or 512.68 hourly rate. Discove?y locumeut

11 P&As/Mtn Class Cert



<

tt
(

c

(

1(

11

n

1 :

M
i.r
k

17

ks

is
20
21

22

23
21

25

2G
27
28

#7

promotions), 100762; Smith Deposition, at 335-38, 366, 382, 398, 
405-10, 426, 464, 478-79; Jiminez Deposition, at 40-43.

(2) Maintenance employees. Maintenance jobs are 
filled by the promotion or transfer of operations employees or 
by the hiring of new employees. See discovery documents 
020263-307. Maintenance employees generally are assigned to 
Field Services, see discovery documents 020170-83, but work in 
the same production areas and plants as operators. See, e .g. , 
discovery documents 019152-61. As in operations jobs, an 
employee generally progresses from trainee to B and then is 
eligible for promotion to full journeyman or higher level jobs. 
See discovery documents 100762-64. Mechanics diagnose trouble, 
and perform repair and maintenance work on oilfield and plant 
mechanical equipment. See discovery document 100161. 
Electricians diagnose problems and perform repair, replacement 
and maintenance work on field or plant electrical equipment.
See discovery documents 100188.— ^

In 1985, 121 (or 19%) of the Northern California Divi­
sion's 643 employees were maintenance employees. See infra, 
at 20.

(3) Technicians. Technician jobs are princi­
pally filled by promotion or transfer, usually by operations 
employees. See Jiminez Deposition, at 40-43; Smith Deposition, 
at 351-54. Technicians are non-engineer employees who usually

10/ In 1985, according to the collective bargaininq 
agreement, mechanics and electricians at the A level were paid
, H electricians at the B level wereS i  1 ,2V  1 hour, and trainees were paid $10.68 or $12 68 per hour. Discovery document 100338. ? *0B

12 P&As/Mtn Class Cert



1
2
3
4
5
0
7
8
n
10
11

12
13
14
15
10
17
18
19
20

21

22

23
24
25
20
27
28

7

assist engineers in one of the production areas or smaller
departments of the Northern California Division. See Jiminez 
Deposition, at 18-25; Smith Deposition, at 366, 370-71, 373 ; 
discovery documents 020170-83, 020774-80. These positions do 
not require a degree as a prerequisite, and are graded from T-5 
at the entry level to T-l at the top skill level. See Jiminez 
Deposition, 18-25. Aside from the draftsperson job, these 
positions do not require special qualification.— ^

Thirty-eight Northern California Division employees 
were technicians in 1985. See infra, at 20.

(4) Head and lead positions. Head operator 
positions are filled by promotion of operators, and head and 
lead maintenance positions are filled by promotion of 
maintenance employees. Head operators are journeymen operators 
who direct the work of other operators in the field or plants. 
See discovery documents 100177, 100180. Head mechanics and 
electricians direct the work of crews of other maintenance 
employees. See discovery documents 100152-54, 100182-84. Lead 
mechanics and electricians direct the work of small crews. See 
discovery documents 100158-60, 100185-87.— '

The Northern California Division employed 51 heads and 
leads in 1985. See infra, at 20.

—  In 1985, according to the collective bargaining 
agreement, the salary range for a T-l technician was $2,423- 
$2,934 per month; the range for a T-5 technician was $1,503- 
$1,713 per month. Discovery document 100336.

12/—  In 1985, according to the collective bargaining 
agreement, head operators were paid $15.11 per hour, head 
maintenance employees were paid $15.54 per hour, and lead 
mechanic employees were paid $15.26 per hour. Discovery 
documents 100337-38.

- 13 - P&As/Mtn Class Cert



1
2
3

4

5 
G
7

8 
9
10
11

12

13

b* Salaried Non-represented Positions. Salaried 
positions are usually filled by promotion of Northern California 
Division classified employees or transfer from other Chevron 
organizations. See discovery documents 020263-307; Smith Depo­
sition, at 397-98, 405-10, 426; Jiminez Deposition, at 51-54. 
Salaried supervisory and staff personnel are not covered by the 
collective bargaining agreement. Positions in top management 
are graded Salary Grade 1 and supervisors and staff personnel 
are graded Salary Grades 2-4. See discovery documents 
020170-83, 020774-80.

In 1985, 126 (or 20%) of the Northern California Divi­
sion's 643 employees served in salaried positions. See infra, 
at 20.

14
13
1G
17

18
19
20 
21

(1) Operations assistants. Operations assis­
tants are Salary Grade 4A employees who report to an area fore­
man and perform a variety of foreman support duties, including 
review of operations and programs, preparation of analyses and 
reports, and foreman relief. See discovery documents 100169-70. 
In 1985, the operations assistant position paid $34,900-$47,500
annually. There were 19 operations assistants that year. See 
infra, at 20.

22

23

24 

23 

26

27

28

(2) Foremen. Foremen are first level supervi­
sors in the operations and maintenance areas. They report to 
the area superintendent and area foreman. See discovery docu­
ments 100710-14. Foremen are graded 4A, 3B, or 3A. m  1985, 
the yearly salary ranges were as follows: $34,900-$47,500 for 
4A; $39,200-$53,800 for 3B; and $43,600-$61,000 for 3A. There

CL:73#7 14 P&As/Mtn Class Cert



were 35 foremen in the Northern California Division in 1985. See 
infra, at 20.

(3) Staff positions. Staff positions include 
inspectors, trainers, coordinators, technologists, analysts, 
drilling representatives, construction representatives, and gas 
liquid dispatchers. See discovery documents 020170-83,
020774-80. These jobs have the yearly salary grades of 3A, 3B, 
and 4A. Ic3. Sixty-eight employees held such positions in 1985.

(4) Area foremen. Each of the production areas 
has at least one area or senior foreman who assists the area 
superintendent and supervises the work of other foremen and 
operations assistants. See discovery documents 100134-42, 
020170-33. All six area foremen are Salary Grade 2 employees.
In 1985, their salaries ranged from $49,000 to $69,000.

(5) Top management. The seven Salary Grade 1 top 
management in the Northern California Division in 1985, excluding! 
engineers, consisted of the division manager, operations suoer- 
intendent, and area superintendents for the four production areas 
and for Field Services. See discovery documents 020170-83.

3. Promotions

The Northern California Division fills salaried and 
classified positions by promotion or transfer, see discovery 
documents 020263-307, in accordance with policies established at 
the corporate and Western Region levels and by the Northern 
California Division and the Human Resources Group. In addition, 
classified positions are governed by the collective bargaining 
agreement. See Smith Deposition, at 205-12.

15 P&As/Mtn Class Cert



/

8
9

10

11

12

13

1-1

15
1(5
17
18

19

20 
21 

22 

23 
21 

25 
2G
27
28

CL:73#7

Essentially, incumbent employees are appointed to 
higher level positions, both classified and salaried, based on 
supervisory recommendation and performance evaluations, until 
the administrative charges were filed, the Northern California 
Division had no procedures for posting vacancies or for em- 
ployees to apply for positions.

a• Salaried Positions

Once a vacancy occurs in a salaried position, and the 
superintendent or department head with the vacancy receives 
authorization to fill the position, the Human Resources Group 
routes a request for candidates to all production areas, Field 
Services and other departments within the Northern California 
Division. Each superintendent or department head then solicits 
suggestions for candidates from management personnel. Smith 
Deposition, at 398, 430-32, 447-54, 460, 464-70, 473-80. The
request for candidates is not publicized within the workforce. 
Id. at 320.

