Opinion ID: 389263
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Chair Car Attendants

Text: 57 The trial court limited relief to the chair car attendant subclass to awards of seniority, because Santa Fe settled monetary claims prior to trial and because it held UTU was not liable for post-Act discrimination. We have already found the union liable to this subclass. Under normal circumstances we would simply remand to the district court so that it might formulate a proper remedy. But it has already treated aspects of the remedy, considering seniority rights this subclass has against Santa Fe. Therefore, it seems appropriate to review the trial court's analysis on this issue and to provide guidance for the trial court. 58 In formulating back pay for the members of the chair car attendant subclass, different considerations apply than to the porter subclass. This is not a situation of equal pay for equal work; these individuals were not performing brakemen's duties on the effective date of Title VII. We think a proper back pay award against the union might treat the individuals as new hires without previous seniority, from and after the date they did or would have applied to become brakemen. 59 In formulating remedies for post-Act discriminatory refusals to promote, the district court here divided the subclass of chair car attendants into two groups: those who applied for the position of brakeman and those who did not apply for that position. Order of October 23, 1978, at 10. In order to take advantage of the presumptions that he was able to perform the job functions of a brakeman and that a vacancy for a brakeman existed at the relevant time, the district court required each applicant to establish the date he applied for transfer or promotion and that he was physically qualified for the job. The proof required of each nonapplicant was that: 60 a) he would have applied for transfer or promotion, being willing to give up his February 7 (1966) Agreement protection and his chair car attendant seniority, and would have been willing to begin at the bottom of the brakeman seniority roster; 61 b) the date he would have applied for transfer or promotion under these conditions; and 62 c) that he was physically qualified for the job. 63 Order of October 23, 1978, at 16. 64 We agree that a nonapplicant should show when he would have applied. The Teamsters court said 65 To conclude that a person's failure to submit an application for a job does not inevitably and forever foreclose his entitlement to seniority relief under Title VII is a far cry, however, from holding that nonapplicants are always entitled to such relief. A nonapplicant must show that he was a potential victim of unlawful discrimination. Because he is necessarily claiming that he was deterred from applying for the job by the employer's discriminatory practices, his is the not always easy burden of proving that he would have applied for the job had it not been for those practices. When this burden is met, the nonapplicant is in a position analogous to that of an applicant and is entitled to the (same) presumption  66 431 U.S. at 367-68, 97 S.Ct. at 1870-71 (emphasis added). 67 We believe, however, that a member of the subclass who actually applied to become a brakeman should be allowed to show that he would have applied sooner (no earlier than July 2, 1965) had it not been for the unlawful discriminatory practices by defendants. To hold otherwise favors one who never challenged the system over one who, after delay, mustered the courage to make actual application. 68 Also, those who show they would have applied before February 7, 1966, should not be required to demonstrate they would have been willing to give up the job protection of the February 7 agreement. Until that time they had no protectable agreement right to give up. Also, as to those individuals, they should not be required to show they would have given up their chair car attendant's seniority. Until the February 7 agreement the chair car attendants had no collective bargaining agreement giving them seniority protection. 69 Affirmed in part, reversed in part. The case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.