Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/443/544/246289/
Timestamp: 2020-08-12 01:17:08
Document Index: 263483536

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2000', '§ 1732', '§ 1732', '§ 2000', '§ 1732', '§ 1732', '§ 1971', '§ 2000', '§ 2000']

United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Ironworkers Local 86 et al., Defendants-appellants, 443 F.2d 544 (9th Cir. 1971) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › Ninth Circuit › 1971 › United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Ironworkers Local 86 et al., Defendants-appellants
United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Ironworkers Local 86 et al., Defendants-appellants, 443 F.2d 544 (9th Cir. 1971)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 443 F.2d 544 (9th Cir. 1971) May 17, 1971
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED Hugh Hafer (argued), John E. Rinehart, Jr., of Bassett, Donaldson & Hafer, Seattle, Wash., Harold Stern, Gen. Counsel, Ironworkers International Union, New York City, Donald Fisher, Gen. Counsel, Sheet Metal Workers International Union, Toledo, Ohio, Martin F. O'Donoghue, Gen. Counsel, Plumbers & Pipefitters International Union, Washington, D. C., for defendants-appellants.
Frank Petramalo, Jr. (argued), David L. Rose, Robert T. Moore, Attys., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., Jerris Leonard, Asst. Atty. Gen., Stan Pitkin, U. S. Atty., Seattle, Wash., Herman Siqueland, Duane Vance, Don Davidson, Alec Brindle, Seattle, Wash., for plaintiff-appellee.
On October 31, 1969, the Attorney General of the United States1 brought an action in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington against five building construction unions2 located in Seattle, Washington, and three joint apprenticeship and training committees associated with them.3 The complaint alleged that the named unions and joint apprenticeship and training committees had denied employment opportunities to blacks on account of their race and that certain policies, practices and conduct, described therein, constituted a "pattern or practice" of resistance to full employment of blacks in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. The district court, William J. Lindberg, Chief Judge, found that all the named unions and joint apprenticeship and training committees had pursued a pattern or practice of conduct which denied blacks, on account of their race, equal employment opportunities in the construction industry; two judgments and decrees followed.4 All but one of the defendants5 have joined in the instant appeal.6 We affirm.
The joint apprenticeship and training committees who join in this appeal are entities legally separate and distinct from the specific unions with which they are associated. The committees consist of members representing both the unions and the employers,8 and are formed to oversee and run the apprenticeship programs whose purpose is to train apprentices to become journeymen in the respective trades. Once an applicant is accepted into the program,9 he becomes indentured to the joint apprenticeship and training committee for a period of years10 and participates in a program which consists of both on-the-job training and classroom instruction. It is through this program that participants gain admission to the union as a journeyman, thereby obviating the necessity of taking the avenue of direct admission which demands that an applicant meet certain requirements such as possessing a specified number of years of experience, being within a given age range, having letters of recommendation, and passing a journeyman's examination.
We are confronted initially with the appellants' contention that the "clearly erroneous" rule11 should not govern our review of the findings of fact made by the district court. They reason that the rationale underlying the rule is that an appellate court should defer to the judgment of the trial court because the trial judge had access to demeanor evidence and could readily assess the credibility of the witnesses. Hence, where, as they allege, "large reliance" is placed upon written instruments and depositions, they claim the rule does not apply as demeanor evidence played a small part in the trial judge's decision.