A qualification sheet for each candidate is prepared 
by management and submitted to the Human Resources Group. one 
qualification sheet form is used for all foreman positions, and 
one for all operations assistant positions throughout the 
Northern California Division. Id. at 320, 324-26, 328-33 11/

13/

given ratings are the following^ ""taStful^nd £andjdates. are 
relationships"; "accepts responsibility"?"able ^understand others"; "initiates task^ abCeofc? llsten and
to changes"; "dependable under stress"- a n d ^  • ??•'"9 "; "adaPts 
decisions." See discovery documents 016335-36*1Ung t0 makS

[Cont'd]

- 16 - P&As/Mtn Class Cert



1
1
1
1
1
1.
Jl
r
li
1!
2(
21
21
2::
2-j
2fi
2G
27
28

7

These qualification sheets were devised by Northern California 
Division management and the Human Resources Group. id. 
at 320-33. Human Resources Group personnel use the completed 
qualification sheets in preparing a "candidate slate." The 
"candidate slate" is then sent to the division manager, who 
makes a selection.— ^

k• Classified Positions
When a vacancy occurs in the positions of head, lead, 

oilfield operator A or technician, the superintendent or 
department head with the vacancy requests permission from the 
operations superintendent or division manager to fill the 
position. Smith Deposition, at 212-16. Once permission is 
granted, the Human Resources Group routes a request for 
candidates to all superintendents and department heads in the 
Northern California Division. Smith Deposition, at 216-25.

A qualification sheet for each candidate is prepared 
3y management and submitted to the Human Resources Group. Smith 
)epo sit ion, at 223 . The Human Resources Group then prepares a

13/ [Cont'd]

Among the criteria for which operations 
ates are given ratings are the followir- nfc candl~

14/
__ . Until recently, a recommendation was sent to
eneral manager of the Western Region for review ° the 
efore the selection became final? In Februa™ i qSv aP£roval 
estern Region delegated to the Northern 1?87'.the
uthority to give final approval to all se^eif°rni% DlVision its asitions. Smith Deposition, at 471-74 lectlons for salaried

17 P&As/Mtn Class Cert



1
1
l:
1:
i-
i'
k

r,

n

n

2(

21
2 2

28
21

25
20
27
28

7

"candidate slate" based on the completed qualification sheets,
and a review of each candidate's performance evaluations.^/
The area superintendent or department head with the vacancy 
makes a recommended selection. Id. at 292-99. The 
recommendation must then be reviewed by the operations 
superintendent or division manager. id.

c. Recent Developments

In late 1985, after the filing of the administrative 
charges, the Northern California Division first began to post 
bulletin board notices of job vacancies in classified positions 
See Smith Deposition, at 233-42. The notices inform employees 
Of vacancies, and advise them to speak to their supervisors 
about the vacancies. .Management retains complete discretion to 
submit an employee’s name for consideration. An employee cannot 
apply directly to be considered if management fails to submit 
his or her name for consideration. Id. at 285-91.

The practice of posting notices of job vacancies has 
not been extended to salaried positions. Id. at 320.
/
/
/

15/ Human Resources Group personnel ^ i■OP candidates have "relatively equal ^ e r m i n e  if the
•eposition, at 481-83. Pursuant to-.the c o l W H , 1̂ '  ?m *th 
greement, the most senior of the e m p l o v e ^ ^ ^ ^  ^ g a i n i n g  
qual qualifications is to be selected m  J  
00339. Seniority is determined on t L  basis' o V l e n o T T  ervice in the Northern California Division f lanfth of eposition, at 280-85. 10n as a whole* Smith

13 P&As/Mtn Class Cert



1
1
1
1
1
1.
ll
r
1!
is
2(
21

2'

2:
2-j
~>r

 ̂* Plaintiffs' Promotion Claims
Named plaintiffs claim that they have been denied pro- 

motions to salaried, W  head and lead,” / technician,” / raain_ 
tenance,— / and oilfield operator h— / positions. These same 
promotional claims are made on behalf of the class of black and
Hispanic Northern California Division employees. Complaint, at 
7-9 .

In 1985, black and Hispanic employees held 29% of 
operations jobs. See i_nfra, at 20. These positions constitute 
the pool from which higher positions are filled. See supra, 
at 11-15. Despite having a substantial representation in the 
pool, black and Hispanic employees have been foreclosed from 
advancing through Chevron's internal promotion system. As the 
following chart demonstrates, for example, in 1985, black and 
Hispanic employees held only three of 126 salaried positions and 
only one of 51 head or lead jobs.
/
/
/

16/ _
Foreman, see declarations of Archie Rarefioi^ t Cornell Bert; operations assisi-̂ n*- „ j n, Bafefleld, Jr. and Pete Pir,roe T P ^ 1 assistant, see declarations of Bert

Gonzales" l i d ' ^ r e s a ^ a y Z s t i l w ' ' ' 1' 1" W U 1” ”s, Ismael ' 
of Leon E. Francies, Jr. and Bustin0s?SPe°t0r' —  declarations

^ See declarations of Bert, Coffee Gordon, Gonzales, and Monarrez. ' Flores' nancies,
18/—  See declarations of Flores.and Gordon.
19/

declarations of Monarrez and Thomas.
20/
—  See declarations of Coffee, Thomas and Williams.

19 P&As/Mtn Class Cert



r>

8

9
10 
11 
12 

13 
11 
15 
10
17
18
19
20 
21 

22 

23 
21 

25 
2G
27
28

Catego ry
Salaried 
Grade 1 

2
3
4 

OA
Total

Head & Lead 
Operator 

H. Maintenance 
L. Maintenance Total
Technician
Total

Maintenance
A
B
Trainee
Total

OperationsA
B
Trainee
Total

TOTAL

1985 Racial Composition 
Black & Hispanic White & Other

0
0
1
1
1
3

1
0
0
1

(2%)

(2%)

3 (8%)

13
3

_3
19 (16%)

47
33
10
90 (29%) 

116

8
6

56
35
18

123 (98%)

30
10
10
50 (98%)

35 (92%)

83
18
_1
102 (84%)

105
67
45

217 (71%) 
527

Total

8
6

57
36
19

126

31
10
10
51

38

96
21
_4_

121

152
100
55

307
643

CL:73 #7

see discovery documents 020170-83, 020774-80 (February 28, l985 
listing, excluding engineers and clerical employees).

The following chart summarizes Human Resources group 
records showing the number of promotions to various job
categories from ftpril 1980-December 1984, prior to the filing of 
plaintiffs' administrative charges.

Category
Salaried 
Heads & Leads 
Technician 
Maintenance

nl . . j-980-34 PromotionsBlack & Hispan i o. White & Other
1 (1%)0 (0%)
4 (12%) 

10 (11%)

94 (99%) 
35 (100%) 
29 (88%) 
78 (89%)

Total
95
35
33
88

-  20 - P&As/Mtn Class Cert



documents

8

9

10

11

12

13

14
15

16

17

18

19

20 
21 
22

23

24

25

26

27

28

See discovery documents 020263-307 (promotion log).12/
Plaintiffs claim that promotion decisions adverse to 

them individually and to the class generally have been made by a 
virtually all-white supervisorial and managerial workforce, on a 
subjective and nepotistic basis. Complaint, at 7-8. Plain­
tiffs' initial discovery has established the exclusion of black 
and Hispanic employees from the Northern California Division's 
management. The following chart reflects the racial composition 
of the Northern California Division's top management, area 
foremen and foremen for 1981-86.

Year Black & H i span ic White & Other Total
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985

0
0
0
0
0

47 
50
48 
45 
48

47 
50
48 
4 5
4 8— 7

i scovery documents 020115-83, 020755- 80.

