Court Opinion

ID: 9464822
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 23:43:47.015445+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:38:50.363983
License: Public Domain

ROSS, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the majority’s decision to reverse the district court in this case. Expressly conceding that the Evans holding “does not bar recovery here,” (at 768), the majority nevertheless is persuaded by dictum in that case, which seems to be contrary to the authority in this circuit on Title VII claims of “continuing discriminatory effect” resulting from intentional pre-Act discrimination.1 Clearly, the previous authority in this circuit on “continuing” violations had been to the contrary: “The rationale , underlying the allowance of actions for continuing discrimination is to provide a remedy for past actions which operate to discriminate against the complainant at the present time." Olson v. Rembrandt Printing Co., 511 F.2d 1228, 1234 (8th Cir. 1975) (emphasis added), citing Marquez v. Omaha District Sales Office, 440 F.2d 1157, 1160 (8th Cir. 1971). See also Developments in the Law — Employment Discrimination and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 84 Harv.L.Rev. 1109, 1210-12 (1972); United States v. St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co., 464 F.2d 301, 307-08 (8th Cir. 1972) (en banc).
The majority result is reached without mention of relevant language from International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324, 97 S.Ct. 1843, 52 L.Ed.2d 396 (1977), an opinion announced the same day as Evans. The confluence of antagonistic language from these two Supreme Court opinions makes either result in this case, an affirmance or reversal, a troubled and close question. This ambiguity must at least be allowed to surface, and preferably be resolved authoritatively by the Court.
In International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324, 97 S.Ct. 1843, 52 L.Ed.2d 396 (1977) (hereinafter *770Teamsters) the United States brought a pattern and practice suit against T.I.M.E.D.C. (a transportation company) charging it with discrimination against minorities primarily in hiring so-called “line drivers”; the union had been joined as a defendant with the company in a second action brought by the United States. One of the claims of the plaintiffs was that the present seniority system, although neutral on its face, carried the effects of earlier racial discrimination into the present by locking minority members into the inferior jobs they held as a result of prior discrimination. The Supreme Court did not dispute that the seniority system trapped minority workers and tended to promote the ill effects of prior race discrimination, but concluded that in one section of Title VII, § 703(h) [42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(h)] Congress had afforded a measure of immunity to all bona fide seniority systems.2 Teamsters, supra, 431 U.S. at 349-50, 97 S.Ct. 1843. The Court thus denied relief to plaintiffs who sought an alteration of the seniority system as a remedy for discrimination against them which had occurred prior to the effective date of the Act. It was the judgment of Congress, the Court concluded, that the seniority rights of workers at the time of the passage of Title VII were to remain intact, and that pre-Act discriminatees could not seek to affect these vested seniority rights.
It is apparent that § 703(h) was drafted with an eye toward meeting the earlier criticism on this issue with an explicit provision embodying the understanding and assurances of the Act’s proponents: namely, that Title VII would not outlaw such differences in treatment among employees as flowed from a bona fide seniority system that allowed for full exercise of seniority accumulated before the effective date of the Act.
Teamsters, supra, 431 U.S. at 352, 97 S.Ct. at 1863.
This conclusion was premised on the view that § 703(h) specially immunized seniority systems; the Court did not indicate that § 703(h) immunizes any kind of current practice or policy which perpetuates the effects of prior discrimination, or that such a continuing discriminatory effect would not otherwise be remediable under Title VII. The Court discussed continuing discriminatory effect as follows:
One kind of practice “fair in form, but discriminatory in operation” is that which perpetuates the effects of prior discrimination.32 As the Court held in Griggs, supra: “Under the Act, practices, procedures, or tests neutral on their face, and even neutral in terms of intent, cannot be maintained if they operate to ‘freeze’ the status quo of prior discriminatory employment practices.” 401 U.S., at 430, 91 S.Ct., at 853.
Were it not for § 703(h), the seniority system in this case would seem to fall under the Griggs rationale. The heart of the system is its allocation of the choicest jobs, the greatest protection against layoffs, and other advantages to those employees who have been line drivers for the longest time. Where, because of the employer’s prior intentional discrimination, the line drivers with the longest tenure are without exception white, the advantages of the seniority system flow disproportionately to them and away from Negro and Spanish-surnamed employees who might by now have enjoyed those advantages had not the employer discriminated before the passage of the Act. This disproportionate distribution *771of advantages does in a very real sense “operate to ‘freeze’ the status quo of pri- or discriminatory employment practices.” Ibid. But both the literal terms of § 703(h) and the legislative history of Title VII demonstrate that Congress considered this very effect of many seniority systems and extended a measure of immunity to them.
Id. at 349-50, 97 S.Ct. at 1861 (emphasis added).
It is my conclusion that a pre-Act discriminatee may still redress the continuing effects of a prior discriminatory act which is not perpetuated in a bona fide seniority system.
Clearly, Farris was not denied a raise pursuant to a seniority system in this case. Although the amount of the incremental raise in the St. Louis school system is a function of years of service, it is a function of that only, and the position of other workers vis-a-vis Farris is not bettered or worsened depending on whether or not she receives the extra salary each year. Therefore, the legislative policy supporting § 703(h), protecting employees from suffering for their employer’s pre-Act discrimination, is not a consideration in this ease. Teamsters, supra, 431 U.S. at 352-53, 97 S.Ct. 1843. See Chavez v. Tempe Union High School, 565 F.2d 1087, 1093 n. 8 (9th Cir. 1977). Moreover, Farris’ situation does illustrate a “continuing violation”; she presently must endure the effect of the prior discriminatory act, a forced maternity leave, each year that she remains one notch lower on the salary scale as a result of not receiving any credit for teaching in the 1969—70 school year. The past discriminatory act “operate[s] to discriminate against the complainant at the present time.” Olson v. Rembrandt Printing Co., 511 F.2d 1228, 1234 (8th Cir. 1975) (en banc). See also Cedeck v. Hamiltonian Federal Savings and Loan Association, 551 F.2d 1136, 1137 (8th Cir. 1977); Markey v. Tenneco Oil Co., 439 F.Supp. 219 (E.D.La.1977).
Though I am aware of the ambiguity which Evans dictum creates, I do not find it dispositive for several reasons. Evans involved a post -Act discriminatee, who, unlike Farris, had the opportunity to redress the discriminatory act in 1968 but did not make a timely filing. Farris timely filed with the EEOC after the amendments became effective. Secondly, were we to read the Evans dictum on “discriminatory act[s] which occurred before the statute was passed” broadly, it would conflict with what I see in Teamsters as a willingness to give certain pre-Act discriminatees a Title YII remedy. In Teamsters, supra, 431 U.S. 324, 97 S.Ct. 1843, the Court had reiterated its holding from Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424, 430, 91 S.Ct. 849, 28 L.Ed.2d 158 (1971) that “[u]nder the Act, practices, procedures, or tests neutral on their face, and even neutral in terms of intent, cannot be maintained if they operate to ‘freeze’ the status quo of prior discriminatory employment practices.”3 Teamsters, supra, 431 U.S. at 349, 97 S.Ct. at 1861.
Finally, Evans, unlike the present case, also involved a seniority system; the Court concluded that allowing Evans to file a claim long after the initial discriminatory *772act would constitute an impermissible attack on the seniority system. “A contrary view would substitute a claim for seniority credit for almost every claim which is barred by limitations. Such a result would contravene the mandate of § 703(h).” Evans, supra, 431 U.S. at 560, 97 S.Ct. at 1890.
In the absence of a clearer statement from the Court qualifying Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424, 91 S.Ct. 849, 28 L.Ed.2d 158 (1971), I conclude that Farris’ timely-filed complaint alleging pre-Act discrimination with “continuing” effects, and not involving a bona fide seniority system, is remediable under Title VII. No other case in which this court has dealt with the Evans opinion has presented the precise question presented here. In Martin v. Georgia-Pacific Corp., 568 F.2d 58 (8th Cir. 1977); DeGraffenreid v. General Motors Assembly Div., 558 F.2d 480, 485 (8th Cir. 1977) and Wells v. Meyer’s Bakery, 561 F.2d 1268, 1274 n. 5 (8th Cir. 1977) all the post-Act discriminatees had failed to make a timely filing.
Accordingly, I would affirm this portion of the district court opinion, as well as the decision on the merits,4 as I believe the Board policy in this case constituted unlawful discrimination on the basis of sex under Nashville Gas Co. v. Satty, 434 U.S. 136, 98 S.Ct. 347, 54 L.Ed.2d 343 (1977).