Appellants' characterization of the proceeding below as one in which the trial judge placed "large reliance" on documentary evidence and depositions ignores the fact that over fifty-five witnesses testified, many of whom were deponents prior to trial. Even if "large reliance" was placed on written evidence, the clearly erroneous rule would still apply. We examined this problem in Lundgren v. Freeman, 307 F.2d 104 (9th Cir. 1962), and found the better rule to be that the clearly erroneous rule does apply, even where the factual issues are decided on written evidence alone.12 Appellants would have us review the evidence de novo and freely substitute our judgment for that of the trial judge. We decline to do so. The well-established rule is that we "may not substitute our judgment if conflicting inferences may be drawn from established facts by reasonable men, and the inferences drawn by the trial court are those which could have been drawn by reasonable men." Lundgren, supra, 307 F.2d at 113. See also Jacobson v. Colorado Fuel and Iron Corp., 409 F.2d 1263, 1267 (9th Cir. 1969); Friend v. H. A. Friend & Co., 416 F.2d 526, 531 (9th Cir. 1969); United States v. Hanna Nickel Smelting Co., 400 F.2d 944, 947 (9th Cir. 1968).
The purpose of that section [Business Records Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1732, as amended, 28 U.S.C. § 1732 (Supp. IV 1961)] is to provide, in the case of business records, an exception to the hearsay rule, and to provide an acceptable substitute for specific authentication of each business record. We are not here concerned with the hearsay rule because the letters and requests contained in exhibits 968 and 984 were not offered in proof of the statements contained therein. They were introduced only to show defendants had knowledge that such statements had been made. Nor are we concerned with authentication since the authenticity of the documents need not be established where the only purpose of the documents is to show notice.
At the outset, appellants contest the use of racial statistics to prove a "pattern or practice" of discrimination as a matter of law. They categorize this mode of proof as a statistical "numbers game", incapable of proving a violation of Title VII. We believe this argument is without support as the use of statistics is well established in recent Title VII cases.14
Since the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,20 the courts have frequently relied upon statistical evidence to prove a violation. This judicial practice has most often taken the form of the use of such data as a basis for allocating the burden of proof. On the basis that a showing of an absence or a small black union membership in a demographic area containing a substantial number of black workers raises an inference that the racial imbalance is the result of discrimination, the burden of going forward and the burden of persuasion is shifted to the accused, for such a showing is enough to establish a prima facie case.21 In many cases the only available avenue of proof is the use of racial statistics to uncover clandestine and covert discrimination by the employer or union involved. One court, in Parham v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., 433 F.2d 421, 426 (8th Cir. 1970), held as a matter of law, without other supportive evidence, that the statistics introduced showing an extraordinarily small number of black employees, notwithstanding a small number who held menial jobs, established a violation of Title VII. Of course, as is the case with all statistics, their use is conditioned by the existence of proper supportive facts22 and the absence of variables which would undermine the reasonableness of the inference of discrimination which is drawn. It is our belief that the often-cited aphorism, "statistics often tell much and Courts listen,"23 has particular application in Title VII cases.
Appellants next argue that the conclusions reached by the court that appellants engaged separately in a "pattern or practice of resistance" are wholly unsupportable. They equate the phrase "pattern or practice" with "uniformly engaged in a course of conduct aimed at denying rights secured by the Act." We feel that such an interpretation is overly restrictive and does violence to the meaning intended by Congress to be accorded the phrase. Moreover, it is our firm belief that the conclusions reached by the district court are not clearly erroneous and must be affirmed.
In United States v. Mayton, 335 F.2d 153, 158 (5th Cir. 1964), an action under the Civil Rights Act of 1960, in which the court found that racial discrimination in the voter registration process was pursuant to a "pattern or practice", the court addressed itself to defining the words and concluded that they "were not intended to be words of art." See also United States v. Ramsey, 331 F.2d 824, 837 (5th Cir. 1964) (Judge Rivas, concurring and dissenting in part). With respect to the phrase, Senator Keating commented that " [t]he `pattern or practice' requirement means only that the proven discriminatory conduct of defendants was not merely an isolated instance of racial discrimination." 106 Cong.Rec. 7767.