21/
_ Edition, while 30% of the promotions from oilfield
operator B to operator A in the years 1980-86 were minority" t-ho 
average seniority of nonminority promotees was only 38 months 
compared to an average seniority of 46 months for minori*-v ' 
promotees. Declaration of Beth Marlin. Moreover, only four of 
the 30 operator B employees promoted to operations assistant 
maintenance and other jobs aside from operator A durinq the
01669l" 020263-30?.blaCk ^  His?anic- *ee discovery documents

22/
o Xn 1985' as a result of the merger with Gulf oil
Company, the northern California Division employed itf fir*. a 
only black foreman. Deposition of Darlene R? Beierle
j;. n  , " . . S t ; 1;

S B & S F * u -
of discrimination. DeclaratioJi o / c S L e U  lerI T t / l

CL:73#7
-  21 -

VblcccH

P&As/Mtn Class Cert



1
1
1
1
1!
h

r
1!
i<
2(

21

25
2:
21

25
2G
27
28

7

The subjective nature of the selection criteria is 
also clear.— 7 The Office of Federal Contract Compliance 
Programs found that the "promotion procedure . . .  is entirely 
reliant on subjective evaluations and recommendations by Leads, 
Head Operators and Foremen, positions which are dominated by 
nonminority males." Francies Declaration Exhibit, at 15. The 
administrative report also included findings that "minorities 
were denied information and access to jobs providing upward 
mobility," that performance evaluations "rely heavily on
subjective criteria," and confirmed the "existence of nepotism." 
Id. at 6-7.

4• Job Assignment
a• Assignment Policies

Northern California Division management assigns clas­
sified employees to work on a relief basis in salaried position! 
and in higher level classified positions, such as head and lead. 
See discovery documents 018887-019095 (log of relief assign- 
nents). Employees gain experience and skills for promotion to 
ligher level jobs by working relief assignments. Moreover, an 
employee working a relief assignment is also paid at the higher 
-evel rate. See discovery documents 100579-80, 100585.

The collective bargaining agreement permits management 
o assign classified employees to work relief in higher paid

23/ See supra, at 16-17 n. 13- infra oc 
ualification sheets and performanceTvaliiah 1 26 nn* 2? & 29- 
uch subjective criteria as "courteous iJ rpi2?-f°r^  lnclude 
lication," "working with others " ^ ^ f ^ 10nships' "aP“
hip." "commitment ?o job," " d e c i s i v f n ^ s / ^ f 1^  ”lead^ -  supports company policy." ' lf assurance, and

22 P&As/Mtn Class Cert



1
2

3
4

5
G
7
8 

9
10

11

12
13
M
13
1G
17
IS
19
20 

21 

22 

23
21

25
2G
27
28

classifications, but it imposes no restrictions on managerial 
discretion in the selection of employees. Discovery documents 
100309 10. As is the case with promotion opportunities, there 
is no procedure for employees to learn of the availability of 
specific relief work and no application procedure. Smith 
Deposition, at 109; discovery document 100309.

b* Plaintiffs' Job Assignment Claims
Named plaintiffs claim that they have been denied job 

assignments to more responsible, higher paying positions, both 
alaried and classified. ^ These same claims are generally 

asserted on behalf of the class. Complaint, 7-8. Initial dis­
covery confirms that the named plaintiffs' claims reflect class­
wide patterns in relief assignments. For example, minority 
employees have been almost entirely excluded from relief assign­
ments in positions other than operations assistant. In 1984-86, 

were only three instances of classified minority employees 
relieving in foreman, trainer, construction representative or 
salaried positions other than operations assistant. See 
discovery documents 018887-019095. in contrast, there were 80 
instances of non-minority classified employees relieving in such 
positions during the same time period. Accordingly, the Office 
of Federal Contract Compliance Programs noted: "[Exposure of 
the type necessary to broaden knowledge and experience to 
fulfill requirements of higher level jobs is selectively 
assigned,'• Francies Declaration Exhibit, at 16, and "[t]here has

24/ See declarations of plaintiffs.

CL:73 #7 23 - P&As/Mtn Class Cert



1
1

1
1

1
1!
II
r
it
H
2(

21

2.:
21

25

26

27

28

7

been a total lack of Blacks and Hispanics in . . . relief 
assignments for Foreman." id. at 16.

5. Training
a• Training Policies
In order to staff maintenance jobs, the Northern 

California Division provides a maintenance training program 
developed and coordinated by the division trainer. Discovery 
document 100754-61; Deposition of derry D. Troxel (hereinafter 
"Troxel Deposition"), at _  (page citation to be supplied when 
transcript becomes available). Operations employees with two 
years of service in the Northern California Division and mechan­
ical ability are eligible for entry into the training program. 
Discovery documents 100671, 100757.«/ The maintenance superin.
tendent selects the operations employees who are to receive 
maintenance training. Foreshee Deposition, at The mainten­
ance training program is divided into two parts. Upon success­
ful completion of part one of the training program, the trainee 
becomes a maintenance B employee. Upon successful completion of 
part two, the maintenance B employee is eligible for advancement 
:o maintenance k. See discovery documents 100762-64.

The Northern California Division also provides 
idvanced training for selected operations and maintenance

25/ _.Chevron also operates a divi^inn-n^o . • •or entry-level operator employees , rainin3 progra
00717-18; Troxel Deposition, at V 100715
oreshee (hereinafter "Foreshee D^sition"? a ^ ° n ? Charles ion to be supplied when tran^rriJ k '' at __ (page cita-
ilfield operator program^uti^izes^uniformStrainina^^ * ? eesson plans, and instructional aids. i 9 ---nuals'oreshee Deposit ion, at _ .  Tr°Xel DeP°sition, at _

24 P&As/Mtn Class Cert



1
1
1
1
1
1:
H
r
1!
H
2(
21

2S
2.'
21

2f)

2G
27
28

7

employees. See discovery documents 100717-18; Foreshee 
Deposition, at Troxel Deposition, at Management and
training program officials make the selections into the advanced 
courses. Foreshee Deposition, at Troxel Deposition, at

b- Plaintiffs' Training Claims
Several named plaintiffs claim they were discrimina- 

torily denied training. W  These claims are also made on behal£

of the class. Complaint, at 7-8. while initial discovery has 
not yielded statistical data, the administrative report of the 
Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs found that 
"classroom training had been denied to some of the complainants, j 
external training courses to enhance promotability to higher j
levels were not extended to minorities," and training was "selec-J 
lively assigned." Francies Declaration Exhibit, at 6 and 15.

