Correspondence from Lani Guinier to Martha Kegel, Esq. (Louisiana ACLU)

    r. /3

CORRECTED.^

IN THE

United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

N o . 2 6 8 0 9

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, by JOHN N. MITCHELL, 
Attorney General,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

HAYES INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, ET AL,
Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from  the United States D istrict Court fo r the  
Northern D istrict of Aloham a

(A ugust 19, 1969)

B efore TU TTL E and  SIM PSON, C ircu it Ju d g es  and  
CASSIBRY, D is tr ic t Judge,

TU TTL E, C ircu it Judge; On M arch  25, 1968, th e  A t­
to rn ey  G en era l filed  a  com pla in t in  th e  d is tr ic t court 
p u rsu a n t to T itle V II of the  Civil R igh ts  A ct of 1964, 
42 U.S.C.A. §2000e-6(a).’ The co m p la in t a lleged  th a t

iWhenever the Attorney General has reasonable cause to believe 
that any person or group of persons is engaged in a pattern 
or practice of resistance to the full enjoyment of any of the



2 U.S.A. V. H A Y ES IN T. CORP. E T  AL

th e  com pany  m a in ta in ed  ra c ia lly  seg reg a ted  divisions 
and  lines of p rogression ; d isc rim in a ted  in  its  h irin g  
p ra c tic e s ; and  assigned  w hites to jobs offering h ig h e r 
pay , b e tte r  ad v an c em en t and  secu rity  th a n  s im ila rly  
q ualified  b lack  em ployees.^  T he com p la in t req u es te d  
th a t  th e  com pany  be p e rm a n en tly  en jo ined  fro m  con­
tinu ing  such  violations and  from  failing  to ta k e  reaso n ­
ab le  s teps to c o rre c t th e  effects of p a s t d isc rim in a to ry  
p rac tices .

The com pany  re p a irs  and  rebu ild s a irp lan es  and  a ir ­
p lan e  p a r ts  la rg e ly  p u rsu a n t to  g o vernm en t con trac ts . 
As of M arch  11, 1968 eight p e rce n t or 145 of th e  com ­
p a n y ’s 1781 p roduction  and  m a in ten a n ce  em ployees 
w ere b lack. The jobs in  th e  un it w ere  a r ra n g e d  in 
te n  sen io rity  divisions. E a c h  division con ta ined  fro m  
one to seven  lines of p rogression . E a c h  line con tained  
jobs req u irin g  s im ila r  job sk ills in  w hich th e  em ployee 
could n o rm ally  expect to  advance  as  he gained  ex ­
p e rien ce  and  v acan c ies  occu rred . B ecause  som e sen­
io rity  divisions con ta ined  a  n u m b e r of lines of p ro g res-

rights secured' by this subchapter, and that the pattern or prac­
tice is of such a nature and is intended to' deny the full exercise 
of the rights herein described, the Attorney General may bring 
a civil action . . . requesting such relief, including an applica­
tion for a permanent or temporary injunction, restraining 
order . . . .

242 U.S.C.A. §2000e-2 reads:
(a) It shall be an unla-wful employment practice for 
an employer—(1) to . . .  discriminate against any indivi­
dual with respects to his compensation terms, condi­
tions, or privileges of employment, because of . .. race, 
color . ; or (2) to limit, segregate or classify his
employees in any way which would deprive or tend 
to deprive any individual of employment opportunities 
or otherwise adversely affect his status as an em­
ployee, because of such individual’s race, color. . . .



U.S.A. V. H A Y ES INT. CORP. E T  A L 3

sion w hich involved s im ila r  job  skills, in  som e cases  
it w as possib le to m ove la te ra lly  or u p w ard  betw een  
lines. F u rth e r , in case  of layoff som e em ployees could 
“bu m p ” less sen io r m en  in  th e ir  p re se n t line as well 
as in  re la te d  lines w ith in  th e  sen io rity  division.

One h und red  tw enty-tw o of the  145 b lack s w ere e m ­
ployed in  two sen io rity  divisions. M any held  “C lean er” 
jobs (w ash ing  th e  outside of a irp lan es)  in  sen io rity  
division 7. T here  w as bu t one line of p ro g ress io n  in  
th is  division. The re m a in d e r  w ere em ployed  in  m a in ­
te n an ce  and  ja n ito ria l jobs in division 8. F ro m  a  p ra c ­
tic a l standpoin t, th e re  w as v ir tu a lly  no chance  to m ove 
fro m  th e  lines of p rog ressio n  con ta in ing  th e  p red o m ­
in an tly  b lack  jobs into th e  w hite lines in  th is  division.