We are firmly convinced that it was the intent of Congress that a "pattern or practice" be found where the acts of discrimination are not "isolated, peculiar or accidental" events. The words were not intended to be words of art. Applying this definition in the instant case, we are compelled to concur with the district court's findings that appellants engaged in a "pattern or practice" of discrimination. The findings are well documented with statistical evidence showing a distinct absence of black membership in the unions and the apprenticeship programs; the failure of the union hiring halls to grant blacks referrals; many overt acts of discrimination on the part of appellants; and many facially neutral employment practices which had a differential effect upon blacks. We are not concerned with isolated or accidental acts by appellants but a "pattern or practice" of resistance by them which has had an effect of denying black workers equal job opportunities in the Seattle area.
Appellants finally contend that the district court violated section 703(j) of the Act27 in ordering appellant unions to offer immediate job referrals to previous discriminatees, and ordering appellant apprenticeship and training committees to select and indenture sufficient black applicants to overcome past discrimination, and to also meet judicially imposed ceiling requirements in apprenticeship program participation. This they condemn as "racial quotas" and "racial preferences." We cannot agree.
The Act vests in the Attorney General and the trial court power to eliminate both the vestiges of past discrimination and terminate present discrimination practices. Under sections 706(g)28 and 707(a)29 , unlawful employment practices may be enjoined by the court and such affirmative relief granted as the court may deem appropriate. The only statutory limitation on the availability of relief is the anti-preferential treatment provision of section 703(j).
There can be little doubt that where a violation of Title VII is found, the court is vested with broad remedial power to remove the vestiges of past discrimination and eliminate present and assure the non-existence of future barriers to the full enjoyment of equal job opportunities by qualified black workers. Parham v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., 433 F.2d 421, 427 (8th Cir. 1970); United States v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, No. 38, 428 F.2d 144, 151 (6th Cir. 1970); Local 53 of International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers v. Vogler, 407 F.2d 1047, 1052-1053 (5th Cir. 1969); United States ex rel. Mitchell v. Hayes International Corp., 415 F.2d 1038, 1039 (5th Cir. 1969). Cf. Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenberg Board of Education, 402 U.S. 1, 91 S. Ct. 1267, 28 L. Ed. 2d 554 (April 20, 1971). On the basis of this broad equitable power, the courts have allowed a wide range of remedial relief. See, e. g.,Electrical Workers Local 38, supra (remand to district court with direction to fashion appropriate affirmative relief); Parham, supra, (remand to the district court with directions to retain jurisdiction to assure compliance); Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 420 F.2d 1225 (4th Cir. 1970), rev'd 401 U.S. 424, 91 S. Ct. 849, 28 L. Ed. 2d 158 (March 8, 1971) (immediate work referral or union membership); Hayes International Corporation, supra (preliminary injunction); Sheet Metal Workers Local 36, supra (publication of the fact that membership and related benefits were open to all persons and an affirmative duty of minority recruitment); United States ex rel. Mitchell v. United Association etc. Plumbers Local 73, 314 F. Supp. 160 (S.D. Ind. 1969) (revamping of apprenticeship program). Without such powers, the district court would be unable to effectuate the desire of Congress to eliminate all forms of discrimination.
In Vogler, supra, 407 F.2d at 1053-1055, the district court ordered, in addition to an injunction against future discrimination and the immediate admission of four discriminatees, that the union develop objective criteria for membership and union size. As here, it was contended that the order established a "quota system to correct racial imbalance in violation of section 703(j)." Rejecting this argument, the court held the district court did "no more than ensure that the injunction against further racial discrimination would be fairly administered." Id. at 1054. The Vogler court succinctly stated that "where necessary to insure compliance with the Act, the District Court was fully impowered to eliminate the present effects of past discrimination." Similarly, in International Brotherhood of Electrial Workers, Local No. 38, supra, 428 F.2d at 149, the court felt that such an interpretation of section 703(j) "would allow a complete nullification of the purposes of the Civil Rights Act of 1964."
We therefore reject appellants' contention. The district court neither abused its discretion in ordering the affirmative relief, nor did it in any way establish a system of "racial quotas" or "preferences"' in violation of section 703(j).
