Opinion ID: 436108
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Charges Against A & P

Text: 5 On October 17, 1974, EEOC Commissioner John Powell filed a Commissioner's charge against A & P. The Commission, in turn, filed the charge with the EEOC's Philadelphia Regional Office on October 23, 1974. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e-5(d) (1976), 8 the Philadelphia Office referred the Commissioner's charge to the appropriate state and local agencies. Those agencies waived jurisdiction on November 18. On December 6, 1974, the EEOC served notice of the charge on A & P. That notice obliged A & P to preserve all relevant personnel records. 29 C.F.R. Sec. 1602.14 (1983). 6 Prior to the filing of the Commissioner's charge, four individual charges alleging employment discrimination by A & P had been filed with the EEOC. On June 23, 1972, Theodore Alexander alleged that he had been denied promotions to managerial positions, assigned to stores in predominately black areas, and denied overtime on account of his race. On October 31, 1973, Henry LeSesane alleged that he had been required to take a polygraph examination following a store robbery and had twice been demoted because of his race. LeSesane supplemented his original charge in August of 1974, alleging that he had been denied a promotion to assistant manager on account of race. In November of 1973, Bernie Holland charged that he had been denied a transfer from a produce to a grocery department because of his race. When he was discharged, Holland added an allegation of discriminatory discharge. Finally, in March of 1974 Katie Lomax charged that A & P had repeatedly refused to permit her to apply for employment on grounds of race and sex, and that when she was hired she was denied access to higher-paying jobs reserved for men. 7 The Commissioner's October 17, 1974 charge differed significantly from these four individual charges. First, the Commissioner's charge named as respondents not only A & P, but fourteen unions having collective bargaining agreements with the company. Second, the charge was made not on behalf of the four named individuals, but 8 on behalf of an aggrieved class with a membership which includes, but is not limited to, all persons who have been and who continue to be or might be adversely affected by the unlawful employment practices [alleged therein]. 9 App. at 242. Third, the Commissioner's charge was far more extensive than any of the four individual charges. The charge alleged a pattern or practice of discriminatory employment practices against blacks and females 10 with respect to hiring, layoff, recall, wages, discharge, promotions, seniority, job classifications, training, exclusion, union representation, benefits, segregated facilities, and other terms and conditions of employment .... 11 App. at 239-40. Moreover, the charge particularized that the practices complained of included but were not limited to: 12 1. Refusing and failing to recruit and hire blacks and females for positions at all levels of employment at respondent facilities on an equal basis as white males because of their race, color and sex. 13 2. Following a policy or practice of hiring and assigning its female employees on the basis of sex with female employees being hired for and assigned to the less desirable and generally lower paying jobs with the least opportunity for advancement. 14 3. Following a policy and practice of denying blacks assignments into more desirable and generally higher paying jobs with the greatest opportunity for advancement on an equal basis as whites because of their race. 15 4. Refusing and failing to provide benefits to female employees on the same basis as to male employees because of their sex. 16 5. Refusing and failing to hire and/or promote blacks and females into supervisory positions at its divisional headquarters on an equal basis as white males. 17 6. Engaging in additional acts and practices which discriminate against black and female persons with respect to their compensation, terms and conditions, and privileges of employment and which limit, segregate and classify their black and female employees in ways which deprive or tend to deprive them of employment opportunities or adversely affect their status as employees because of their race, color or sex. These acts and practices include, but are not limited to: 18 a. Failing and refusing to transfer, assign or promote black and female persons on the same basis as white males; 19 b. Failing to provide opportunities for apprenticeship, training and advancement to black and female applicants for employment and employees equal to those opportunities provided to white male applicants for employment and employees; 20 c. Failing to provide opportunities for advancement into supervisory positions to black and female employees equal to those opportunities provided to white male employees; and 21 d. Failing to take reasonable and appropriate action to correct the present effects of their past discrimination. 22 App. at 240-41. 23 In addition to these charges against A & P, the Commissioners' Charge alleged discrimination by the respondent unions: 24 7. The respondent employer and the respondent unions and their locals, have entered into collective bargaining agreements which establish seniority systems and procedures for promotion, demotion, layoff, recall, benefits, transfer and other terms and conditions of employment which are based upon the length of service in certain occupations, lines of progression, departments, areas or union jurisdictions from which black and female persons have been excluded or had only limited access, which therefore, deprive black and female employees of the opportunity to compete on an equal basis with their white male contemporaries for more desirable and better paying jobs. The respondent unions and their locals, and the respondent employer have failed and refused to take appropriate action to correct such systems and procedures and to eliminate the discriminatory effects resulting therefrom. 25 App. at 241-42.