The rem a in in g  b lacks w ere s c a tte re d  in  seven  of 
th e  o th e r divisions. W hat th e ir  jobs w ere did no t ap ­
p e a r  in the  record . H ow ever, th e  com pany  did con­
cede th a t  138 of th e  b lack  em ployees w ere  in  “p red o m ­
in an tly  N eg ro ” jobs.

T here  w ere  13 p ay  g rades. N inety-six  p e rc e n t of th e  
w hite em ployees w ere  in  th e  seven  h ig h est g rad es  
w hile 77 p e rce n t of the  b lacks w ere in  th e  th re e  low est 
g rad es . The co m p an y ’s b o a rd  c h a irm a n  te stif ied  th a t  
th e  a v e ra g e  an n u a l p ay  of “se lec ted ” w hite  em ployees 
w as $7865 and  of b lacks $7117.®

The collective b arg a in in g  ag ree m en t gave  th e  com ­
pany b ro ad  r ig h ts  to fill h igh  level v acan c ies  w ith  em -

3The sample probably was unrepresentative in that it excluded 
supervisors and more whites were supervisors than blacks.



4 U.S.A. V. H A Y ES INT. CORP. E T  AL

ployees who h ad  less sen io rity  th a n  o ther em ployees 
w ho m ig h t also  be qualified  to p e rfo rm  th e  work. F o r  
exam ple , A rtic le  IV, §17(a) p rov ided  th a t th e  com ­
p an y  could tra n s fe r  em ployees to any  position  p rov ided  
only th a t th e re  w ere no em ployees la id  off or down­
g rad ed  fro m  the  job group of th e  v aca n cy  and  th a t  
th e  person  filling  th e  v aca n cy  w as qualified.

A rtic le  IV, §6(c) also p rov ided  th a t  in te rm s  of la y ­
off, an  em ployee holding a trad itio n a lly  w hite position  
in  a  division could bum p b lack  em ployees w ith  m o re  
sen io rity  who w ere holding low er level jobs in  th a t 
division.

T he com pany  a p p a re n tly  h ad  no fo rm a l policy of 
filling  job v aca n c ie s  fro m  am ong its p re se n t b lack  em ­
ployees even  if they  v/ere qualified . A t le a s t once in  
th e  p a s t it p rov ided  b lack  em ployees w ith  lim ited  t r a n s ­
fe r  opportun ities bu t a t th e  cost cf loss of sen io rity  
and  a drop in pay. The com pany  could and  did, how ­
ever, t ra n s fe r  w hite em ployees into v aca n c ie s  ahead  
of m o re  sen io r em ployees.^  T he d is trib u tio n  of b lack  
and  w hite em ployees d em o n stra te s  th a t  th e  com pany  
chose no t to tra n s fe r  b lack  em ployees into w hite jobs 
and  v ice v e rsa  even though  qualified  b lacks m a y  have 
b een  av a ilab le  or could have  been  tra in ed . W hatever 
in -serv ice  tra in in g  p ro g ra m s  w ere  offered obviously 
did not p rov ide b lack em ployees w ith  a  chance  to  gain  
th e  skills n e c e ssa ry  to fill th e  jobs held  by w hites.

^White employee, Cecil Glenn, for example, held seven jobs in 
two years. He was promoted to an “A” level job in the elec­
trical field after two months with the company. He received 
training in a variety of jobs thereby giving him valuable re­
maining and layoffs rights.



U.S.A. V. H A Y ES INT. CORP. E T  AL 5

In  short, b lack  em ployees p e rfo rm e d  th e  low est paid , 
unsk illed  jobs. A lthough th e  p lan t v/as opera tiv e  since 
1951, th e  com pany  a p p a re n tly  \vas u n ab le  to  re c ru it 
or tra in  b lack  em ployees to p erfo rm  sk illed  jobs ex­
cep t in  th e  m ost token  m an n er. This condition r e ­
m a in ed  su b stan tia lly  u n changed  even  a f te r  th e  effec­
tive  d a te  of T itle  V II of th e  Civil R igh ts  A ct of 1964. 
The b lack  em ployees w ere seg reg a ted  in  th e ir  jobs 
in  a m a n n e r  w hich deprived  th em  of th e  opportun ity  
fo r ad v an c em en t th a t  w hite em ployees enjoyed.

