Case: EEOC v. IBEW Local 3

1:84-cv-03373 | U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York

Filed Date: May 14, 1984

Closed Date: 2003

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On May 14, 1984, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of blacks and women who were impacted by education and age requirements for admission to electrician apprenticeship programs. The EEOC sued four trade associations and unions under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 alleging sex and race discrimination. It sought money damages and an injunction forbidding the defendants from usi…

On May 14, 1984, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of blacks and women who were impacted by education and age requirements for admission to electrician apprenticeship programs. The EEOC sued four trade associations and unions under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 alleging sex and race discrimination. It sought money damages and an injunction forbidding the defendants from using certain criteria for admission to electrician apprenticeship programs. Specifically, the EEOC alleged that the defendant’s requirement of a high-school diploma and maximum age of 22 (discontinued in 1985) had a discriminatory impact, respectively, on blacks and women.

There were four defendants. Two were terminated early in the lawsuit: the Joint Board of N.Y. Electrical Contractors Association and the New York Electrical Contractors Association, Inc. The remaining defendants were the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 3 (IBEW Local 3) and the Joint Apprenticeship Committee of the Joint Board of Electrical Industry (JAC), an organization handling training programs for electricians that the IBEW Local 3 and other trade organizations created.

The case was assigned to Judge Whitman Knapp and Magistrate Judge Naomi Buchwald. After extensive discovery, Judge Knapp granted summary judgment for the plaintiff. The defendants appealed to the Second Circuit, which reversed the trial court’s decision on January 31, 1990. Circuit Judge Amalya L. Kearse, joined by Judges Frank X. Altimari and J. Daniel Mahoney, found that the district court’s decision “appears not to conform to the applicable legal standard” because it did not consider whether any causal link existed between the disparate outcomes in electrician apprenticeship admissions based on race and sex and the defendants’ education and age requirements. The court of appeals vacated the district court’s decision and remanded the case. 895 F.2d 86.

The EEOC then renewed its motion for summary judgment. On August 31, 1993, Judge Knapp granted partial summary judgment for EEOC on the question of liability, holding that the EEOC made out prima facie case that programs' high school diploma requirement and 22-year age limit had discriminatory impact on blacks and women. Specifically, regarding education, Judge Knapp explained that difference between the percentage of blacks turned away from the programs in question compared to the percentage of whites is statistically significant and shows disparate impact. Moreover, that the percentage of blacks among the total applicants to the programs was significantly lower than the percentage of blacks in the pool of potential applicants also shows disparate impact. Regarding age, Judge Knapp explained that EEOC's statistics demonstrate that a significantly greater percentage of female applicants than male applicants were over the age of 22. Moreover, he found that the EEOC had demonstrated a causal nexus between the challenged practices and the statistical disparities. 828 F. Supp. 264.

The EEOC then moved for an order enjoining JAC from using high school graduation or equivalency, or the age maximum of 22, as a prerequisite for admission into its apprentice training program. Judge Knapp denied this motion on November 1, 1993, but the docket does not show his reasons for the denial.

The case then entered a multi-year period to determine damages. The parties and Magistrate Judge Buchwald worked between October 1993 and June 1997 to determine the backpay due to the claimants. However, she denied backpay to several claimants who had earned more in other jobs than they would have earned as electricians with the same seniority. Judge Knapp largely approved Magistrate Judge Buchwald’s decisions. 1996 WL 345873; 1996 WL 509682.

Judge Knapp disposed of many of the outstanding issues in a June 16, 1997 order. First, Judge Knapp issued an injunction prohibiting JAC from imposing a maximum age requirement of 22. Second, Judge Knapp—without explanation—denied the EEOC’s motion for a similar injunction with respect to JAC’s requirement of either a high school diploma or GED. Third, Judge Knapp denied backpay to six women and granted a seventh $51,662.81.

