Opinion ID: 401038
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Defendants' Rebuttal

Text: 56 Defendants contend that assignments to deck and wharf jobs were made on the basis of gang longevity and individual skill without regard to race. The district court accepted this contention and based its finding of nondiscrimination on those factors. Plaintiffs argue that the court erred in making this finding and that its conclusion was actually based upon its belief that there was a trend of a steady movement of black longshoremen into 'preferred' work.... Williams v. NOSA, 466 F.Supp. at 675-76. 57 We must disagree with plaintiffs on both assertions. First, we interpret the courts' language concerning the trend to mean that despite pre-Title VII discrimination, 17 defendants' assignment system permitted blacks to make great strides in general cargo gangs. The court ruled against plaintiffs because defendants' assignment system was a legitimate and reasonable explanation for the disparities as well as the catalyst for the upward movement apparent in the statistics, and not because the strides negated any existing discrimination. 58 Plaintiffs contest the district court's reliance on the seniority-based assignment system not because such a system violates Title VII or § 1981, 18 but because defendants allegedly failed to prove its existence. Again, we disagree. 59 At trial, both sides presented evidence concerning the assignment system. Several witnesses, including class representative Richard, testified that there was a custom or practice 19 of filling openings in the preferred deck and wharf jobs with the most senior member in the hold, provided he had the requisite skills. There was testimony by defense witnesses recounting various incidents where this custom was enforced, and contradictory testimony by some plaintiffs' witnesses concerning promotions without regard to gang tenure. 60 The district court was justified in concluding that there was a custom or practice of making assignments on the basis of seniority. In fact, plaintiffs' witness so testified. The fact that the system occasionally was disregarded does not render it invalid. Because plaintiffs alleged a pattern or practice of discriminatory assignments, they had to prove more than the mere occurrence of isolated or 'accidental' or sporadic discriminatory acts. Teamsters, 431 U.S. at 336, 97 S.Ct. at 1855. 61 Defendants rebutted plaintiffs' prima facie case with more than mere affirmations of good faith, Alexander v. Louisiana, 405 U.S. 625, 632, 92 S.Ct. 1221, 1226, 31 L.Ed.2d 536 (1972). They produced evidence, including evidence from one of plaintiffs' own witnesses, proving that assignments were made according to gang longevity and individual skill. 62 The record amply supports the district court's conclusion that job assignments within general cargo gangs were made on the basis of seniority and skill. Prior to Title VII's enactment, virtually no blacks were in the preferred positions. Since then, however, the figures indicate that blacks have been moving rapidly into deck and wharf jobs. Plaintiffs' exhibits showing that as of 1973, 63% of all deck and wharf jobs were performed by blacks illustrate the effectiveness of the system. If this trend continues, by the time this appeal is resolved, blacks may have overcome completely the final vestiges of pre-Title VII discrimination even though seniority is applicable. 63 Although we disagree with some of the court's statistical analysis, we affirm its finding on the ultimate issue of discriminatory assignments.