Charity Harrison v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company

508 F.2d 678, 11 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1033, 1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 16000
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedFebruary 20, 1975
Docket74-1728
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 508 F.2d 678 (Charity Harrison v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Charity Harrison v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, 508 F.2d 678, 11 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1033, 1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 16000 (5th Cir. 1975).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This employment discrimination case was initially brought by two black women who unsuccessfully sought employment in the production department of Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company’s Gadsden, Alabama plant.

On June 19, 1967, appellants Charity Harrison and Gussie Hardwick filed charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, alleging employment discrimination against black females — a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (1974)). After the EEOC authorized appellants to file suit, they initiated the present proceeding as a Fed.R.Civ.P. class action on their own behalf and the behalf of all others simi *679 larly situated. After an extensive trial, the district court made findings of fact and entered judgment in Goodyear’s favor.

Plaintiffs renew their arguments • on appeal. Of course, findings of fact in Title VII cases are reviewed in the same manner as any other trial court findings: this court will not set the findings aside unless it is able to conclude that such findings are clearly erroneous.' See, Smith v. Delta Airlines, 486 F.2d 512, 514 (5th Cir. 1973); Terrell v. Feldstein Co., 468 F.2d 910, 911 (5th Cir. 1972); Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a).

We have examined the record thoroughly and we find sufficient evidence to support the district court’s decision that Goodyear did not discriminate in the employment of black females. Therefore, since the lower court’s decision is not clearly erroneous, the judgment is

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Swint v. Pullman-Standard
624 F.2d 525 (Fifth Circuit, 1980)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
508 F.2d 678, 11 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1033, 1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 16000, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/charity-harrison-v-goodyear-tire-and-rubber-company-ca5-1975.