In August 1997, the EEOC appealed and JAC cross-appealed the decision. The Second Circuit (Warren W. Eginton, I. Leo Glasser, and Barrington D. Parker), in a December 24, 1998 opinion, declared itself “troubled by the longevity of this litigation,” but found that the district court “misread[] this Court’s imprecise 1990 ruling” and erroneously prevented JAC from introducing evidence as to business justification for its practices. It again reversed and remanded the case to the district court. Judge Glasser would have upheld the district court’s decision, arguing that the district court’s original, 1989 decision “reflects a studied analysis” of the relevant statistics. 164 F.3d 89. The Second Circuit issued an amended opinion on July 9, 1999, reaching the same conclusions. 186 F.3d 110.

Rather than engage in another round of litigation at the district court, the parties worked to resolve their dispute out of court. On September 29, 2000, Judge Knapp approved a Consent Decree between EEOC and JAC. The Consent Decree judgment explained that JAC agreed to compensate women and minorities who were allegedly subject to discrimination by JAC's policies. The records do not show the amount of the compensation. The Decree was set to remain in effect for three years, and then be terminated without further action by the court or the parties. Each party paid its own attorney's fees and costs incurred, and no party was deemed to be a prevailing party with respect to any of the issues in this action.

Judge Knapp administratively closed the case in 2000, and the docket does not indicate that either party brought disputes over the consent decree to the court during the next three years before the decree was set to expire.

Summary Authors

Lisa Koo (6/10/2019)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/10104686/parties/equal-employment-v-ibew-local-3/


Judge(s)

Buchwald, Naomi Reice (New York)

Eginton, Warren William (Connecticut)

Kearse, Amalya Lyle (New York)

Attorney for Plaintiff

Graziano, Louis (New York)

Attorney for Defendant

Byrne, Edward Thomas (New York)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Documents in this case

1:84-cv-03373

Docket [PACER]

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. IBEW Local 3

Sept. 29, 2000

Sept. 29, 2000

Docket

89-06165

Opinion

EEOC v. Joint Apprenticeship Committee of the Joint Industry Board of the Electrical Industry

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Jan. 31, 1990

Jan. 31, 1990

Order/Opinion

895 F.2d 86

113

1:84-cv-03373

Opinion and Order

EEOC v. Joint Apprenticeship Committee of the Joint Industry Board of the Electrical Industry

Aug. 31, 1993

Aug. 31, 1993

Order/Opinion

828 F.Supp. 264

143

1:84-cv-03373

Memorandum and Order

EEOC v. Joint Apprenticeship Committee of the Joint Industry Board of the Electrical Industry

May 22, 1996

May 22, 1996

Order/Opinion

1996 WL 274053

147

1:84-cv-03373

Memorandum and Order

EEOC v. Joint Apprenticeship Committee of the Joint Industry Board of the Electrical Industry

June 21, 1996

June 21, 1996

Order/Opinion

1996 WL 345873

97-06193

97-06203

Opinion

EEOC v. Joint Apprenticeship Committee of the Joint Industry Board of the Electrical Industry

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Dec. 24, 1998

Dec. 24, 1998

Order/Opinion

164 F.3d 89

97-06193

97-06203

Opinion

EEOC v. Joint Apprenticeship Committee of the Joint Industry Board of the Electrical Industry

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

July 9, 1999

July 9, 1999

Order/Opinion

186 F.3d 110

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/10104686/equal-employment-v-ibew-local-3/

Last updated Sept. 28, 2026, 9:07 p.m.

Docket for: Equal Employment v. IBEW Local 3
ECF Number Date Description Link
1 May 14, 1984

COMPLAINT filed; Summons issued and Notice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(c); (emil) (Entered: 02/03/1992)

RECAP
3 July 10, 1984

ANSWER to Complaint by Jt Board of N.Y. Ele (Attorney Norman Rothfeld), ; by attorney Norman Rothfeld for defendant Jt Board of N.Y. Ele (emil) (Entered: 02/03/1992)

RECAP
July 24, 1984

Pre-trial conference held (emil)