^• Per formance Evaluations 
a• Evaluation Policies

The Northern California Division generally evaluates 
the performance of its employees every two years, using ̂ s i n g l e  
set of performance evaluation forms developed at the corporate 
level. Ortega Deposition, at 22-23, 52-53.12/ The Human 
Resources Group solicits and reviews the evaluations prepared by 
Northern California Division management. id. The completed

26/ _ . ,—  See declarations of Floretmd Williams. ' rancies» Monarrez, Thomas
27/—  Employees in their first voar- ~ ,

.ted every three months, id. Ortega DeposUionT!;? 5!”  SValU'

25 P&As/Mtn Class Cert



1
1
1
1

1
11
11
r
if
u
2(
21

2S
23
21

25
20
27
28

evaluations are kept in Human Resources Group files. One form 
is used for all operator A and B, maintenance A and B, and head 
and lead employees in the Northern California D i v i s i o n . ^ /  one 
form is used for all salaried employees.

b* Plaiatiffs' Performance Evaluation Claims 
Named plaintiffs claim that Chevron's performance 

evaluations use subjective criteria that adversely affect them 
and blacks and Hispanics generally. Complaint, at 8.M/ The 
Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs not only found 
improper evaluation of named plaintiffs' performance, but 
broadly applicable problems:

There is no written policy or directi 
providing guidance on preparing perfo 
evaluations. Training on preparing e 
ations is limited to a section of the 
visory skills course. The evaluation 
selves rely heavily on subjective cri 
i.e., Application, Working with Other 
Leadership, Commitment to Job, Commun 
tion,^ etc. in an interview, one area 
superintendent was asked to define "c

skiHs." He resoonded: "The 
ability to work with other people. i

ve for 
rmance 
valu- 
super- 

s them- 
t e r i a ; 
s,
ica-
ommun- 
f the

2 8/
initiative^" "application' inr ^ de' ™>ng others, ility," and "leadership " '  ̂• in  ̂ Wlt  ̂others," "dependa-
ddition, the form requires tff sipe?vis£r'?°Um?nt 10°569. m  valuation of the employee. Id. ? fc giVe a summarY

Separate evaluation forms were used for •ions. see discovery documents 1 0 0 4 4 4 - 4 5 techmcian posi-
29/ .

working with others^ " e f f e c H u ^ 011 include, among others,
anagement objectives," "commnmentStoUjobr"S"oric!"Japtmg to new ideas," "decisiveness/^i f ori9mating and 
iscovery document 100457. In additi^ t? 3,” "00' 
ipervisor to give a summary evaluation if Jhe employee!” ! /

See declarations of plaintiffs.

26 P&As/Mtn Class Cert



1
2
3

4

5

6
7

8 
9

10

11

12
13

14

15 

10

17

18

19

20 

21 

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

voice is loud or soft, eye contact, timid, 
lack of confidence."

Francies Declaration Exhibit, at 15. The Notification of 
Investigation reported that the summary evaluation section of the 
performance evaluations, for many minority employees, was "sub­
jectively rated lower." It also reported that evaluations were 
arbitrarily prepared. Francies Declaration Exhibit, at 7.

7• Absence of Validation Studies
Chevron has never performed any industrial psycholo­

gical studies supporting the fairness or validity of the selec­
tion procedures used by the Northern California Division in
promotions, job assignments, training, or performance evalua-
. • 31/tion.—

8- Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs 
Conciliation Agreement
In April 1984, the Office of Federal Contract 

Compliance Programs and Chevron entered into a Conciliation 
Agreement to alleviate "a severe underutilization of Blacks and 
Hispanics in Officials and Managers and Professionals." Francies

31/ _ . \E -9-• Smith Deposition, at 226, 498, 507; Troxel 
ltion, at see also Plaintiffs' Third Request forDepos:

Production, request 13, filed December 24, 1986 (requesting 
studies); Stipulation and Order Re-Responses to Plaintiffs' 
Third Request for Production of Documents, stipulation 1(f) 
filed February 9, 1987 (stipulation to produce any studies)- 
Defendant s Initial Response to Plaintiffs' Third Document 
Request, Requests Nos. 5, 7, 14 and 18, filed February 9, 1987 (failing to produce any studies).

CL:73 #7 - 27 - P&As/Mtn Class Cert



1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 
9
10
11

12

13
M
15
10
17
18
19
20 

21 

22

23
24
25 
20

27
28

Declaration Exhibit, at 15. The Conciliation Agreement required
Chevron to alleviate underrepresentation of minority employees
in salaried positions in the Northern California Division. id.
The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Program's Notification
of Results of Investigation found that Chevron had failed to
perform its obligations under the Conciliation Agreement:

Our investigation further indicates that at the time of 
the last Equal Employment Opportunity review of the 
contractor's Affirmative Action program in April 1984,
fl^<3,1T̂ 3S 1!?cluded a severe underutilization of Blacks and Hispanics in Officials & Managers and Profes­
sionals. During ̂ the course of this investigation, a 
^ ^ enYear analysis was performed using 1980 and 1985 
EEO 1 reports. The following trends were observed:
Year Catego ry Incumbents Blacks Hispanic

Officials & Managers 98 0 0% 3 3.1%Officials & Managers 120 0 0% 0 0%
Professionals 57 1 1.7% 1 1.7%Professionals 154 2 1.9% 1 0. 6%

1980 
1985
1980 
1985

Corrective Action to address underutilization of 
Blacks and Hispanicsin the above two categories was 
included in a Conciliation Agreement and consisted of 
a commitment by Chevron to maintain and monitor an 
inventory of classified (non-exempt) minorities and 
females together with their qualifications to assure 
tnat those employees are provided with the same 
opportunities as other qualified employees to train 
for advancement into professional and supervisory 
positions. There is no evidence that the inventory 
has been prepared or maintained. a request for thp 
inventory resulted in submission of a list of minority 
employees by number showing job title, racial ^
designation and hire date.

Id. In addition, the head of the Human Resources Group admits 
that the Northern California Division has failed to meet 
placement rates that the Conciliation Agreement set forth for
promotion of blacks and Hispanics to salaried positions. Smith 
Deposition, at 96-103.

CL:73 # 7 - 28 - P&As/Mtn Class Cert



I

ll
1
1:
1:
l-
n
k

i,
i,c
u
2C
21

22

2,1

21

25
2G
27
28

l

III.
ARGUMENT

Plaintiffs seek to certify this case as a class action 
on behalf of

all current, former and future black and 
Hispanic persons employed on or after 
April 30, 1983 in Chevron U.S.A. Inc.'s 
Production Department of the Northern 
California Division, Exploration, Land and 
Production Department for the Western 
Region, excepting clerical employees and 
engineers, who have been or continue to be 
or may in the future be subject to 
discrimination on the basis of race or 
national origin.

The prerequisites to a class action are enumerated in
Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: (1) the 
class must be "so numerous" as to make joinder impracticable;
(2) there must be "questions of law or fact common to the 
class"; (3) the class representative's claims must be "typical 
of the claims of other class members? and (4) the class repre­
sentative must "fairly and adequately protect the interests of 
the class." Fed. R. civ. P. 23(a). Where those prerequisites 
are satisfied, a class action may be maintained if "the oarty 
opposing the class has acted . . .  on grounds generally appli­
cable to the class, thereby making appropriate . . . relief with

iIii
I;
i

respect to the class as a whole." Fed. R. Civ. p. 23(b) (2)
In order to establish that their action warrants 

Rule 23 class treatment, "plaintiffs need not prove a prima 
facie case on the merits or convince the court that they will 
triumph on the merits at trial." Kraszewski v. state P.r, m e  
Co^, 27 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) (hereinafter "FEP") 27, 29 
(N.D. Cal. 1981) (citing Eisen v. Carlisle & J a ^ miin. 417 n .s

29 PSAs/Mtn Class Cer



1
1
1
1
1
1
r
1!
1!
2(
21
22

2.'
2i
25
2G
27
28

7

156, 167 (1974)). while a Title VII class action must, like any 
other action, withstand a rigorous analysis under Rule 23, see 
General Tel. Co. of Southwest v. Falcon. 457 U.S. 147, 161 
(1982), "a trial court must consider the broad remedial purposes 
of Title VII and must liberally interpret and apply Rule 23 so 
as not to undermine the purpose and effectiveness of Title VII 
in eradicating class-based discrimination." Gay v. Waiters' and 
Dairy Lunchmen's Union, 549 F.2d 1330, 1334 (9th Cir. 1977). 
Employment discrimination actions "are often by their very nature 
class suits, involving classwide wrongs." East Texas Motor 
Freight Systems, Inc, y. Rodriquez, 431 U.S. 395, 405 (1977).
The case now before this Cour t »involv [es] classwide wrongs" and 
is therefore suitable for class treatment under Rule 23.