42 U.S.C. § 2000e-6(a) reads:
After the court found that the unions and the joint apprenticeship and training committees had engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination, the court, desiring to structure proper and effective relief, ordered the parties (Electrical Workers Local 46, defendant contractor associations and the United States) to "take all steps available to persuade or require" the Electrical Workers Joint Apprenticeship and Training Committee (hereinafter Electrical Workers JATC) to intervene for purposes of relief in respect to conduct of the apprenticeship program. The court specifically noted that it did not intend to find or imply that the Electrical Workers JATC had discriminated against blacks, but entered the order so as to impart "uniformity in procedures relative to the J.A.T.C.'s connected with the respective defendant unions found to have discriminated." While appellants take exception to this order, we see no error in the court requesting the full cooperation of the defendants in structuring appropriate relief
The Sheet Metal Workers JATC provides an example of the process leading to acceptance into an apprenticeship program. An applicant must be between the ages of 18 to 24 (excluding time spent in the military service), pass a GATB aptitude test, complete an application form and submit a high school transcript before he is considered. Preference is given to high school graduates. Assuming these threshold requirements are met, thereby allowing the applicant the right to be considered by the committee, he is then interviewed in order to evaluate his qualifications and the committee then votes whether to accept him or not. The chairman of the Sheet Metal Workers JATC indicated that they "will more or less look favorably on an individual who has family members who are sheet metal workers."
A number of courts have held that in cases where the findings are based on documentary evidence, on uncontradicted testimony, on stipulated facts, or on testimony taken by depositions, the trial court's findings are given only slight weight on appeal See, e. g., Galena Oaks Corp. v. Scofield, 218 F.2d 217 (5th Cir. 1954); Hart v. Gallis, 275 F.2d 297 (7th Cir. 1960). See generally, 5 J. Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 52.04 (2d ed. 1959).
28 U.S.C. § 1732, as amended, 28 U.S.C. § 1732 (Supp. IV 1961)
The reliance upon statistical evidence to prove discriminatory practices is not new to the courts See, e. g., Swain v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 202, 85 S. Ct. 824, 13 L. Ed. 2d 759 (1965); Patton v. Mississippi, 332 U.S. 463, 68 S. Ct. 184, 92 L. Ed. 76 (1947); Hill v. Texas, 316 U.S. 400, 62 S. Ct. 1159, 86 L. Ed. 1559 (1942); Norris v. Alabama, 294 U.S. 587, 55 S. Ct. 579, 79 L. Ed. 1074 (1935) (jury selection cases); F. W. Woolworth Co., 25 NLRB 1362 (1940) (anti-union discrimination case). See generally, Fiss, A Theory of Fair Employment Laws, 38 U. Chi. L. Rev. 235 (1971).
Aside from their castigation of the use of such information as an engagement in a statistical "numbers game," appellants further contend that this data is irrelevant as the appellants' jurisdiction extends beyond the City of Seattle, rendering such statistics misleading. This is simply answered by the fact that the City has the single largest population within their jurisdiction and is that area from which they would most likely draw the vast majority of workers for apprenticeship, referral and membership purposes. We also recognize that appellants made no objection to this testimony at trial. We feel appellants' argument has no merit
See, e. g., United States v. Local 38, IBEW, 428 F.2d 144, 151 (6th Cir. 1970); EEOC v. United Association of Journeymen, etc., 311 F. Supp. 468 (S.D. Ohio 1970); United States ex rel. Mitchell v. Hayes Int'l Corp., 415 F.2d 1038 (5th Cir. 1969); United States v. Sheet Metal Workers Local 36, 416 F.2d 123 (8th Cir. 1969).
Fiss,supra note 14, at 272-73. See also Note, Enforcement of Fair Employment Under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 32 U. Chi. L. Rev. 430, 461 (1965).
42 U.S.C. § 1971(e)
42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(j). It provides:
42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(g) reads: