895 F.2D 86 United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
1964, § 701 et seq., 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e et 895 F.2d 86 seq. United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. 7 Cases that cite this headnote EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. JOINT APPRENTICESHIP COMMITTEE OF the JOINT INDUSTRY BOARD OF the ELECTRICAL Attorneys and Law Firms INDUSTRY, Defendant–Appellant. *87 Norman Rothfeld, New York City, for No. 467, Docket 89–6165. defendant-appellant. | Argued Nov. 30, 1989. John F. Suhre, Washington, D.C. (Charles A. Shanor, | Gen. Counsel, Gwendolyn Young Reams, Associate Gen. Decided Jan. 31, 1990. Counsel, Vella M. Fink, Asst. Gen. Counsel, E.E.O.C., Washington, D.C., on the brief), for plaintiff-appellee. Before KEARSE, ALTIMARI, and MAHONEY, Circuit Synopsis Judges. Apprenticeship committee appealed from an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Opinion New York, Whitman Knapp, J., which granted partial summary judgment to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in its action under Title VII alleging sex and KEARSE, Circuit Judge: race discrimination and enjoined committee’s use of certain criteria for admission to electrician apprenticeship programs. The Court of Appeals, Kearse, Circuit Judge, Defendant Joint Apprenticeship Committee of the Joint held that remand was required for further proceedings in Industry Board of the Electrical Industry (“JAC”) appeals light of the Wards Cove decision. from orders of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Whitman Knapp, Judge, Vacated and remanded. granting partial summary judgment to plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) on Procedural Posture(s): On Appeal; Motion for Summary EEOC’s claim that two of JAC’s criteria for entry into its Judgment. apprenticeship programs discriminate against blacks and women, respectively, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (1982) (“Title VII”), and enjoining JAC from imposing those West Headnotes (1) requirements. On appeal, JAC contends principally that the court erred in ruling that EEOC’s statistical presentation made out a prima facie case of disparate [1] Federal Courts impact. For the reasons below, we vacate and remand for Changes in law or facts pending appeal further proceedings in light of the Supreme Court’s recent Race and sex discrimination action against decision in Wards Cove Packing Co., Inc. v. Atonio, board administering training programs for 490 U.S. 642, 109 S.Ct. 2115, 104 L.Ed.2d 733 (1989) apprentice electricians had to be remanded to (“Wards Cove”). district court for further proceedings in light of the Wards Cove decision clarifying standards for establishing prima facie case of disparate impact employment discrimination under Title VII; injunction against board’s use of challenged admission standards was entered on basis of I. BACKGROUND determination that appeared not to conform to applicable legal standard. Civil Rights Act of JAC is a joint labor-management board that administers 19 and 22 had high school degrees, whereas only 68.3 training programs for apprentice electricians in the New percent of blacks in the same age group had such degrees. York City metropolitan area. Successful completion of A higher percentage of black applicants (ranging from such a program leads to eligibility for membership in an 3.42 to 6.23 percent) than of white applicants (ranging electrician’s union, Local 3 of the International from 1.79 to 2.13 percent) lacked the mandated high Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. school credentials. EEOC concluded that “the use of the criterion of a high school degree will have an adverse In administering the programs, JAC issued recruitment impact on blacks.” announcements in 1980, 1981, and 1983. Each announcement stated that applicants would not be In addition, EEOC presented statistics to demonstrate the accepted in the program unless they, inter alia, (1) disparity in JAC’s evaluations of black and white possessed a New York State-approved high school or applicants in each of the three programs administered general equivalency diploma, and (2) were no more than between 1980 and 1984. Rounded, the statistics revealed 22 years of age if they had not served in the armed forces, that in the first program, 14 percent of the blacks who or no more than 26 if they were veterans. (The upper age applied were found acceptable, as contrasted with 31 limit was eliminated for classes starting after January 1, percent of the whites who applied; in the second program, 1985, after New York State enacted a statute prohibiting 16 percent of the blacks who applied were found discrimination in admission to apprenticeship programs acceptable, as contrasted with 44 percent of the whites; in on the basis of age. N.Y.Exec. Law § 296(1)(a), (b) the third program, 49 percent of the blacks