From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Taylor v. Armco Steel Corporation

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Jul 7, 1970
429 F.2d 498 (5th Cir. 1970)

Summary

In Taylor v. Armco Steel Corp. et al., 429 F.2d 498 (5th Cir. 1970), we were confronted with the dismissal of a complaint brought by black employees alleging that a collectively bargained seniority system being presently enforced by their union and their employer violated Title VII.

Summary of this case from Peters v. Missouri-Pacific Railroad Company

Opinion

No. 28180.

July 7, 1970.

S. Norman Sorrell, Mandell Wright, Gabrielle K. McDonald, Houston, Tex., for appellants; William B. Gould, Detroit, Mich., McDonald McDonald, Houston, Tex., Jonathan K. Harkavy, Albert J. Rosenthal, Jack Greenberg, William L. Robinson, New York City, of counsel.

George W. Rice, Chris Dixie, Houston, Tex., for appellees; Butler, Binion, Rice, Cook Knapp, Houston, Tex., of counsel.

Russell Specter, Acting Gen. Counsel, David W. Zugschwerdt, Atty., Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Washington, D.C., amicus curiae.

Before WISDOM, AINSWORTH, and CLARK, Circuit Judges.


Labor seniority systems revised under pressure from black employees and blessed by collective bargaining agreements have improved the economic position of Negro workers long subject to job discrimination. Often however these systems carry forward past discrimination inherent in the original establishment of a "skilled" (white) line of progression and an "unskilled" (black) line of progression. Eleven years ago this Court gave its blessing to the revision of such a system installed at the Houston plant of Armco Steel Corporation that improved the lot of many black employees but still fell short of cleansing progression lines of past racial discrimination. Whitfield v. United Steel Workers of America, 5 Cir. 1959, 263 F.2d 546, cert. denied 360 U.S. 902, 79 S.Ct. 1285, 3 L. Ed.2d 1254. We rested our decision on the National Labor Relations Act (Labor Management Relations Act, 1947), 29 U.S.C. § 151 et seq. and Steele v. Louisville and Nashville R.R. Co., 1944, 323 U.S. 192, 65 S.Ct. 226, 89 L.Ed. 173, 187. Within the context of the NLRA and Steele, Whitfield is defensible. Today, however, the Court must reverse and remand this case to the district court for proceedings consistent with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; Local 189, United Papermakers and Paperworkers v. United States by Mitchell, 5 Cir. 1969, 416 F.2d 980; United States by Mitchell v. Hayes International Corporation, 5 Cir. 1969, 415 F.2d 1038; and the decisional development of the law in other circuits.

See Norman v. Missouri Pacific Railroad, 8 Cir. 1969, 414 F.2d 73; Quarles v. Philip Morris, Inc., E.D.Va. 1968, 279 F. Supp. 505. See also Gould, Employment Security, Seniority and Race: The Role of Title VII. of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 13 Howard L.J. 1 (1967); Gould, Seniority and the Black Worker; Reflections on Quarles and its Implications, 47 Texas L.Rev. 1039 (1969); Cooper Sobel, Seniority and Testing Under Employment Laws: A General Approach to Objective Criteria of Hiring and Promotion, 82 Howard L.Rev. 1598 (1969); Note, Title VII., Seniority Discrimination and the Incumbent Negro, 80 Harvard L.Rev. 1260 (1967).

Reversed and remanded.


Summaries of

Taylor v. Armco Steel Corporation

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Jul 7, 1970
429 F.2d 498 (5th Cir. 1970)

In Taylor v. Armco Steel Corp. et al., 429 F.2d 498 (5th Cir. 1970), we were confronted with the dismissal of a complaint brought by black employees alleging that a collectively bargained seniority system being presently enforced by their union and their employer violated Title VII.

Summary of this case from Peters v. Missouri-Pacific Railroad Company
Case details for

Taylor v. Armco Steel Corporation

Case Details

Full title:John TAYLOR et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, Alfred James et al.…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

Date published: Jul 7, 1970

Citations

429 F.2d 498 (5th Cir. 1970)

Citing Cases

Yott v. North American Rockwell Corp.

Appellant and amicus EEOC argue that the discharge of appellant (whose refusal to tender the periodic dues…

United States v. Jacksonville Terminal Company

Norman v. Missouri Pacific R.R., 8 Cir. 1969, 414 F.2d 73, 83. When the current effects of past — and…