This Action Satisfies All Pr er pgn i ci t-■es of Rule 23(a)
Plaintiffs have satisfied all of the prerequisites to 

=lass certification imposed by Rule 23(a): numerosity, 
commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation.

1* — 6 Class of Approximately 116 Minority Employees Is So
Numerous As To Make Joinder Impracticable 
Au assessment of this first prerequisite ideally 

eflects the specific circumstances of each case, and not simply 
count of class members. Garcia v. Gloor. 618 F.2d 264, 267 

5th Cir. 1980); Kraszewski, 27 PEP at 29; see also 3B J. Moore s 
’ Kennedy' Moore's Federal Practice (hereinafter "Moore") 
23.05(1], at 23-150 to -151 (2d ed. 1985) ("(N]o hard and fast

umber rule can . . . be stated, since 'numerosity' is tied to

- 30 - P&As/Mtn Class Cert



G

7
8 
9

10

11 
12 
1.3 
11 
15 
1G
17
18
19
20 
21 
22 
23 
21 

25 
2G
27
28

impracticability' of joinder under the specific circumstances.") 
However, it is safe to say that a class with one hundred or more 
members almost certainly satisfies the numerosity requirement. 
Kraszewski, 27 FEP at 29.—  ̂ Indeed, courts have generally held 
joinder to be impracticable for classes of more than 40 or 45 
members. See 3B Moore fl 23.05[1], at 23-151 to -155 (classes 
with fewer than 21 members generally held too small; classes of 
21 to 40 members "evoke[] mixed responses"; classes with more 
than 40 members generally held sufficient)^ of. B. Schlei &
P. Grossman, Employment Discrimination 1242 (2d ed. 1983) (courts 
reluctant to certify class with less than 45 members) .

Here, the number of incumbent black and Hispanic 
Northern California Division employees allegedly subject or 
subjected to discrimination in promotion, job assignment, 
performance evaluation, and training practices (i.e., those 
employed m  the Northern California Division as of February,

32/
/c.. 77 ^ee* Griffin v. Burns, 570 F.2d 1065. 1072-75(5th Cir. 1978) (123 members); Gay v. Waiters' and Dairv
Lunchmen s Union, 549 F.2d at l U T T r irmembers) 7 ~ s i f v
fellow Freight System, Inc., 529 F.2d 721, 734 (5th~cI7--1776^
(110 members "clearly . . . sufficient . . . to meet thi 
numerosity requirement!] ") ; Kirkland v. New York 
Correctional Services, 520 F72d 420, 427 (
members), cert, denied, 429 U.S. 823 (1976); De Gidio v 11? 
Perpich, 612 F.Supp. 1383, 1386 (D.Minn. 1985)— (160 members) . 
^ftin v. Housing Authority of City of Atlanta. 86 F .I ? D ?  320 
321 (N.D. Ga. 1980) (at least 100 members). '

33/ _, ?---9 • ' Brady v. Thurston Motor Lines, 726 v ia
n o « ^ 45 (4th Cir’) (Members), cert, denied, 469 u s 827 (i984) ; Horn v. Associated WholesaIe~Grocers. Tnn
l70' 275— 6"TlOth Cir. 1977) (46 members?- Kornbluh v s t ^ r n .  , 
Foster Co,, 73 F.R.D. 307, 330 (S.D. Ohio inf? (hb L  ? *
5la?rs) 3Cele'̂, 401 F'Supp- 706' 709 <E-D- Wi = - 1975) (54

CL:73#7 - 31 - P&As/Mtn Class Cert



-  •

1
1
i:
1:
1
n

1(
Yi

Y

Y.

2C
21
22

23
21
25
2G
27
28

7

1985, excepting engineers and clerical workers)^/ is approx­
imately 116.— / The number of former and future minority 
employees is indefinite. The sheer size of the class therefore 
makes joinder impracticable; class treatment is essential. See 
Kraszewski, 27 FEP at 29.

2* The^ Are Significant Questions of Law and Fact Common 
to the Class

Subsection (2) of Rule 23(a) requires that there be 
"questions of law or fact common to the class" before an action 
may be certified. This is not to say that every question of law 
or fact must be common to every member of the class, however. 
Int'l Molders' and Allied Workers' Local Union Ho. 164 v.
Nelson, 102 F.R.d . 457, 461 (N.D. Cal. 1983); Kraszewski, 27 FEP 
at 29 (citing Martinez v. Bechtel Corp., 11 FEP 898 (N.D. Cal.

34/
Prior to early 1936, there was no aoplication 

procedure for promotion to any positions within the Northern 
California Division. (Even now, there is no apolication 
procedure for promotion to unclassified positions.) Accordinalv 
all those minority employees described above, with the exertion 
of any trainees who may have left the company as trainees 'have
29in 32n9 ' °f Promoti?n* Smith Deposition^?238-43291, 320. All of the employees, including terminated trained 
have been subject to Chevron's job assignment, performance evaluation, and training practices.

3 5/ „. , _s_upra, at 20. In its answer to plaintiffs'
complaint, Chevron "admits and avers that there were 101 ner.o 
who are Blacx and/or Hispanic employed by it in oilfield P 
operations jobs m  Kern County as of February 28, 1986 " 
Defendant's Answer, at 3. While that figure may be
who^re^cler ical^orkers, ̂ t^is^efiniti ^  miS°r*ty employees 
purposes of this lawsuit'because it doe/not aScouilt/for ̂  ^  
minorities employed in the Northern California Division1q 
Coalmga-Kettleman area outside Kern County. Further the 
figure does not include minority employees who mau y. '
Chevron's employ prior to February 28 1986 or who 6been hired since. ' 6/ or who may have

32 P&As/Mtn Class Cert



1
2
3
4
5
G
7
8 
9
10
11
12
13
11

1975) ) . It demands only "that a question of law or fact be 
presented which is shared in the grievances of the prospective 
class as defined." 3B Moore fl 23.06 [1] , at 23-173 (footnotes 
and emphasis omitted); see also Nichols v. Mobile Board of 
Realtors, Inc., 675 F.2d 671, 676 (5th Cir. 1982) (issues 
subject to generalized proof and applicable to class as a whole 
must predominate over issues subject only to individualized 
proof). in Harriss v. Pan American World Airways, Inc., 74 
F.R.D. 24, 41 (N.D. Cal. 1977), Judge Schwarzer set forth a 
framework for this inquiry tailored to the employment 
discrimination context:

(i) What is 
employment practic 
peculiarly affects 
or is it genuinely 
impact.

the nature of the unlawful 
e charged —  is it one that 
only one or a few employees 
one having class-wide

15
1G
17
18
19
20 
21 
22
23
24
25 
2G 
27
28

CL:73 #7
i

(ii) How uniform 
relevant employment pr 
considering matters su 
force; number of plant 
involved; extent of di 
conditions, occupation 
degree of geographic d 
employees and of intra 
fers and interchanges; 
ization of administrat 
opposed to the degree

or diverse are the 
actices of the employer, 
ch as: size of the work 
s and installations 
versity of employment 
s and work activities; 
ispersion of the 
—company employee trans- 
degree of decentral- 
ion and supervision as 
of local autonomy.

