Opinion ID: 312272
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: background: the first ina litigation

Text: 2 In late 1969, Stebbins filed a class action (Civil Action No. 2848-69) against the Insurance Company of North America (INA), 2 claiming racially discriminatory denial of job opportunities to himself and other blacks, in contravention of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Secs. 2000e et seq., and section 16 of the Civil Rights Act of 1870, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1981. 3 He alleged that, as part of INA's discriminatory practices, the company had refused to employ him or provide him with information concerning the positions of Claims Examiner, Adjuster, Supervisor, Technical Representative, and Manager. 3 On a record consisting of a deposition of Stebbins taken by INA, exhibits introduced by INA during this deposition, and affidavits from the company's officers, INA moved for summary judgment on three separate grounds: First, since Stebbins did not allege that he had ever applied for employment, he could not claim there had been a refusal to hire him. Moreover, the exhibits showed that INA had responded directly to his requests for job specifications and had repeatedly asked him to complete an application form, which had been mailed to him. 4 Second, INA contended that the record demonstrated Stebbins was unemployable in any position of fiscal trust in the insurance industry. 4 5 Third, it was claimed that Stebbins had no standing to represent a class of aggrieved persons unless he himself had been the subject of unlawful discrimination. 6 The Equal Employment Opportunities Commission (EEOC) appeared at a hearing on June 17, 1970, as amicus curiae in support of INA's motion for summary judgment. Its counsel stated in oral argument that, since Stebbins had never applied for a position, the record demonstrated no Title VII violation as to him. The Commission also agreed that Stebbins' deposition showed he was unqualified for employment as an insurance adjuster or in a supervisory capacity. Finally, the EEOC argued that the court should strike the class action claims-not because Stebbins had failed to prove discrimination against himself 5 -but because he was not a competent class representative as required by Rule 23(a)(4), Fed.R.Civ.P. 7 INA recognized the heavy burden it carried in seeking summary judgment on the broad ground of Stebbins' unemployability. It pointed out that Stebbins had not offered any counteraffidavits and had failed to respond to INA's statement of undisputed material facts. In short, Stebbins failed to contest any of the issues upon which INA sought judgment, and his only opposition was based on his stated desire to conduct extensive discovery proceedings against INA-without intimating what relationship this might bear to INA's proffered defenses. 8 At the conclusion of the June 17 hearing, the trial court orally advised Stebbins that the motion for summary judgment would be granted on the grounds that Stebbins had not applied for a job and was not employable in the insurance industry. One June 30, 1970, the court issued a memorandum 6 delineating the facts established by INA that were not in dispute. Based on these facts, the court concluded that the defendants had not engaged in unlawful employment practices under section 703(a)(1) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e-2(a)(1). 7 Two separate grounds were cited for this conclusion: by reason of the fact that plaintiff has refused to file an application for employment with INA, and because plaintiff is so lacking in elementary financial prudence, candor, stability, meaningful interest in the business world and definite career direction that no prudent insurance company could reasonably employ him in a position of fiscal trust. . . . 8 9 Stebbins took no appeal from this judgment.