Opinion ID: 421169
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Advertising Evidence

Text: 37 The EEOC relied at trial on the content and placement of job vacancy advertisements in newspaper classified sections from 1965 to 1971. Again, the evidence here concerns the period about which we are most concerned, namely, the period after the effective date of Title VII and before the Capaci charge. 38 The Commission argued that the advertisements were discriminatory for two reasons. First, the content of several advertisements indicated a preference for males in management openings and a preference for females in non-management positions. A series of advertisements run in the Baton Rouge Morning Advocate expressed an interest in qualified young men to train for store management positions. 5 A 1965 advertisement placed in the New Orleans Times Picayune sought Local Men 23 to 45 to train as assistant to ice cream plant manager, and a 1971 advertisement in the Times Picayune for a personnel director stated: We are seeking a vital, aggressive man who is ready to realize his potential. See 525 F.Supp. at 339 n. 29. In contrast, a number of other advertisements sought counter girls and salesladies for non-management positions. 39 The Commission also pointed out that the advertisements for manager trainees, even when gender-neutral in content, were routinely placed in the newspapers' Help Wanted-Male or Male Help Wanted columns. At the time, the Times Picayune had columns designated Help Wanted-Male, Help Wanted-Female and Help Wanted-Male or Female. The Morning Advocate had columns designated Male Help Wanted, Female Help Wanted and Help Wanted. Frequently, advertisements for secretaries, salesladies, counter girls, counter clerks and cashiers--all non-management positions--were placed in the female columns, while advertisements for a manager trainee, career in management, fountain manager trainee and personnel director were found in the male columns. 40 We find that the advertising evidence is evidence of discrimination. While not determinative by itself, it should have weighed in the EEOC's favor. None of the reasons given by the district court and by the defendant for disregarding this evidence are persuasive. 41 The district court noted that EEOC regulations prior to 1969 did not prohibit neutral advertising under male or female newspaper headings. 6 However, this circuit has held that placing advertisements for flight attendants in female columns without corresponding advertisements in male columns is an unlawful employment practice under section 704(b) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(b), since sex is not a bona fide occupational qualification for that position. Hailes v. United Air Lines, 464 F.2d 1006 (5th Cir.1972). The advertisement in question in that case was placed in a New Orleans newspaper in 1967, contemporaneously with the K & B advertisements at issue here. While administrative interpretations of statutory meaning are entitled to deference, Batterton v. Francis, 432 U.S. 416, 424, 97 S.Ct. 2399, 2405, 53 L.Ed.2d 448, 456 (1977), a prior panel decision of the circuit is entitled to more than deference, and cannot be overruled by a later panel, Gates v. Collier, 616 F.2d 1268, 1272 (5th Cir.1980). Were it simply a matter of choosing an authority to follow, we would adhere to the law of our circuit. This entire argument, however, is somewhat off the mark. K & B was not sued for discriminatory advertising. While such practices are expressly prohibited by Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(b), the class aspect of this suit was brought for discriminatory treatment of female employees under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a). The plaintiff claiming disparate treatment of women as a class must establish a pattern and practice of gender-based discrimination by the employer, and must also establish discriminatory motivation. Wheeler v. City of Columbus, Mississippi, 686 F.2d 1144, 1150 (5th Cir.1982). Especially since the defendant has never claimed that it actually relied upon or was even aware of the then-existing EEOC guidelines, the advertising evidence is useful and probative insofar as it goes to establish motivation and hiring policies. 42 At trial, retired employment manager Genevieve Ronquette took responsibility for the placement and wording of some of the advertisements. She was the first woman ever appointed to a management position at K & B. The district court and the defendant apparently rely on two arguments concerning Ronquette's actions. One argument is that Ronquette had no instructions [from higher management] as to the column in which the ads should be placed .... 525 F.Supp. at 339. We fail to see why this fact matters. Ronquette held a position in storewide management and was touted by K & B as living proof that it does not discriminate against women and does promote them to important management posts. She acted for management and the defendant is responsible for those actions. Liability under Title VII is not limited to acts of the chairman of the board or other males at the very top of the corporate pyramid. 43 The district court, impressed with Ronquette as a truthful witness, also relied on the finding that her practices in composing and placing ads were not to carry out any policy of discrimination against women, but to achieve the best results from the ads in light of her experience as to the gender which would be more interested in the job vacancy being advertised. 525 F.Supp. at 340. We find little if any testimony in the record to support this conclusion with respect to management positions. When counsel pointed out that advertisements for manager trainees usually ran in the male columns, her response was: Well, that was because managers were always males. So, I put it in the male column. Furthermore, even if the advertisements were placed out of a sincere belief that females would not be interested in the job, such a belief is precisely the kind of stereotyped assumption that Title VII is aimed at eliminating. 44 Before the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was enacted, an employer could fashion his personnel policies on the basis of assumptions about the differences between men and women, whether or not the assumptions were valid. 45 It is now well recognized that employment decisions cannot be predicated on mere stereotyped impressions about the characteristics of males or females.... 46 The statute makes it unlawful to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1) (emphasis added). The statute's focus on the individual is unambiguous. It precludes treatment of individuals as simply components of a racial, religious, sexual, or national class.... Even a true generalization about the class is an insufficient reason for disqualifying an individual to whom the generalization does not apply. 47 City of Los Angeles, Department of Water and Power v. Manhart, 435 U.S. 702, 707-08, 98 S.Ct. 1370, 1375, 55 L.Ed.2d 657, 664-65 (1978). 48 K & B points out that other advertisements it introduced were neutral as to gender. This argument goes to the weight of the EEOC evidence, but does not completely eliminate its importance. Finally, we note that K & B faces a dilemma. If the advertising did in fact deter women from applying for management positions, then its effect was discriminatory. On the other hand, if there were no adverse effects on women, then Dr. Gastwirth's statistical case is strengthened, and the defendant faces a great, and in our view insurmountable, challenge to explain why all 265 manager trainees hired from the external labor force in the 1965-1972 period were men. 7