(iii) How uniform or diverse is the 
membership of the class, in terms of the 
likelihood that the members' treatment will involve common questions.

(iv) What is the nature o f the e m p lo y e r 's  
management organization as it relates to the 
degree of centralization and uniformity of
pracu2es?n,plOYment 3nd personnel policies and

(v) What is the length of the time soan 
covered by the allegations, as it relates ?o 
fhe degree of probability that similar 
conditions prevailed throughout the oeriod

33 P&As/Mtn Class Cert



1
2
3

4

5

6
7

8 
9

10
11
12
13

14

15 

1G

17

18

19

20 
21 
22
23

24

25

26

27

28

CL: 7 3#7

Application of the Harriss criteria to the facts and 
allegations of this case leaves little doubt that the 
commonality requirement is satisfied here.

a’ The purported effect of the alleged discrimina­
tory employment practices is classwide in scope 

With respect to the first criterion, the nature of the 
alleged discrimination is such that its purported effect extends 
to the class at large. As noted su£ra, at 20, a simple work­
force analysis reveals a disproportionately low representation 
of blacks and Hispanics in upper-level gobs for which class 
members are eligible under the promotion-from-„ithi„ system. 
While minority employees constituted 29% of the operations 
workforce, they held only three of 126 salaried positions and 
one of 51 head and lead positions in 1985. Id. The actual rate 
of selection of minority employees to salaried, head and lead, 
technician and maintenance jobs is significantly less than 
expected. See su£ra, at 1,-20. Discovery and administrative 
investigative findings also establish classwide adverse impact 
in gob assignments, training, and performance evaluations. See 

Supra' at 23"24' 25' 26-27. Snd inasmuch as the promotion 
system relies upon job assignments, training, and performance 
evaluations, they, too, contribute to the classwide lack of 
opportunity for black and Hispanic advancement within Chevron's
Northern California Division as reflected by statistical dispar- 
ities in promotion. ,

Thus, it cannot be said that Chevron's promotion
system "peculiarly affects only one or a ,y une or a few employees." See

- 34 - P&As/Mtn Class Cer



«  «

1
1
1
1.
1
1!
II
i:
]i

H
2(
21
2i
2.1

21
2f)
20
27
28

7

Kunez v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.. 37 FEP 124, 125-26 (E.D.
Mo. 1985) (claim of uniform exclusion from higher level jobs 
presents common question of whether employer has discriminated 
by denying overall upward mobility). in Martinez v. Bechtel. 11 
FEP 898, 903 (N.D. Cal. 1975), this Court held the commonality 
requirement satisfied by allegations of discrimination plus 
statistical evidence that few class members were employed in the 
position in question. See also Karan v, Nabisco, Inc.. 17 FEP 
507, 517 (W.D. Pa. 1978) (commonality requirement may be satis­
fied by statistical evidence that employer's practices have 
classwide impact); Ellis v. Naval Air Rework Facility, 404 
F.Supp. 391, 396, 13 (N.D. Cal. 1975) (commonality requirement 
held satisfied by showing of common threat of discrimination 
towards all class members). So too is commonality established 
here by the allegations of classwide discrimination and evidence 
that the adverse impact of promotions, job assignments, 
training, and performance evaluations has been felt by class 
members on a classwide basis.— /

3 6/
~ ~  t is.noted su^ra, plaintiffs need not convince the
Court, at this stage of the proceedings, that they "'will DrP. vail on the merits.'" Kraszewski, 27 FEP at 79 
^Mackey In^l, 452 F.5T 4 24 , 427 (5th Cir! ?971??! 
ingly, statistics or administrative findings may be sufficient 
for class certification even though, as proof of discrimfn*t?
ey may be less than definitive. See Duncan v. Tennessee q^ '  

F.R.D. 21 (M.D. Tenn. 1979) ; see also Walls v rTTv—TTt—n— i 
28 Fed. R. serv. 2d 316 (N. D.~Tex7T97^T (class cer111i e ^ land f

OEportunity v. MgcT Tl F.H.D. 666 s
[Cont'd]

35 P&As/Mtn Class Cert



1 b.
2
3
4

G
7
8 
9
10
11
12
13
11
15
10
17
18
19
20 
21 
22
23
24
25 
2G
27
28

CL:73#7

b* The alleged discriminatory impact is the product 
of uniform employment practices 

The statistical evidence of discrimination noted 
g.9Pra' at 20 and 21, is the result of several uniform employment 
practices. Most important is that the procedures by which 
Chevron fills vacancies by promotion in salaried and classified 
positions are the same for all areas and departments within the 
Northern California Division, and apply to employees in the var­
ious related job categories. See supra, at 15-18. For each 
promotion, no matter the area or department, the Human Resources 
Group routes to all production areas, Field Services, and other 
departments within the Northern California Division a request 
for employee candidates who can be promoted to the position. 
Management selects candidates and rates each of them on qualifi­
cation sheets. The Human Resources Group then prepares a candi­
date slate based on those sheets and performance evaluations. 
Northern California Division management makes the selection.

The Northern California Division follows uniform pro­
cedures for assigning employees to relief work in higher level 
jobs. The Human Resources Group monitors and maintains records 
of all relief assignments of classified employees in all areas 
and departments to salaried positions.

In addition, the Northern California Division uses a 
single evaluation form with the same subjective criteria to

— ^ [Cont'd]
EE0C ia£n f l o S a J % 1|n^)!’leadin9S' Statlstics' ^  findings of

fl-n ,̂-The compelling statistical evidence and administrative findings m  this case more than meet this test.

- 36 - P&As/Mtn Class Cert



1
2
3

5

8
9
10
11
12
13
11
15
10
17
18
19
20 
21 
22 

23 
21
25
26

27
28

assess the job performance of all classified operations and 
maintenance employees from all work areas. Similarly, there is 
a single evaluation form with the same subjective criteria used 
to assess the job performance of all salaried employees, 
including operations assistants, foremen, and staff employees. 
The procedures for completing the evaluations are uniform. The 
preparation of evaluations is monitored by the Human Resources
Group, which uniformly utilizes the evaluations in the promotion 
process.

Finally, a single division trainer oversees the train­
ing program. Selection for maintenance and advanced training is 
made by the Northern California Division's management and 
training officials.

In Moore v. NASD, 37 FEP at 1742, the court held the 
commonality requirement satisfied by the allegation "that white 
male supervisors tend to favor white male employees in what 
appears to be a subjective evaluation process," leading to 
"inequity in promotion, assignments, [and] training . . . .”12/ 
Plaintiffs here make the same claim. See also Walthall v. Blue 
Shield of California, 16 FEP 626, 628 (N.D. Cal. 1977) 
(commonality requirement "is met by the alleged existence of 
common discriminatory employment practices").