. Undoubtedly, the Evans language referring to “a discriminatory act which occurred before the statute was passed” was dictum in that case; all the events in Evans occurred subse-

. A bona fide seniority system is apparently one which is presently neutral and which did not have its “genesis in racial discrimination.” International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324, 346 n.28, 352, 97 S.Ct. 1843, 52 L.Ed.2d 396 (1977).

 Local 53 Asbestos Workers v. Vogler, 407 F.2d 1047 (CA5), provides an apt illustration. There a union had a policy of excluding persons not related to present members by blood or marriage. When in 1966 suit was brought to challenge this policy, all of the union’s members were white, largely as a result of pre-Act, intentional racial discrimination. The court observed: “While the nepotism requirement is applicable to black and white alike and is not on its face discriminatory, in a completely white union the present effect of its continued application is to forever deny to negroes and Mexican-Americans any real opportunity for membership.” Id. at 1054.

. In United States v. Trucking Employers, Inc., 182 U.S.App.D.C. 315, 320, 561 F.2d 313, 318 (1977) the court dealt with a proposed waiver between the parties which would release the employer from “ ‘any and all claims arising out of any alleged discrimination * * * which may have occurred prior to 20 March, 1974’ ” (the filing date). The parties could not agree on the effect of this waiver, and whether it released claims arising from the future effects of past discrimination. The court said, inter alia:
[T]he waiver would not preclude a suit arising from the post-decree operation of any neutral practice, other than the seniority systern, that perpetuated the effects of the prior act of neutral discrimination.
Id. 182 U.S.App.D.C. at 321, 561 F.2d at 319.
The court quoted from Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424, 91 S.Ct. 849, 28 L.Ed.2d 158 (1971) and then added: “International Brotherhood of Teamsters, supra, proceeded on the assumption that absent 703(h), a seniority system which perpetuated the effects of prior acts of discrimination would fall under the rationale of Griggs, [citation omitted].” United States v. Trucking Employers, Inc., supra, 182 U.S.App.D.C. at 321, 561 F.2d at 319 n. 24. I agree with this case, at least to the extent it would affect pre-Act discriminatees.

. Mandatory leave regulations of this duration also violate a woman’s constitutional rights under the Due Process Clause of the fourteenth amendment, “because they employ irrebuttable presumptions that unduly penalize a female teacher for deciding to bear a child." Cleveland Board of Education v. La Fleur, 414 U.S. 632, 94 S.Ct. 791, 39 L.Ed.2d 52 (1974).
Although this case was decided under 28 U.S.C. § 1983 and not Title VII, it seems ironic that Ms. Farris could have recovered under a timely § 1983 action, but is not permitted to recover under a timely Title VII action.