The case  in  th is  p o s tu re  n e v e r re a c h e d  th e  court. 
One m onth  a f te r  th e  filing of the  o rig inal com plain t, 
th e  A tto rney  G en era l filed a m otion  for a p re lim in a ry  
in junction. This w as occasioned  by  th re e  s ign ifican t 
changes a t th e  p lan t. F irs t,  on M arch  28 th e  govern ­
m en t aw ard ed  the  com pany  a  c o n tra c t for th e  re p a ir  
of KC-135 je t ta n k e rs . This c o n tra c t w ould c re a te  740 
jobs, of w hich 294 would no t be filled by em ployees 
w ith tra n s fe r , p rom otion  or re c a ll righ ts. Second, on 
A pril 8, th e  com pany  and  union signed  a new  collec­
tive  b arg a in in g  ag ree m en t w hich m ad e  som e changes 
in  th e  p rio r sen io rity  divisions and  in  sen io rity  p ro ­
v isions w hich would effect tra n s fe r , p rom otion, re c a ll 
and layoff righ ts. Third, on A pril 12, the  com pany  in­
s titu ted  a  tra n s fe r  p ro g ra m  w hich gave b lack  em ­
ployees an  opportun ity  to tr a n s fe r  to som e fo rm erly  
w nite jobs.

The governm en t c o n tra c t p rov ided  a  unique oppor­
tu n ity  to p rov ide b lack  em ployees w ith  equal em ploy­
m en t opportunities. The collective b a rg a in in g  a g re e ­
m en t la rg e ly  m erg ed  th e  b lack  lines of p rog ression  
w ith  w hite lines but the  com pany  su b stan tia lly  re ta in ed



6 U.S.A. V. H A Y ES INT. CORP. E T  AL

its  pow ers to tra n s fe r  and  p rom ote  em ployees as de­
sc rib ed  above.

A lte r som e in itia l confusion, th e  com pany  ad eq u a te ly  
exp la ined  th e  tra n s fe r  p ro g ra m  to th e  b lack  em ployees. 
E a c h  w as to ld  to fill out an  app lica tion  b lan k  and  desig ­
n a te  w hich five fro m  am ong  th e  57 av a ilab le  job title s  
he  w as in te re s te d  in tra n s fe rr in g  to. They w ere  g iven 
a  V\/eek to re tu rn  th e  form s. A fter the  com pany  m ad e  
an  offer, th e  em ployee h ad  th ree  days to accept. F a il­
u re  to com ply w ith e ith e r  ru le  w as a w aiv er of rig h ts  
u n d e r the  p ro g ra m  although  in p ra c tic e  th ese  lim ita ­
tions w ere no t s tr ic tly  ad h ered  to. A ny em ployee who 
accep ted  a tra n s fe r  h a d  no fu r th e r  r ig h ts  u n d er th e  
p ro g ram .

Tne p ro g ra m  m a d e  availab le  57 la rg e ly  en try -level 
job  title  p rev iously  closed to  b lacks. The re m a in d e r 
of th e  co m p an y ’s 140 job title s  w ere  no t affected.®

B ecause  of th e  unique opportun ites thus p re se n t to 
rec tify  p a s t d isc rim in a to ry  p rac tice , the  A tto rney  G en­
e ra l m oved fo r a  p re lim in a ry  in junction. The den ial 
of th is  re q u e s t is th e  su b jec t of th is  appeal.

The d is tric t c o u rt’s decision la rg e ly  tu rn e d  on th e  
conclusion  th a t  th e  tr a n s fe r  p ro g ram  did not v io la te

sNinety-three black employees submitted transfer requests and 47 
had transferred at the time of the hearing below. Seventeen 
refused offers and 23 were awaiting openings. Six were medi­
cally disqualified. Of these who transferred, 18 went to General 
Mechanic Beginner jobs, 12 to Sheet Metal Beginner, 11 Ma­
terial Handler-Stampers and the rest were scattered in various 
other entry-level positions.