37/ T 1. L. • .In this connection, the Ninth Circuit, sittinq 
en banc, recently approved classwide disparate impact analysis 
m  cases, such as this lawsuit, challenging the use of yS1S 
subjective employment practices or selection criteria. Atonio 
l987?rdS C°Ve PaCkln3 Co-* __F*2d ___r 43 FEP 130 (9th ClrT----

2

CL:73 #7 - 37 - P&As/Mtn Class Cert



, #

1
1
1
l:
l
l!
li
i:
if
H
2(
21
25
2'
21

25
2G
27
28

7

C* The membership of the class is uniform, inasmuch 
as class members' treatment is likely to involyp 
common questions

The class here consists only of those blacks and 
Hispanics who have been or will be employed by the Northern 
California Division. All class members perform oilfield-related 
work; all have been subject to the same basic system of promo­
tion, job assignment, training, as well as the subjective evalu­
ation process. Professional engineers and clerical employees 
are not included in the class. This is not a case where 
employees seek to represent applicants. Cf. General Tel. Co. of 
Southwest v. Falcon, 457 U.S. at 158 (refusing to presume 
commonality between employees and applicants).

d* — e Northern California Division's employment
practices are determined and controlled by a 
centralized management organization 

As noted sujara, at 36, there is a single system of 
promotion for all areas and departments in the Northern 
California Division, and it is overseen and coordinated by one 
Inman Resources Group. The Northern California Division, with 
the assistance of the Human Resources Group, is responsible for 
ieveloping the qualification sheets that are so integral to the 
system. In addition, every promotion comes across the desk of 
she Northern Division's top management for review and approval, 
the evaluation forms have been developed at the corporate level, 
md the evaluation process throughout the Division is imple- 
lented and monitored by the Human Resources Group. Similarly,

38 P&As/Mtn Class Cert



.> *

I

11
1
1:
1:
1
if
H
Yi

If
1C

'20

21
22
23
21
25
2G
27
28

training programs have been developed and implemented by the 
division trainer. Moreover, the Human Resources Group is 
responsible for the development of an affirmative action program 
covering the entire Northern California Division.

Thus, the picture that emerges is one of a highly cen­
tralized management organization with respect to the employment 
practices at issue here. In Wofford v. Safeway Stores, m ,  78 
F.R.D. 460, 481 (N.D. Cal. 1978), this Court certified a plain­
tiff class that included employees from all of the defendant’s 
retail grocery stores within a given division. m  rejecting the 
employer's argument that commonality was precluded by the geo­
graphic dispersion of the stores, Judge Renfrew pointed to the 
centralized nature of the employer's hiring decisions and other 
policies. The promotion decisions and employment practices of 
Chevron's Northern California Division are similarly central­
ized. Accordingly, class treatment is warranted.

e< issue have
lelatively consistent_thronghout the time period 

The complaint alleges continuing discrimination 
against minority employees. To date, discovery has been permit­
ted bach to 1980 or 1981, and reveals that the challenged pro­
motion, training, job assignment, and evaluation practices have 
Persisted unchanged to the present. The only significant change 
n emPlo^ ent Practices has been the posting of vacancies for 
•romotions to classified positions, 'which was begun in late 
985, after the filing of administrative charges. Otherwise,

39 P&As/Mtn Class Cert



the employment practices at issue have remained essentially the 
same.

3' Plaintiffs' Claims of Discrimination Are Typical of 
Those of the Members of the Class 
The typicality requirement ensures that " [t]he 

interests of the [named] plaintiffs and the members of the class 
are sufficiently parallel to foster the effective presentation 
of all potential claims for relief . . . Kraszewski, 27 FEP
at 31 (citing Wofford, 78 F.R.D. at 489). The requirement is 
satisfied if the "class representative[s] . . . 'possess the 
same interest and suffer the same injury* as the class members." 
Fast Texas Motor, 431 U.S. at 403 (citations omitted);
Kraszewski, 27 FEP at 31.— / The representatives' claims need 
not be identical to those of the other class members; they need 
only emanate from the same legal or remedial theory. See id.;
— - —e La Fuente v. Stokely-Van Camp, Inc.. 713 F.2d 225,
232 (7th Cir. 1983) (typicality requirement satisfied where 
representatives' injuries essentially the same as those of rest 
of class, even if factual distinctions exist).

Here, nine named plaintiffs and one additional plain­
tiff assert that they have all been subject to discrimination

3 8/
c. ,. ^ finding of commonality will ordinarily suooort a

^  e."

r r ^ d 15 FEP r hê
much overlap betweer^the twof"??1* 7 ~~ undoubtedly' there is

40 P&As/Mtn Class Cert



1
1
1
1
1
1,
1
r
1!
1!
2(
21
21
2;
2i
2f
2C
27

that generally affects blacks and Hispanics employed in the 
Northern California Division. Their claims are not unique and 
individualized in nature. See Moore v. NASD, 37 FEP 1738, 1743 
(D.D.C. 1982). Undoubtedly, the company's alleged discrimina­
tion in promotion and other employment practices will have 
affected each individual differently. Such factual variations 
are not sufficient to defeat class certification, however. See 
Paxton v. Union Nat'l Bank, 688 F.2d 552, 561 (8th Cir. 1982), 
cert, denied, 103 S.Ct. 1772 (1983). while one class member's 
claim may differ in detail from another's, both are apt to be 
rooted in the same assertion of discrimination. In Kraszewski. 
a class action brought on behalf of female job applicants, this 
Court held that the typicality requirement was satisfied as to a 
plaintiff who had actually obtained a position with the defen­
dant-employer because her claim arose from the same course of 
induct or legal theory as the claims of other class members.

FEP at 31. Thus, the fact that a given plaintiff or class 
nember may have received a given promotion, a desired job 
assignment or a meaningful training class is immaterial here.
’he claims of the named plaintiffs closely resemble those that 
ight be brought by other members of the proposed class and 
rise from the same course of conduct or legal theory.

4. The Named Plaintiffs and Thai r r>-----------—  rS and Their Counsel Will Fairly and
adequately Represent the Interests nf the Class 
The ingredients of fair and adequate representation -  

16 £inal to class certification -  are (1) that
>S rePresentati''e Pity's attorney be qualified, experienced.

41 P&As/Mtn Class Cert



1
2
3
4
5 
G

7
8 
0

10 

11 
12 
13
11
15
Hi

17
18
19
20 
21 

22 

23

and generally able to conduct the litigation, (2) that the liti­
gation process not be collusive, and (3) that the named plain­
tiffs not have interests antagonistic to those of the remainder 
of the class. See Social Services Union, Local 535 v. County of 
Santa Clara, 609 F.2d 944, 947 (9th Cir. 1979); Schwartz v.
Harp, 108 F.R.D. 279, 283 (C.D. Cal. 1985); Lynch v. Rank. 604 
F.Supp. 30, 37 (N.D. Cal.), aff'd, 747 F.2d 523 (9th Cir. 1984); 
Weinberger v. Jackson, 102 F.R.D. 839, 884-85 (N.D. Cal. 1984); 
Kiaszewski, 27 FEP Cases at 32. All three are present here.

3 ‘ counsel have the necessary experience
and expertise to prosecute this action 

Attorneys for the plaintiffs are associated with the 
Center for Law in the Public Interest, the Mexican American 
Legal Defense and Educational Fund, and Erickson, Beasley & 
Hewitt. They have substantial experience in employment discrim­
ination and civil rights litigation, and believe they have the 
necessary experience and expertise to prosecute this action.

b’ ~ - re is n° evidence tha*: would suggest colli^inn 
Plaintiffs and their counsel have vigorously litigated 

this case. Collusion is absent.

C * ZLe. named plaintiffs' interests are noh . n f ^ n .
istic to those of the remainder of the class 

The issue of class antagonism is largely subsumed by 
the discussions of commonality and typicality, supra, at 32-41. 
Insofar as there are questions of law and fact common to the

CL:73#7 42 P&As/Mtn Class Cert



G

7
8 
9

10 

11 
12 

13 
H  
15 
1G
17
18 
10 
20 

21 

22 

23 
21 

25 
2G
27
28

class, and the claims of named plaintiffs are typical of those 
of the other class members, it is unlikely that antagonism would 
be sufficient to defeat class certification. Cf. Schwartz v. 
Ha_££, 108 F.R.D. at 283 ("whether there is any conflict with 
other class members has been considered in connection with the 
typicality requirement"). There is nothing to suggest that the 
vigorous litigation of this case will not continue on behalf of 
all black and Hispanic employees of the Northern California Div­
ision. Factual variations among the claims of the various class 
members do not, in themselves, create class antagonism. See 
Kl^szewski, 27 FEP at 32 ("actual conflict" necessary for court
to find class antagonism) (citing Social Services Union. 609 
F. 2d at 948) .

