Source: http://www.ecases.us/case/ca8/c345163/14-fair-emplpraccas-1494-14-empl-prac-dec-p-7638-ben-allen-v
Timestamp: 2020-05-26 02:49:11
Document Index: 327115638

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1981', '§ 516', '§ 2000', '§ 1981', '§ 1981', '§ 1982', '§ 1982', '§ 1343', '§ 1988', '§ 1982', '§ 1981', '§ 2000']

14 Fair empl.prac.cas. 1494, 14 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 7638 Ben Allen v. Amalgamated Transit Union Local 788, Eighth Circuit, US Court of Appeals Cases, Federal Courts, COURT CASE
14 Fair empl.prac.cas. 1494, 14 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 7638 Ben Allen v. Amalgamated Transit Union Local 788 , 554 F.2d 876 ( 1977 )
14 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1494, 14 Empl. Prac.
We agree with the district court that the applicable statute of limitation governing plaintiffs' action under § 1981 is the five-year statute provided in Mo.Rev.Stat. § 516.120 (1969), for breach of written contracts, which is most analogous to the claim asserted here. See Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, Inc., 421 U.S. 454, 95 S. Ct. 1716, 44 L. Ed. 2d 295 (1975); and Butler v. Teamsters Local 823, 514 F.2d 442 (8th Cir. 1975). The Union urges that since the denial of seniority rights and the payment of the initiation fee took place in 1965, the statute bars plaintiffs' claims. However, the district court found that the denial of seniority rights was a continuing discrimination and that the statute had not run. We think this proposition too well-settled to require further discussion. See Franks v. Bowman Transp. Co., Inc., 424 U.S. 747, 96 S. Ct. 1251, 47 L. Ed. 2d 444 (1976); Williams v. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co., 530 F.2d 539 (4th Cir. 1975); and United States v. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co., 464 F.2d 301 (8th Cir. 1972) (en banc), cert. denied sub nom., United Transp. Union v. United States,409 U.S. 1107, 93 S. Ct. 900, 34 L. Ed. 2d 687 (1973).5
The injunctive relief sought by plaintiffs is essentially equitable in nature. It seeks to restore to plaintiffs the contractual rights discriminatorily denied to them.7 Under the circumstances it is settled that a statute of limitations is not applicable and the Union has not pleaded laches. See Holmberg v. Armbrecht, 327 U.S. 392, 66 S. Ct. 582, 90 L. Ed. 743 (1946).8
We reach the same conclusion under § 2000e et seq. The district court denied Title VII relief to all plaintiffs except Ben Allen and Aaron Rutlin, since only they had filed charges with the EEOC and the complaint did not allege a class action or seek class relief. It is settled that a suit by a named member of a class in a class action may seek relief for the entire class without the necessity of other class members pursuing their administrative remedy with the EEOC. See Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405, 414 n. 8, 95 S. Ct. 2362 (1975); Romasanta v. United Airlines, Inc., 537 F.2d 915, 918 (7th Cir. 1976); Macklin v. Spector Freight Systems, Inc., 156 U.S.App.D.C. 69, 478 F.2d 979, 985 n. 11 (1973); Bowe v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., 416 F.2d 711, 718-20 (7th Cir. 1969); Oatis v. Crown Zellerbach Corp.,398 F.2d 496, 499 (5th Cir. 1968). In the instant case, although no class action was filed, 13 additional plaintiffs alleged facts demonstrating they were similarly situated and had received the same discriminatory treatment as Ben Allen and Aaron Rutlin. Under such circumstances, particularly where the discrimination is continuing it would be nonsensical to require each of the plaintiffs to individually file administrative charges with the EEOC.9 Defendants have in no way been placed in jeopardy.
The district court awarded each plaintiff $1,000 punitive damages. On appeal the Union urges that punitive damages do not lie under § 1981. We disagree. See Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, Inc., supra ; and Claiborne v. Illinois Cent. R. R., 401 F. Supp. 1022 (E.D.La.1975). See also Comment, Implying Punitive Damages in Employment Discrimination Cases, 9 Harv.Civ.Lib. Civ.Rights L.Rev. 325, 345-51 (1974).
An individual who establishes a cause of action under § 1981 is entitled to both equitable and legal relief, including compensatory and, under certain circumstances, punitive damages. See, e. g., Caperci v. Huntoon, 397 F.2d 799 (CA 1), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 940, 89 S. Ct. 299, 21 L. Ed. 2d 276 (1968); Mansell v. Saunders, 372 F.2d 573 (CA 5 1967).
Section 1981 does not expressly provide a remedy for interference with the right to make and enforce contracts. In this deficiency it is like 42 U.S.C. § 1982. However, it has been determined that equitable relief and compensatory damages are available under § 1982 through 28 U.S.C. § 1343(4) and 42 U.S.C. § 1988. See Sullivan v. Little Hunting Park, Inc., 396 U.S. 229, 90 S. Ct. 400, 24 L. Ed. 2d 386 (1969); and Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., 392 U.S. 409, 88 S. Ct. 2186, 20 L. Ed. 2d 1189 (1968). Furthermore, punitive damages have been awarded under § 1982. See, e. g., Seaton v. Sky Realty Co., 491 F.2d 634 (7th Cir. 1974). Under the circumstances we see no reason for denying a punitive award under § 1981.