who applied (McKinney Supp.1989).) Each of JAC’s announcements were found acceptable, as contrasted with 63 percent of stated that anyone who did not meet the listed criteria the whites. should not request an application. With respect to its claim of gender discrimination, EEOC In May 1984, EEOC commenced the present action under presented statistics revealing that women constituted Title VII. It alleged that JAC’s diploma requirement some 31.5 percent of the relevant pool of potential discriminated against blacks and that its age limitation applicants but only 2.5 percent of the applicants to the discriminated against women. It requested, inter alia, an JAC programs. It argued that “[a]s the 2.5 percent of injunction and sought monetary relief for individuals female applicants is very different from the percent in an adversely affected by the alleged discrimination. estimated pool of potential applicants, women were under-represented.” After extensive discovery, EEOC moved in 1988 for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability. In The statistics also revealed that a disproportionate number support of its motion, EEOC relied principally on of women above JAC’s age limit applied for the three statistical analyses of (a) United States Census data as to programs. Thus, in the first program, 19.30 percent of the the relevant pool of potential applicants, (b) the women who applied were above the age limit, as applications received by JAC for the three programs contrasted with 6.04 percent of the men who applied. In administered in the period 1980–1984, and (c) JAC’s the second program, 21.43 percent of the women who rates of acceptance or rejection of the pertinent groups of applied were above the age limit, as contrasted with 6.02 applicants. These statistics tended to show that blacks and percent of the men. In the third program, 15.25 percent of women were underrepresented among those who applied, the women who applied were above the age limit, as and that blacks and women who applied were accepted at contrasted with 6.33 percent of the men. significantly lower rates than whites and men, respectively. The analysis of JAC’s evaluation of those who applied revealed the following approximate disparities in the With respect to the claim of racial discrimination, acceptance rates for women and men. In the first program, EEOC’s statistics revealed that blacks constituted some 11 percent of the women who applied were found 18.3 percent of the *88 pertinent pool of potential acceptable, as contrasted with 25 percent of the men who applicants but only 12.2 percent of the actual applicants to applied. In the second program, 7 percent of the women the JAC programs. EEOC argued that “[a]s the percent of who applied were found acceptable, as contrasted with 41 black applicants is very different from the expected percent of the men. In the third program, 22 percent of the percent from several estimated pools of potential women who applied were found acceptable, as contrasted applicants, a general problem exists as blacks were with 62 percent of the men. under-represented as applicants.” EEOC contended that its statistics established that Further, in the counties from which JAC received “factors related to race and sex” caused blacks and applications, 89.2 percent of whites between the ages of women to be underrepresented among actual applicants and that blacks and women were being excluded from show that its existence is more probable than not. JAC’s apprenticeship programs at statistically significant Eldredge v. Carpenters 46 Northern California higher rates than whites and men. EEOC argued that its Counties Joint Apprenticeship and Training Committee statistics established that JAC’s admission policies and (9th Cir.1987) 833 F.2d 1334, 1340 n. 8, cert. denied procedures had a disparate impact on blacks and women (1988) [487 U.S. 1210], 108 S.Ct. 2857 [101 L.Ed.2d and that EEOC had therefore established a prima facie 894] (“For purposes of [plaintiff’s] prima facie case, ... case of discrimination in violation of Title VII. It the issue is not why the [requirement] has a requested that the court grant partial summary judgment discriminatory impact, rather the issue is simply in its favor on the issue of liability. whether it has such an impact.”) JAC opposed EEOC’s motion principally by challenging May 1 Order at 6 (emphasis in Eldredge). the validity of certain of EEOC’s statistics. It presented affidavits stating, inter alia, that the pools of potential The court stated that applicants used by EEOC did not accurately reflect the groups of persons who might realistically be expected to apply for apprenticeships. Thus, JAC contended that EEOC had overstated the percentages of blacks and EEOC has come forward on its women who were potential applicants and that EEOC’s motion with sufficient statistical statistics were insufficient to establish a prima facie case.