B* — -S Action Further Satisfies the Rule 23(b) Requirements 
for Class Certification

Title VII class actions have been maintained under 
either subsection (2) or subsection (3) of Rule 23(b). "The 
courts have generally favored the use of subsection 2 because it 
avoids the procedural requisites of subsection 3, compels inclu­
sion which is consistent with the remedial purpose of Title VII, 
promotes judicial economy and consistency of result, and does 
not contain the requirement of a finding that the class action 
is superior to other available methods to resolve the contro­
versy." B. Schlei s P. Grossman, at 1259-60. See also 3B Moore 
V 23.40-2, at 23-291 ("A suit under'the Civil Rights Act by an 
employee challenging employment and promotional discrimination 
is, by the nature of the claim asserted, appropriate for class

CL:73#7 - 43 - P&As/Mtn Class Cert



1
2

3
4
5 
G

7
8 
9

10 

11 

12 

13 
11 

15: 
1G
17
18
19
20 
21 
22 

23 
21 
25 

2G
27
28

action under (b)(2)."); Harriss, 15 FEP Cases at 1652 ("The
Advisory Committee's Notes indicate that Rule 23(b) (2)
specifically contemplates civil rights cases."). Accordingly,
plaintiffs seek certification here under Rule 23(b) (2).— ^

The first element of subdivision (2) -- that
defendants have acted in a manner "generally applicable to the
class" —  is encompassed by the commonality and typicality
requirements of Rule 23(a) Cf in ^' * — * ( [a]n unlawful employment
practice which qualifies under Rule 23(b)(2) would normally meet 
the commonality test under Rule 23(a)(2)."). The second element 
of subsection (2) —  that injunctive or corresponding 
declaratory relief be sought as a remedy -  is clearly satisfied 
by plaintiffs here. See Plaintiffs' Complaint, at 12. That 
plaintiffs also seek monetary relief does not change the fact 
that their complaint asks for, and is primarily directed to the 
achievement of, declaratory and injunctive relief. m  Probe v. 
State Teachers' Retirement System. 780 F.2d 776, 780 (9th Cir. 
1986), cert, denied, 106 S.Ct. 2891 (1986), the Ninth Circuit 
concluded that an action brought under subsection 2 may include

3 9/ Rule 23 (b)(2) provides:

Drprpl!?n ’̂ ay bf maintained as a class action if the
commonalit^V^f. subdivision (a) [i.e., numerosity, commonaiity, typicality, and adequacy of representa­
tion] are satisfied, and in addition . . . the oartv 
opposing the class has acted or refused to act on Y 
grounds generally applicable to,the class, thereby 
™ nkJng appropriate final injunctive relief or corres- 
aS a'wholJ? Y reliSf W U h  resPect to the class

Fed. R. civ. p. 23 (b) (2) .

CL : 7 3 # 7 - 44 - P&As/Mtn Class Cert



G

7
8 
1)
10 
11 
12

1:1
u
15
Hi

17
18 
10 
20 
21 

22 

23 
21 

25 
2G

a request for monetary relief. See also Senter v. General 
Motor^or^, 532 F.2d 511, 525 (6th C i r . ^ ~ ^ o v e d  
from Rule 23(b)(2) category by request for back pay), cert, 
denied, 429 U.S. 870 (1976); Wetzej_v^Liberty Mutual Insurant

— ' 508 F‘2d 239' 25°"51 (3d Cir*) (same), cert, denied, 421 
U.S. 1011 (1975); Kraszewski, 27 FEP at 33-34 (same) 1°/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/

28

7 3 if 7

40/ .
. Certification under Rule 2g;w\

priate at the liability stage ("stage oii" “ rtainly appro-
issue at this stage is sinrolv uihot-̂ 9 °f thls case. The
discriminating against blackJ an^w? Chevron has a policy of 
related employment practices The issue^h ln Promotions and is properly characterized ac; sfue therefore is one which
Chevron "has acted or reused t^ aS? J0” "" f le^tion that cable to the class thereby mak^o ? g5ounds.generally appli 
relief or corresponding declaratory^ elief at(̂ 5 inal injunctive 
class as a whole." Fed. r . civ T  2 3 ( b (2)lthHrespect to the liability is found anri * ZJ D̂) (2) . However, if
Which may include damages, ("stage^wo") the issue of remedy 
necessary to reassess the nature of ?? * \ then lfc may be 
stage, it may be determined that the^ class action. At that 
members are sufficiently infr damage claims of class
resemble a 23 (bf the case begins to
court may decide, as other courts hLe be.true' the
Rule 23(b)(3) at the remedia? stage Is'a^ro Cer.tlf:Nation unde, 
^ C o ntinental Can Co.. 706 F.2d 1144 m  §ee Holmes
UOX V. American Cast.iron D j rr p nmi, -4 ' i ^ 3 60 (llth Cir.^OftTy. 
P ^  Cir. 1986)T^f^omlfFFg? S ? ^ ^ L 84 F*2d.^46, 1554-55 
Commission, 688 F.2d ftTTnrP~T^Hi?? 1 Y‘ Clvi1 
is definitely premature to decide thi^f" 1982) ’ However, it stage of the proceedings. issue at this initial

- 45 - P&As/Mtn Class Cert



* •

1
2

3
4
5 

G

7
8 
0
10
11

12

13
14
15 
1G 
17 
IS
19
20 

21 

22

23
24
25 
2G
27
28

IV.
CONCLUSION

For the above reasons, the motion for class certifica­
tion should be granted, and the following class certified:

all current, former and future black and 
Hispanic persons employed on or after 
April 30, 1983 in Chevron U.S.A. Inc.'s 
Production Department of the Northern 
California Division, Exploration, Land and 
Production Department for the Western 
Region, excepting clerical employees and 
engineers, who have been or continue to be 
or may in the future be subject to discrimi­
nation on the basis of race or national origin.

Dated: March 31, 1987 Respectfully submitted,
HENRY HEWITT
JOHN ERICKSON
Erickson, Beasley & Hewitt
DENISE HULETT
Mexican American Legal Defense 
and Educational Fund

BILL LANN LEE 
STEPHEN M. CUTLER 
Center for Law in the 

Public Interest
ANTONIA HERNANDEZ 
THERESA FAY BUSTILLOS 
Mexican American Legal Defense 

and Educational Fund

CL:73 #7 46 P&As/Mtn Class Cert



V  ►

G
/
8
<)
10
1 1

12

13
M
15
1G
17
18 
10 
20 

21 

22

23
24
25 
2G
27
28

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I declare and say:

1* 1 am over the age of eighteen years and am not a
party to this action. I am employed by a member of the bar of 
this Court at whose direction this service was made. My
business address is 12 Geary Street, 8th Floor, San Francisco, 
California.

On April 1, 1987, I served the within NOTICE OF
MOTION AND MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION on defendant by
causing same to be personally delivered as follows:

Joe C. Creason
William G. Alberti
Steven G. Betz
Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro
225 Bush Street
P.O. Box 7880
San Francisco, CA 94120

Executed this 1st day of April, 1987, at San 
Francisco, California.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing 
is true and correct.

CL:73 #7