Kyriazi v. Western Electric Co.

461 F. Supp. 894, 1978 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14661, 18 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 8700, 18 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 924
CourtDistrict Court, D. New Jersey
DecidedOctober 30, 1978
DocketCiv. A. 475-73
StatusPublished
Cited by41 cases

This text of 461 F. Supp. 894 (Kyriazi v. Western Electric Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Kyriazi v. Western Electric Co., 461 F. Supp. 894, 1978 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14661, 18 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 8700, 18 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 924 (D.N.J. 1978).

Opinion

OPINION

STERN, District Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF COURT’S FINDINGS

This is a class action brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. The named plaintiff, Kyriaki Cleo Kyriazi (“Kyriazi”), charges defendant Western Electric Co. (“Western”) with across-the-board sex-based discrimination with respect to virtually every condition of employment at its Kearny plant. Kyriazi also alleges that she herself was the victim of sex discrimination at Western in a number of respects. The issue of liability having been severed from that of damages, the case was tried on the liability issue alone commencing July 7, 1977 and concluding on December 1, 1977.

The Court, having heard the testimony at trial and having reviewed the voluminous exhibits submitted by the parties, finds that Western systematically denied women the employment opportunities it afforded men in the areas of hiring, promotion, and participation in training programs; that it slotted women initially into the lower-paying “women’s jobs” and laid them off in disproportionate numbers in times of economic stress. This was proved through statistical evidence, never rebutted by the defendant, and through other evidence of purposeful discrimination.

In addition, the Court finds that Kyriazi is an adequate representative of the class, and that, as such, she may appropriately challenge Western’s employment practices. Finally, the Court, having considered Kyriazi’s individual case, finds that she was underrated, underpaid, and denied promotional opportunities by Western because of her sex; that she was harassed by her male co-workers; and that she was terminated on account of her sex and in retaliation for having lodged a complaint of sex discrimination.

II. PRELIMINARY ISSUES

A. Jurisdiction

The Court has jurisdiction over this action under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3) and 28 U.S.C. § 1343(1). Timely charges of discrimination were lodged with the New Jersey Department on Civil Rights and with the EEOC, which found reasonable cause to believe there was discrimination against Kyriazi and all women employed at Western’s Kearny plant. (P-161). Pendent jurisdiction exists over the tort claims against the individual defendants. 1

*899 B. Parties

Plaintiff Kyriazi was hired by Western in 1965 as a professional in the Information Systems (computer) field at Western’s New York Headquarters. In February 1966 she was transferred into the Industrial Engineering organization at Western’s Kearny plant. She was promoted to the position of Industrial Engineer in May 1967 and transferred in February 1969 into the Information Systems organization at Kearny. She was terminated by Western on November 19, 1971.

Kyriazi claims that (1) Western denied her promotions and gave her lower ratings and a lower salary than she deserved on account of her sex, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a); (2) that she was terminated by Western on account of her sex, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a); (3) that she was terminated by Western in retaliation for having filed formal charges against it, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a); (4) that Western and the five individual defendants conspired to deprive her of federally-protected rights, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3); and (5) that the five individual defendants are liable under state law for having tortiously interfered with her employment at Western.

Defendant Western, an “employer” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b), is engaged in the manufacture of telephone equipment. Western’s Kearny Works Organization consists of a main facility, the Kearny plant, and a satellite location, the Clark Shops. The main facility manufactures exchange area and video pair cable, key equipment, PBX’s switchboards, amplifiers for underseas cable, and transmission apparatus for the Bell System (Exhibit P-77; Introduction). The Clark Shops manufacture submarine cable repeaters for the United States Government (Exhibit P-77) and for the telephone company (Malina, 43: 5335-6) (Hobbie, Tr. 197).

The five named individual defendants are Fred Wilser, Kyriazi’s supervisor during her tenure at the Information Systems department in Kearny; Ralph Boyd, who supervised a department of the Information Systems professionals during the period in which Kyriazi was physically located there; and Kyriazi's male co-workers in Information Systems: James Snyder, Robert Armstrong and Shen T. Liu.

C. Scope of Class and Class Claims

By order dated July 16, 1975, the Court certified the class to encompass:

all females who are now or at any time since June 9, 1971, have been employed by defendant Western Electric Company, or who sought employment with said Company during the pendency of this suit, at the Kearny works organization.

On behalf of this class, Kyriazi contends that women have been discriminated against in the areas of (1) Hiring, (2) Promotion, (3) Transfer, (4) Layoff, (5) Discharge, (6) Maternity Leave, (7) Tuition refund benefits, (8) Participation in the Bell Systems Savings Plan, (9) Participation in training programs, and (10) Opportunities for testing.

D. Kyriazi’s EEOC Charge and its Effect on Class Membership.

As a prerequisite to suit under Title VII, timely charges must be filed with both the state agency and with the EEOC. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e). Where a named plaintiff in a class action has complied with these requirements, he or she may represent a class composed of all those who could have filed charges of discrimination as of the date on which the named plaintiff filed her charge. Wetzel v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 508 F.2d 239, 246 (3rd Cir.), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 1011, 95 S.Ct. 2415, 44 L.Ed.2d 679 (1975).

Kyriazi filed two charges of discrimination with the EEOC; an unsworn charge dated January 7, 1972 (P — 161) and a sworn charge dated September 11, 1972 (D-79B). 2 *900

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

Related

Estenos v. PAHO/WHO Federal Credit Union
952 A.2d 878 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2008)
Ackerman v. Money Store
749 A.2d 893 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1999)
Sammon v. Watchung Hills Bank
611 A.2d 674 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1992)
Eserhut v. Heister
812 P.2d 902 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 1991)
Printing Mart-Morristown v. Sharp Electronics Corp.
563 A.2d 31 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1989)
Michael Halebian N.J., Inc. v. Roppe Rubber Corp.
718 F. Supp. 348 (D. New Jersey, 1989)
Shieh v. Lyng
710 F. Supp. 1024 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1989)
McKenzie v. Kennickell
645 F. Supp. 427 (District of Columbia, 1986)
Banerjee v. Roberts
641 F. Supp. 1093 (D. Connecticut, 1986)
Snell v. Suffolk County
611 F. Supp. 521 (E.D. New York, 1985)
Holien v. Sears, Roebuck and Co.
689 P.2d 1292 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1984)
Skadegaard v. Farrell
578 F. Supp. 1209 (D. New Jersey, 1984)
Erdmann v. Board of Education
541 F. Supp. 388 (D. New Jersey, 1982)
Erdmann v. BD. OF EDUC. UNION CTY. REG. HIGH SCH.
541 F. Supp. 388 (D. New Jersey, 1982)
Robson v. Eva's Super Market, Inc.
538 F. Supp. 857 (N.D. Ohio, 1982)
Leese v. Doe
440 A.2d 1166 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1981)
Guyette v. Stauffer Chemical Co.
518 F. Supp. 521 (D. New Jersey, 1981)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
461 F. Supp. 894, 1978 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14661, 18 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 8700, 18 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 924, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kyriazi-v-western-electric-co-njd-1978.