Sherrill V. J. P. Stevens & Co.

410 F. Supp. 770
CourtDistrict Court, W.D. North Carolina
DecidedNovember 11, 1975
DocketCiv. A. No. C-C-73-12
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 410 F. Supp. 770 (Sherrill V. J. P. Stevens & Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Sherrill V. J. P. Stevens & Co., 410 F. Supp. 770 (W.D.N.C. 1975).

Opinion

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

McMILLAN, District Judge.

This proceeding was filed on January 29, 1973, by plaintiff A. C. Sherrill, who alleged that J. P. Stevens and Company, Inc., at its Stanley, North Carolina facility, (hereinafter referred to as “the Company”), as followed and is presently following patterns and practices of discrimination against black employees because of race in initial hiring, job assignments, promotions, wages and other terms and conditions of employment. The plaintiff further alleged that the Company had limited him in job assignments, had denied him promotion in supervisory positions because of his race and had harassed, intimidated and forced him to leave his employment because of his efforts to challenge the Company’s racially discriminatory practices. Jurisdiction of the Court was invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1343, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. and 42 U.S.C. § 1981.

Robert H. Costner, Robert Lee Brooks and Paul McLean, employees and former black employees, were allowed to intervene as plaintiffs on October 1, 1973. Costner, Brooks and McLean alleged that they had similarly been affected by the Company’s racially discriminatory practices.

The plaintiff prayed leave to maintain the action as a class action pursuant to Rule 23(a), (b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court has certified the action as a class action, consisting of all black applicants for employment, black employees and former black employees who, since July 2, 1965, have been and who continue to be affected by the Company’s racially discriminatory employment practices. The class was further subdivided into (a) black employees hired before July 2, 1965, who continued in employment subsequent to July 2, 1965; (b) black employees hired subsequent to July 2, 1965, who have continued to be assigned to job positions in the warehouse or shipping department; (c) black employees, initially assigned to the warehouse, who have been permitted to transfer to production jobs but were required to start a new seniority date; and (d) black employees who were initially assigned to production jobs at any time subsequent to July 2, 1965, who have been or may be affected by defendant’s racially discriminatory employment practices.

The Company has denied the material allegations of the complaint. The Court conducted hearings in this matter, without a jury, on August 28-30, 1974. The Court left the record open for receipt of such additional information as the parties desired to present. By Order of December 19, 1974, the parties were directed to complete discovery and to file all briefs and additional evidence which they thought appropriate by February 18, 1975. The Court has now received the oral testimony, depositions and exhibits of the parties as well as briefs in support of their various positions. On the basis of the foregoing, the Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.

FINDINGS OF FACT

I. Organization of the Company.

1. The Company manufactures synthetic yarn at its Stanley facilities. The operation is divided into three plants, a shop or maintenance department, office and clerical personnel, and warehouse facilities or shipping and receiving.

2. Plants 1 (sometimes referred to as Spin 1) and 2 (or Spin 2) manufacture synthetic yarn and limited natural yarn. The third plant (Turbo) manufactures orlon yarn exclusively. Each plant is divided into four departments: carding,' drawing and roving, winding and spinning. The production job positions with the highest potential pay are winding and spinning doffers and roving tenders.

3. As of the date of the trial, the Company had approximately 500 employ[775]*775ees m production, maintenance and shipping, approximately 35 or 40 of whom were black. The Company has approximately 65 supervisors in production, including the plant manager, the plant supervisor, overseers, foremen and section-men. All of the supervisors, except the assistant supervisor, John Jeffers, in the warehouse, are white. Jeffers was made an assistant supervisor in the warehouse in 1967.

4. The Stanley facilities are part of the southern-based operations of the Company which has its principal offices in New York. Regional offices are also maintained in Greensboro, North Carolina and Greenville, South Carolina to service the Stanley plants.

II. Historical hiring and promotional practices of the Company.

5. Prior to the effective date of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, July 2, 1965, basically all black employees at the Stanley facilities were hired into the warehouse as either laborers, lift truck operators, or switchers. All white employees were hired into the plant, the shop, the office or clerical positions. As of July 2, 1965, two black employees, Thomas McCorkle and Miles Lucky, had been transferred from1 the warehouse into the plant in the carding room; one or two black employees had been assigned to janitorial positions in the plant. All other black employees where in the warehouse.

6. After July 2, 1965, the Company hired the first black females. Maggie Brown and Daisy Floyd, both hired on December 13, 1965, were assigned positions in the winding department in Plant 1. Subsequently, 6 or 7 other black males were transferred from the warehouse into production jobs. The majority of the black employees in any department or plant, as of the date of trial, were still assigned as laborers in the warehouse.

7. Employees are assigned seniority or length of service dates from the date of entry into particular departments. The Company also utilizes company or total seniority for insurance purposes and certain other fringe benefits. Departmental seniority or departmental length of service is used for purposes of promotions (see paragraphs 11 — 13 infra), layoffs and bidding on shifts. Thus, an employee with the greatest length of departmental service will have preference over other employees for promotions within the departments and for bidding on shift preference.

8. Employees who transfer between departments are not permitted to carry over their seniority from one department to another. Separate seniority rosters are accordingly maintained for Plants 1, 2 and Turbo; warehouse or shipping and receiving; and shop or maintenance.

9. Seniority is not a factor among the salaried and supervisory personnel, except as it may be considered by the Company in promotions.

10. The black employees who were allowed to transfer from the warehouse to production or other positions in the plant or shop were required to start new seniority dates in their new departments and lost, for promotion and shift bidding purposes, all seniority accrued prior to the date of transfer.

11. Lines of progression are not maintained for production jobs. Employees have been allowed to move from one job position to another and new employees are hired into the various jobs with no prior training or experience. For promotions to supervisory positions, however, the Company does consider the prior work experience of employees.

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

Related

Reeves v. Digital Equipment Corp.
710 F. Supp. 675 (N.D. Ohio, 1989)
Usery v. Sun Oil Co.(Delaware)
423 F. Supp. 125 (N.D. Texas, 1976)
Sherrill v. JP Stevens and Co., Inc.
410 F. Supp. 770 (W.D. North Carolina, 1975)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
410 F. Supp. 770, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sherrill-v-j-p-stevens-co-ncwd-1975.