15 April 22, 1985

ANSWER to Complaint by NY Electrical Contra (Attorney Edward T. Byrne), ; Firm of: Murtagh & Cohen by attorney Edward T. Byrne for defendant NY Electrical Contra (emil) (Entered: 02/03/1992)

RECAP
16 July 12, 1985

ORDER that case be referred to Case Processing Assistant for Assignment of a Magistrate Judge for pre-trial purposes ( signed by Judge Whitman Knapp ) (emil) (Entered: 02/03/1992)

RECAP
July 12, 1985

NOTICE OF CASE ASSIGNMENT to Magistrate Judge Naomi R. Buchwald, endorsed on order of reference to Magistrate Judge. ; Copies mailed. (emil)

58 June 23, 1987

Notice of reasgmnt. to Judge Daronco. Copy of notice and judge's rules mailed to Attorney(s) of record. (emil) (Entered: 02/03/1992)

RECAP
62 Aug. 18, 1987

Notice of reasgmnt. to Judge Whitman Knapp. Copy of notice and judge's rules mailed to Attorney(s) of record. (emil) (Entered: 02/03/1992)

RECAP
Oct. 22, 1991

**Related case. (ICMSUSER)

112 March 19, 1992

Transcript of record of proceedings filed for dates of 1/17/92 (la) (Entered: 03/19/1992)

RECAP
113 Aug. 31, 1993

OPINION AND ORDER # 72023, granting the EEOC's renewed motion for partial summary judgment on the question of liability, and set status conference for set for 4:30 9/20/93 ( Signed by Judge Whitman Knapp ); Copies mailed. (jr) (Entered: 09/01/1993)

RECAP
Oct. 7, 1993

Pre-trial conference held (jr)

114 Oct. 21, 1993

NOTICE OF MOTION by IBEW Local 3 for an order enjoining the Joint Apprenticeship Committee of the Joint Industry Board of the Electrical Industry from using the high school diploma or equivalency, or the age maximum of 22 as a prerequisite for admission into its apprentice training program, Return date 12/2/93 (jr) (Entered: 10/22/1993)

RECAP
Nov. 1, 1993

Text not available.

Nov. 1, 1993

Memo endorsed on motion; denying [114-1] motion for an order enjoining the Joint Apprenticeship Committee of the Joint Industry Board of the Electrical Industry from using the high school diploma or equivalency, or the age maximum of 22 as a prerequisite for admission into its apprentice training program ...So Ordered. ( signed by Judge Whitman Knapp ); Copies mailed. (sc)

115 Nov. 5, 1993

Order that case be referred to the Clerk of Court for assignment to a Magistrate Judge for Contested Damages Hearing ( signed by Judge Whitman Knapp ) Referred to Magistrate Judge Naomi R. Buchwald (jr) (Entered: 11/08/1993)

RECAP
Dec. 1, 1993

Pre-trial conference held by M.J. Buchwald (cd)

Dec. 20, 1993

Pre-trial conference held by NRB (mk)

116 Jan. 13, 1994

NOTICE of attorney appearance for Equal Employment Opp by Louis Graziano (sc) (Entered: 01/18/1994)

RECAP
April 4, 1994

Pre-trial conference held before Magistrate Judge Buchwald. (rag)

117 June 21, 1994

NOTICE OF MOTION by Jt. Apprenticeship Committee of The Jt. Board of N.Y. Eletrical Industry to dismiss of the individual herein named on the ground that they lack standing to make a claim or on the ground that their claims patently lack merit, or on both grounds, Return date 9:30 8/13/94; with attached supporting Affidavit of Norman Rothfeld & Exhibits A - Q. (ae) (Entered: 06/21/1994)

RECAP
118 June 21, 1994

MEMORANDUM by Jt. Apprenticeship Committee of The Jt. Board of N.Y. Electrical Industry in support of [117-1] motion to dismiss of the individual herein named on the ground that they lack standing to make a claim or on the ground that their claims patently lack merit, or on both grounds. (ae) (Entered: 06/21/1994)