The guidelines for attorney's fees set forth by the Fifth Circuit in Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714, 717-19 (5th Cir. 1974), have been approved by this court. See Doe v. Poelker, 515 F.2d 541, 548 (8th Cir. 1975), cert. granted, 428 U.S. 909, 96 S. Ct. 3220, 49 L. Ed. 2d 1216 (1976). See also Firefighters Institute for Racial Equality v. St. Louis, supra. The Senate found that those guidelines were correctly applied in Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., 66 F.R.D. 483 (W.D.N.C.1975) ($65 per hour); Stanford Daily v. Zurcher, 64 F.R.D. 680 (N.D.Cal.1974) ($50 per hour); and Davis v. County of Los Angeles, 8 Empl.Prac.Dec. P 9444 (C.D.Cal.1974) ($84 per hour). S.Rep.No.94-1011, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. (1976), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1976, p. 5908. The $4.54 per hour awarded here is obviously short of those standards.
The plaintiff also asks for attorney fees for this appeal. We have allowed such fees in Firefighters Institute for Racial Equality v. St. Louis, supra ; and Reed v. Arlington Hotel Co., Inc., 476 F.2d 721 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 854, 94 S. Ct. 153, 38 L. Ed. 2d 103 (1973).
In actions under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., a showing of discriminatory impact suffices to establish a prima facie case of discrimination. See Firefighters Institute for Racial Equality v. St. Louis, 549 F.2d 506 (8th Cir., 1977). Once a racially adverse impact is demonstrated, the burden of proof shifts to the employer to prove the job relatedness of his practices. Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405, 425, 95 S. Ct. 2362, 45 L. Ed. 2d 280 (1975)
The Fourth Circuit has determined that a cause of action for denial of seniority credit was fully accrued at the original denial and time barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Kennedy v. Wheeling-Pittsburg Steel Corp., 81 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2349 (4th Cir. 1972). That case is distinguishable because it involved a lay-off situation. In Richard v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 469 F.2d 1249 (8th Cir. 1972), this court cites a Harvard Law Review article which states that "if an act originating in the past operates to discriminate against the complainant at the present time, there is a continuous violation." Developments in the Law Employment Discrimination and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 84 Harv.L.Rev. 1109, 1210 (1971). The article suggests that "(t)his might be taken to mean that practically any discrimination is continuing at least as long as the employment relationship is maintained." Id. at 1211 (emphasis added)
Recently the Seventh Circuit found that even where there has been a break in the employment nexus, under certain circumstances present practices may rejuvenate earlier discrimination. See Evans v. United Air Lines, Inc., 534 F.2d 1247 (7th Cir. 1976), cert. granted 429 U.S. 917, 97 S. Ct. 308, 50 L. Ed. 2d 282 (1976).
Relief limited to five years would be meaningless. As Mr. Justice Brennan observed in Franks v. Bowman Transp. Co., Inc., 424 U.S. 747, 96 S. Ct. 1251 (1976):
Seniority systems and the entitlements conferred by credits earned thereunder are of vast and increasing importance in the economic employment system of this Nation. S. Slichter, J. Healy, and E. Livernash, The Impact of Collective Bargaining on Management, 104-115 (1960). Seniority principles are increasingly used to allocate entitlements to scarce benefits among competing employees ("competitive status" seniority) and to compute noncompetitive benefits earned under the contract of employment ("benefit" seniority). Ibid. We have already said about "competitive status" seniority that it "has become of overriding importance, and one of its major functions is to determine who gets or who keeps an available job." Humphrey v. Moore, 375 U.S. 335, 346-347, 84 S. Ct. 363, 11 L. Ed. 2d 370 (1964). "More than any other provision of the collective (bargaining) agreement . . . seniority affects the economic security of the individual employee covered by its terms." Aaron, Reflections on the Legal Nature and Enforceability of Seniority Rights, 75 Harv.L.Rev. 1532, 1535 (1962). "Competitive status" seniority also often plays a broader role in modern employment systems, particularly systems operated under collective-bargaining agreements:
The Supreme Court observed in Holmberg v. Armbrecht, 327 U.S. 392, 66 S. Ct. 582 (1946):
DocketNumber： 76-1542
Citation Numbers： 554 F.2d 876
5 Fair empl.prac.cas. 251, 5 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 8058 Mary ... , 469 F.2d 1249 ( 1972 )
billy-g-butler-v-local-union-823-international-brotherhood-of-teamsters , 514 F.2d 442 ( 1975 )
16-fair-emplpraccas-303-15-empl-prac-dec-p-7982-john-m-martin-v , 568 F.2d 58 ( 1977 )
16-fair-emplpraccas-828-16-empl-prac-dec-p-8149-nancy-s-bradshaw , 569 F.2d 1066 ( 1978 )
lieutenant-w-e-sonny-simpson-v-gale-weeks-chief-of-police-little , 570 F.2d 240 ( 1978 )
kenneth-l-duval-and-cheryl-duval-on-behalf-of-themselves-and-all-other , 578 F.2d 721 ( 1978 )
17 Fair empl.prac.cas. 1195, 17 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 8415 ... , 580 F.2d 380 ( 1978 )
17 Fair empl.prac.cas. 1589, 17 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 8597 , 582 F.2d 827 ( 1978 )
18-fair-emplpraccas-536-18-empl-prac-dec-p-8674-allen-claiborne-on , 583 F.2d 143 ( 1978 )
Ron F. Greminger, Cross-Appellants v. Charles Seaborne, ... , 584 F.2d 275 ( 1978 )
18 Fair empl.prac.cas. 711, 18 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 8697 ... , 587 F.2d 357 ( 1979 )
18-fair-emplpraccas-1083-18-empl-prac-dec-p-8767-firefighters , 588 F.2d 235 ( 1978 )
ladies-center-nebraska-inc-a-corporation-and-m-john-epp-md-betty , 645 F.2d 645 ( 1981 )
Joseph Foster v. Albert Gueory, Ronald Dorsey, and Rudolph ... , 655 F.2d 1319 ( 1981 )
28-fair-emplpraccas-30-28-empl-prac-dec-p-32442-elliott-chung-v , 667 F.2d 788 ( 1982 )