U.S.A. V. H A Y ES INT. CORP. E T  AL

T itle  VII.® The co u rt found th a t the  tra n s fe r  p ro g ra m  
did not v io la te  th e  A ct because ; (1) the  b lack  em ployees 
who tra n s fe r re d  to  B eg inner positions in th e  Sheet M e­
ta l  and  G en era l M echanic lines would be p rom oted  to 
p e rm a n e n t “B ” level jobs d u rin g  th e  life of th e  KC-135 
co n trac t. T hey would th en  be p ro tec ted  ag a in s t layoff 
in  acc o rd an ce  w ith  th e ir  p lan t-w ide sen iority ; (2) R e- 
m aim ing  p rov isions would allow  w hite em ployees to 
be p rom oted  to h ig h e r level positions in the  Sheet M etal 
and  G en era l M echanic lines in p re fe ren c e  to m o re  se­
n ior b lack  em ployees th en  a t th e  “B ” level in  those 
lines only in  rem o te  cases;^  (3) those  b la ck  em ployees 
who chose no t to tr a n s fe r  did so fo r p e rso n a l reasons, 
and (4) th e  p ro g ra m  w as fa ir ly  ad m in iste red .

6The court also noted that the collective bargaing agreement merged 
the predominantly black lines of progression into white lines. 
It also upgraded the wage rate^ of the Cleaner line of progres­
sion and broadened the recall rights of laid-off employees.

The Court also relied in a general manner on Whitfield v. 
United Steelworkers Local 2708, 263 F.2d 546 (5th Cir.), cert, 
den., 360 U.S. 902 (1959), wherein it was held that a union 
which in the past had negotiated discriminatory contracts was 
presently only required to cease such practices and had no 
obligation to remove the continuing effects of past discrimina­
tion. Whitfield was not a Title VII case and therefore is not con­
trolling. Furthermore, to the extent that it can be read as limit­
ing the power of courts to order “such affirmative action as 
may be necessary,” 42 U.S.C.A. §2000e-5(g), to simply barring 
any further application of discriminatory practices, Whitfield 
is inconsistent with the words of the statute, its purposes and 
the thrust of recent cases in this circuit. See, e.g., Local 53,
Asbestos Workers, -------  F.2d ------- , 5 Cir., No. 24,865, Jan.
15, 1969; United States v. Local 189, United Papermakers, 282 
F. Supp. 39 (E. D. La. 1968).

5'The court apparently referred to Art. IV, § 10(a) of the collective 
agreement which gives first claim to a vacancy to an employee 
who, without regard to seniority, had been laid off or down­
graded due to a work force reduction if the employees previ­
ously performed the job satisfactorily.



8 U.S.A. V. H A Y ES IN T. CORP, E T  A L

i-he U nited  S ta te s  a rg u es  th a t th e  d is tr ic t c o u rt’s 
v iew  of th e  case  w as erroneous. W e ag ree .

ih e  question  w as not w h e th e r th e  t r a n s fe r  p ro g ra m  
itse lf v io la ted  T itle  VII. The question, r a th e r ,  w as: 
In  view  of th e  p r im a  fac ie  ca se  estab lish ed  by  th e  
g o v ern m en t th a t  th e  com pany  w as in ten tio n ally  en ­
gag ed  in  a  p a t te rn  or p ra c tic e  of re s is te n c e  to th e  
fu ll en joym en t of T itle  V II rig h ts , did th e  fa c t th a t 
th e  new  collective b a rg a in in g  ag ree m en t and  th e  tr a n s ­
fe r  p ro g ra m  p a r tia lly  co rrec ted  th e  v io lations n e g a te  
th e  need  fo r th e  p re lim in a ry  in junction? T h a t issue  
w as no t decided  by  th e  d is tr ic t court.

We a re  m e t in itia lly  by  th e  com pany  contention  th a t  
th e  U nited  S ta tes  is now  a rg u in g  an  en tire ly  new  th e o ry  
of the  case  and  it should be lim ited  to  th e  th eo ry  th a t 
th e  tr a n s fe r  p ro g ra m  v io la ted  T itle  VII.

