Opinion ID: 504371
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Summer Hires

Text: 87 Finally, we review USX's contention that the district court erred by its award of damages to applicants for summer employment. USX argues that [n]owhere in the District Court's liability decision ... did the Court find as a matter of fact or law that USX unlawfully discriminated against black applicants for summer employment in 1972 and/or 1973. Brief For Appellee/Cross-Appellant at 42. This argument, however, misstates the findings of the district court. We conclude that the district court's opinion clearly included applicants for summer employment in the class to which USX was liable. 88 In its order dated August 26, 1980 certifying the class, the district court stated that the plaintiff class was comprised of [a]ll black persons who unsuccessfully sought employment at the Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania Plant of [USX] between July (11) (sic), 1972, and the [date of this order]. Green, 570 F.Supp. at 256. That order was never amended to exclude summer applicants from the plaintiff class, and there is no indication that the district court contemplated that this sub-class was to be severed from the overall class. To the contrary, in several instances in its opinion, the district court made particular reference to the summer applicants. See id. at 257 (Findings of Fact p 16) ([a]pproximately 15% of new P & M hires during the class period were hired for summer jobs); id. at 271 (Findings of Fact p 128) (questioning the statistical evidence presented by USX's expert, and noting that part of the reason for the doubt was that the expert's data did not include applications submitted by persons seeking summer jobs, although they are members of the class ) (emphases supplied). We are convinced by these references, and by our review of the record, that the district court made findings of fact regarding the summer hires that justified inclusion of this sub-class in the damage award. In this light, USX's challenge regarding the summer applicants is more appropriately characterized as an assertion that the record does not support the liability determination that the district court made. On this question, our standard of review is whether the court's findings were clearly erroneous, see Pullman, 456 U.S. 273, 102 S.Ct. 1781, and our conclusion is that they were not. 89 In our review of the propriety of the factual findings of the district court, we need only determine whether the decision that it reached was reasonable--not whether a different conclusion would also have been reasonable. Before we may properly intrude upon any factual finding that the district court made, we must be left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395, 68 S.Ct. 525, 542, 92 L.Ed. 746 (1948). In this case, we are not in this way convinced of any error by the district court. 90 Although much of the data regarding summer hires for the years in question was unavailable, we note that the reason for that unavailability was USX's destruction of all of the applications for employment prior to 1975. See Green, 570 F.Supp. at 261 (Findings of Fact p 49). Notwithstanding this fact, the class's statistical expert, Dr. Litwin, was able to present findings to the district court that [USX's] hiring had a statistically significant negative and disparate impact upon blacks during the overall class period [,] ... [and this conclusion was] the same whether summer hires were included or excluded. Id. at 265 (Findings of Fact p 83) (emphasis supplied). 91 In our view, the inferences that the district court drew from these facts were reasonable. We are not left with the certain impression that the district court's findings that the summer hires should be included in the overall class for the purpose of determining liability were clearly erroneous. Therefore, we will affirm this aspect of the district court's judgment.