H ow ever, we do no view  th e  m a tte r  th a t  w ay. Of 
course, if th e  U nited  S ta tes  w ere  now  se ttin g  fo rth  
new  a rg u m e n ts  on fac ts  n e v e r  p re sen te d  to  th e  t r ia l  
cou it, th e  com pany  would be co rrec t. B ut is  position  
is  Dottomed on th e  fa c t th a t  a fte r all th e  ev idence 
w as in  and  th e  co u rt req u es te d  counsel fo r bo th  sides 
to su m m a rize  th e ir  positions, gov ern m en t counsel con­
c e n tra te d  on th e  tra n s fe r  p ro g ram . T here  is no doubt 
abou t th a t. B ut h e  also a rg u ed  th e  re lev an ce  to h is 
ca se  of th e  KC-135 co n tra c t and  th e  co llective b a rg a in ­
ing  ag reem en t. F u rth e rm o re , he w as respond ing  to 
a  req u es t by the  tr ia l  judge to d iscuss bu t one asp ec t 
of the case; th e  ir re p ra b le  h a rm  re q u ire m e n t fo r is­
su an ce  of a  p re lim in a ry  in junction.



U.S.A. V. H A Y ES IN T. CO RP. E T  AL 9
I t  seem s un likely  th a t  th e  co u rt w as m isled  by  th e  

o ra l a rg u m en t. The m otion  fo r p re lim in a ry  in junc­
tion c lea rly  s e t fo rth  th e  g o v ern m en t’s th e o ry  as to 
w hat e s tab lish ed  th e  p a t te rn  o r  p ra c tic e  of re s is ta n c e  
and  th e  im p a c t on th a t  of th e  changed  even ts. F u r th e r ­
m ore , th e  U nited  S ta tes  sought to develop de ta ils  of 
w hen  th e  com pany  knew  abou t th e  new  c o n tra c t and  
w h at its  job  re q u ire m e n ts  w ould be. W hile it is tru e  
th a t  th e  focus of th e  U nited  S ta te s  h e re  is b ro ad e r 
th a n  adopted  a t o ra l a rg u m en t, its  b a s ic  position  as 
show n by th e  p lead ings and  th e  conduct of th e  h e a r ­
ing  is th e  sam e, a lbeit b e tte r  defined. The d is tric t court 
th e  whole th e o ry  before it.

The com pany  also a rg u es  th a t  in  any  ca se  th e  tr a n s ­
fe r  p ro g ra m  and  new  collective b a rg a in in g  ag ree m en t 
n eg a ted  th e  n eed  fo r p re lim in a ry  re lie f b ecau se  they  
p rov ided  th e  b lack  em ployees w ith  a ll th e y  w ere  en ­
title d  to u n d er T itle VII. T hat, of course, is  th e  nub  
of th e  m a tte r .

B ecause  th e  case  is before us in  a  p re lim in a ry  pos­
tu re , it is xmwise to  d iscuss th e  m e rits  excep t in  a  
lim ited  fashion. I t w ill be suffic ien t to  b rie fly  note 
som e of th e  w ays in  w hich th e  b lack  em ployees still 
m a y  h av e  been  denied th e  “full en jo y m en t” of th e ir  
r ig h ts  as p rov ided  by th e  law .

V7e a re  not p e rsu ad ed  by  th e  a rg u m e n t th a t  th e  Com­
pany , fou r y e a rs  a f te r  th e  en ac tm e n t of th e  1964 Civil 
R igh ts  A ct and  th re e  y e a rs  a f te r  th e  effec tive  da te  
of T itle V II of the  Act, ac ted  on its  own in itia tiv e  and  
in sritu ted  th is  tra n s fe r  p ro g ra m  fo r th e  sole purpose 
of ex tending  to its  N egro  em ployees “specia l oppor-



10 U.S.A. V. H A Y ES INT. CORP. E T  AL

tu m tie s” fo r tra n s fe r , tra in in g  and  advancem en t. 
M oreover, th is  C ourt w ill no t be m isled  by th e  “equal 
paj' or su b s ta n tia l p a y ” te s t  as ind ica ting  th e  ab­
sence of  ̂a  v io lation  of T itle VII, for T itle V II of the  
19()4 Civil R igh ts  A ct is not an  equal p ay  provision  
bu t an  equal opportun ity  to th e  full en jo y m en t of em ­
p loym ent righ ts.

F irst, th e  tr a n s fe r  p ro g ra m  w as lim ited  in  a n u m ­
b er of w ays. I t  covered  bu t 57 of th e  140 job  c lassifi­
cations in  th e  p roduction  and  m a in te n a n c e  unit. Y et 
am ong  th e  b lack  em ployees som e m a y  h av e  possessed  
th e  q ualifica tions to p e rfo rm  jobs no t on th e  p ro g ram . 
Also the  em ployees w ere  g iven bu t one chance  to  tra n s -  

th ey  did no t acc ep t th ey  w ere  b a rre d  from  
fu r th e r  r ig h ts  u n d e r th e  p ro g ram . The com p an y  does 
not a rg u e  th a t it w as a d m in is tra tiv e ly  im possib le  to 
ex tend  its  duration . T here  m a y  be n o n tra n s fe rr in g  em - 
p loyees who now  see th a t th e  com pany  w as co rre c t 
w hen i t  a s su re d  th em  th a t no d ire  consequences would 
follow a  tr a n s fe r  and  who now  w ould like to  be con­
sidered .

Second, th e  em p loym en t s ta tis tic s  d iscussed , sup ra , 
pp 1-2, am p ly  d em o n stra ted  a  p re lim in a ry  show ing 
th a t th e  com pany  h irin g  p ra c tic e s  v io la ted  T itle  VII. 
Y e t the  h irin g  p ra c tic e s  w ere  no t affected  by th e  tr a n s ­
fe r  p ro g ra m  or th e  co llective b a rg a in in g  ag reem en t.

T hird , th e  co llective b a rg a in in g  a g re e m e n t s till g ives 
th e  com pany  un lim ited  pow er to tra n s fe r  em ployees 
from  one p e rm a n e n t position  to  an o th e r su b je c t only 
to  the  lim ita tio n  th a t th e re  a re  no em ployees la id  off 
o r dow ngraded  from  th e  job  in  w hich th e  v aca n cy  ex ­
ists.



U.S.A. V. H AY ES INT. CORP. E T  AL 11

I t  is m ost d ifficult to u n d e rs tan d  w hy a com pany  
sucn  as H ayes w hose collective b a rg a in in g  ag ree m en t 
g ives th e  un lim ited  rig h t to th e  em ployer to t r a n s ­
fe r  its  employees® would find a  n eed  fo r a  “ specia l 
t ra n s fe r  p ro g ra m ” for its  N egro em ployees w here  th e  
p re req u is ite s , v aca n cy  and  qualifica tion , u n d er both  
p rov isions a re  th e  sam e. A bsen t any  ju stifiab le  reason , 
w hich does not ap p e a r in e ith e r the  appellees’ b rie f 
o r in  th e  R ecord , the  log ical rea so n  in ligh t of all 
th e  fac ts  p re sen te d  w ould be race .

F ou rth , a lthough the  d is tr ic t co u rt found th a t r e ­
m an n in g  provisions would p rov ide only th e  rem o te  pos­
sib ility  of filling a  job w ith  a le ss  sen io r w hite em ­
ployee in p re fe ren c e  to  an  equally  qualified  b lack , the 
find ing  w as lim ited  to th e  s itu a tio n  c re a te d  by the  
tr a n s fe r  p ro g ram . H ow ever, in o ther c irc u m stan c es  
th e  possib ility  still ex ists  th a t  a  qualified  b lack  em ­
ployee would be denied a  chance  to fill a job b ecause  
a  less sen ior w hite em ployee h ad  su p erio r (rem an n in g ) 
rig h ts  denied the  b lack  b ecause  of race . F o r  exam ple, 
if a  w hite em ployee h ad  held  a  position  a t or n e a r  
th e  top of a  line of p rog ressio n  and  b ecau se  of ra c e  
b lacks h ad  been  excluded  from  th a t position  (such  m ay  
be the  case  even un d er the  tra n s fe r  p ro g ram ) and  
th ro u g h  rem a n n in g  th e  w hite em ployee is  in  a  low er 
ra te d  job w ithin the sen io rity  division, he w ill fill a 
v aca n cy  in the  h ig h e r ra te d  job in  p re fe ren c e  to  b lack  
en ip loyees equally  qualified  and  w ith m o re  sen io rity

sThe Company may transfer an employee permanently or temporari­
ly from one job group seniority division to another, provided 
only that if the transfer is permanent, there are no employees 
laid off or downgraded from the job group to which he is being 
transferred. (Art. IV § 17(a) ).



12 U.S.A. V. H A Y ES IN T. CORP. E T  AL

even  though  both  em ployees a re  p re sen tly  p e rfo rm ­
ing th e  sam e  job. The p re se n t p re fe ren c e  fo r th e  w hite 
c a n  only be explained  on th e  b asis  of H ay es’s long 
es tab lish ed  p ra c tic e s  of ra c ia l  d isc rim in a tio n  in  em ­
p loym en t and  hence would v io la te  T itle  VII.

F ina lly , th e  p re sen t app lica tion  of layoff r ig h ts  
gained  by w hites bu t denied to b lacks in the  p a s t could 
also re su lt in a  T itle  V II v io lation  in  a  m a n n e r  s im ila r 
to chat d iscussed  above re la tiv e  to  the rem a n n in g  p ro b ­
lem .

U nder th e  tr a n s fe r  p ro g ram , a  N egro  em ployee 
would only be allow ed to tra n s fe r  if he qualified  and  
th e re  ex isted  a v acan cy . A v aca n cy  would ex ist only 
a f te r  all em ployees w ith  rem a n n in g  rig h ts  or re c a ll 
r ig h ts  u n d er th e  layoff pool a r ra n g e m e n t h ad  ex erc ised  
th e  rig h t or w aived  th e  right.®

As a p ra c tic a l m a tte r , in m ost cases  th is  w ould m e a n  
th a t a  w hite em ployee w ith less sen io rity  th a n  a  N egro 
em ployee p a rtic ip a tin g  in  the  tra n s fe r  p ro g ra m  would 
get f irs t p re fe ren c e  to jobs w hich n e ith e r  h ad  fo rm erly  
held  and  fo r w hich bo th  w ere  equally  qualified.

9A11 employees who were on March 29, 1968 in Seniority Division 
VII or held jobs of Janitor, Boiler Tender, Facility Mainte­
nance Man, Automotive Maintenance Man or Cement Finisher 
and Plasterer in Seniority Division VIII, as defined in the 
Hayes— UAW Agreement dated April 1, 1965, shall be given, 
before new employees are hired, a single opportunity to trans­
fer in accordance with their seniority to any beginning or entry 
level job in any Seniority Division for which tfiey are qualified 
to fill vacancies in such job existing after all employees have 
exercised their seniority and other rights under the collective 
bargaining agreement. (A.98).



U.S.A. V. H A Y ES INT. CORP. E T  AL 13

Thus it is c lea r  th a t the  tra n s fe r  p ro g ra m  and  col­
lec tiv e  b a rg a in in g  a g ree m en t did not p rov ide  th e  fu ll 
v ind ica tion  of the  T itle V II r ig h ts  to  w hich th e  em ­
ployees w ere  entitled .

'th is  am p ly  d em o n stra te s  th e  req u is ite  show ing th a t 
th e  U nited  S ta tes  v/ould p rev a il on th e  m e rits . A pre- 
vasiv e  p a tte rn  of d isc rim in a to ry  em p loym en t p ra c ­
tices  w as dem o n stra ted . A g ainst th is  background , the  
tra n s fe r  p ro g ra m  and collective b arg a in in g  ag ree m en t 
p rov ided  only a  p a r tia l  co rrec tio n  of p a s t illeg a l a c ­
tions. The re m a in in g  p a tte rn  and  p ra c tic e s  rem ained .

The appellee chooses to believe th a t th e  “sing le  u lti­
m a te  issu e” on th is  ap p ea l is w hether th e  d is tr ic t court 
abused  its  d iscre tion  in  no t g ran tin g  th e  ap p e llan t’s 
m otion for p re lim in a ry  in junction . This contention 
should also be p laced  to re s t. The t r ia l  ju d g e  should 
h av e  g ran te d  th e  ap p e llan t’s m otion fo r p re lim in a ry  
in ju n c tio n .,jt is tru e  th a t  th is  cou rt has  follow ed th e  
v iew  th a t an  in junction  does no t follow as a m a tte r  of 
course  upon e ith e r a  finding or s tipu la tion  of v io lation  
of som e A ct of C ongress. M itchell v. Ballenger Paving  
Company, Inc., 229 F.2d 297, 300 (5th Cir., 1962). How­
ever, it is equally  tru e  th a t  th is  co u rt h a s  consisten tly  
held  th a t  th e  decision  of th e  low er co u rt is su b jec t to  r e ­
view  and  w here  it is c le a r  th a t  its d iscre tion  h as  not 
been  ex erc ised  w ith an  eye to  th e  pu rpose  of th e  Act, 
W irtz V.  B. B. Saxon Company, 365 F.2d 467, 462 (5th
Cir., 1966); Shultz v. P a rk e ,------ F.2d-------(5th Cir., 1969),
or exerc ised  in ligh t of th e  objective of th e  act, M itchell 
V.  Ballenger Paving Company, Inc., su p ra , w e h ave  
n ev erth e less  no t h es ita ted  to re v e rse  an  o rd e r of the  
t r ia l  cou rt denying an in junction  w ithout th e  need  of 
a  d iscussion  of abuse  and  d iscretion.



14 U.S.A. V. H A Y ES INT. CORP. E T  AL

W here, as here , th e  s ta tu to ry  rig h ts  of em ployees 
a re  involved and  an  in junction  is au tho rized  by  s ta ­
tu te ’® an d  th e  s ta tu to ry  conditions a re  sa tisfied  as in  
th e  fac ts  p re sen te d  here , th e  u su a l p re req u is ite  of ir ­
re p a ra b le  in ju ry  need  not be e s tab lish ed  and  th e  a- 
gency  to w hom  the en fo rcem en t of th e  rig h t h as  been  
e n tru s te d  is no t req u ired  to show  ir re p a ra b le  in ju ry  
before ob ta in ing  an  in junction. Flem ing v. Salem  Box  
Co., 38 F. Supp. 997, 998-99 (D. Ore., 1940); W estern  
Electric  Co., Inc. v. C inema Supplies, Inc., 80 F . 2d 
106, 56 S. Ct. 595, 297 U.S. 717 (c e r t D en.). We tak «  
th e  position  th a t in such  a  case, ir re p a ra b le  in ju ry  
should be p re su m ed  from  the  v e ry  fa c t th a t  th e  s ta tu te  
h as  been  v iolated . W henever a  qualified  N egro  em ­
ployee is d isc rim in a to rily  den ied  a  chance  to  fill a  
position  fo r w hich he is qualified  and  h as  th e  sen io rity  
to  obtain, he  su ffers  ir re p a ra b le  in ju ry  and  so does 
th e  la b o r fo rce  of th e  coun try  as a  whole.

M oreover, we hold as did th e  co u rt in Vogler v. M c­
Carty, Inc., 294 F . Supp. 368, 372 (E.D . La. 1967) af­
f irm ed  ____ F.2d___  (5th Cir., 1969) th a t  w here  an  e m ­
p loyer h a s  engaged  in a  p a tte rn  and  p ra c tic e  of dis­
c rim in a tio n  on account of race , etc., in o rd e r to  in ­
su re  th e  full en joym ent of th e  r ig h ts  p ro tec ted  by T itle 
V lf of th e  1964 Civil R igh ts Act, a ffirm a tiv e  and  m a n ­
d a to ry  p re lim in a ry  re lie f is requ ired .

Io§707(b) Civil Eights Act of 1964 2000e-6(b) — The Attorney 
General is authorized .. . requesting such relief including an 
application for a permanent or temporary injunction or re­
straining order or other against the person or persons responsi­
ble for such pattern or practice as he deems necessary to in­
sure the full enjoyment of the rights described herein.



U.S.A. V. H A Y ES INT. CORE. E T  AL 15

As th e  cou rt in  Quarles v. Philip M orris, Inc., 279 
F.Supp. 505, 516 (E.D . Va. 1968) concluded, “C ongress 
did not in tend  to freeze  an  en tire  g en era tio n  of N egro 
em ployees in to  d isc rim in a to ry  p a tte rn s  th a t  ex isted  
before th e  A ct; we add  th a t  n e ith e r  did C ongress in tend  
fo r an  en tire  g en era tio n  of N egro  em ployees to  be given 
a  one chance  lim ited  opportim ity  u n d e r th e  guise of 
“specia l oppo rtun ities” to b re a k  th e  d isc rim in a to ry  
p a t te rn  w hich m ig h t ex ist a t  a  com pany .”

It w as e r ro r  to  re fu se  to  issue th e  p re lim in a ry  in ­
junction. The case  is R E V E R S E D  and  REM A N D ED  
fo r fu r th e r  p roceed ings not in co n sisten t w ith  th is  opin­
ion.

Adm. Office, U.S. Courts—Scofields’ Quality Printers, Inc., N. O., La.