RECAP
119 July 15, 1994

RESPONSE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to [117-1] motion to dismiss the individual claims. (ae) (Entered: 07/18/1994)

RECAP
120 July 15, 1994

AFFIDAVIT of Louis Graziano by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in response (opposition) to Re: [117-1] motion to dismiss the individual claims. (ae) (Entered: 07/18/1994)

RECAP
121 Aug. 10, 1994

REPLY MEMORANDUM by Jt Board of N.Y. Elections in support of re: [117-1] motion to dismiss individual claims. (ae) (Entered: 08/11/1994)

RECAP
Sept. 19, 1994

Pre-trial conference held by Mag-Judge Buchwald. (kg)

122 Oct. 14, 1994

Rule 3(g) statement of material issues where no genuine issue exists filed by Joint Apprenticeship Committee of the Jt Board of Electrical Industry. (kg) (Entered: 10/17/1994)

RECAP
123 Oct. 21, 1994

Supplemental Rule 3(g) statement of material facts where a genuine issue remains filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (kg) (Entered: 10/21/1994)

RECAP
124 Oct. 28, 1994

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS of Magistrate Judge Naomi R. Buchwald Re: for the reasons stated, we recommend that deft's motion for summary judgment be granted with respect to the claim of David Grandy but denied as against each of the remaining individual claimants; Motion no longer referred Objections to R and R due by 11/11/94 (kg) (Entered: 10/28/1994)

RECAP
125 Nov. 3, 1994

NOTICE OF MOTION by Joint Apprent. Comm. for leave to submit additional affidavits, and for reconsideration of the Report & Recommendation. Return date 11/21/94. (kg) (Entered: 11/04/1994)

RECAP
126 Nov. 30, 1994

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying [125-1] motion for leave to submit additional affidavits ( signed by Magistrate Judge Naomi R. Buchwald ); Copies mailed (kg) (Entered: 12/01/1994)

RECAP
134 Jan. 31, 1995

Transcript of record of proceedings filed for dates of 12/14/95, 12/15/95 12/19/95. (lam) (Entered: 02/02/1996)

RECAP
127 May 10, 1995

MEMORANDUM & ORDER, We have reviewed Mag. Judge Buchwald's Report and Recommendation of 10/27/94 and hereby adopt it in its entirety ( signed by Judge Whitman Knapp ); Copies mailed (emil) (Entered: 05/10/1995)

RECAP
May 16, 1995

Tele-conference held before Mag. Judge Buchwald (emil)

Sept. 18, 1995

Premotion conference held before Magistrate Buchwald. (rag)

129 Oct. 2, 1995

MEMORANDUM by Joint Apprent. Comm. re: on the issue of the legal standard and the burden of proof in the remedies stage of an adverse impact action. (emil) (Entered: 10/03/1995)

RECAP
128 Oct. 3, 1995

MEMORANDUM by Joint Apprent. Comm. re: burden of proof (emil) (Entered: 10/03/1995)

RECAP
130 Oct. 16, 1995

REPLY MEMORANDUM by Joint Apprent. Comm. re: submitted in reply to EEOC's Memorandum dated 10/2/95 (emil) (Entered: 10/17/1995)

RECAP
131 Oct. 16, 1995

REPLY MEMORANDUM by Equal Employment Opp re: on the issue of the legal standard and the burden of proof in the remedies stage of an adverse impact action (emil) (Entered: 10/19/1995)

RECAP
132 Dec. 13, 1995

PLNTF'S PRETRIAL MEMORANDUM (cd) (Entered: 12/15/1995)

RECAP
133 Jan. 16, 1996

POST-HEARING MEMORANDUM by Joint Apprent. Comm. (emil) (Entered: 01/18/1996)

RECAP
135 Feb. 1, 1996

DECLARATION of Norman Rothfeld Re: w/ respect to the EEOC's computation of back pay. (emil) (Entered: 02/07/1996)

RECAP
136 Feb. 14, 1996

SUPPLEMENTAL BACKPAY MEMORANDUM by Joint Apprent. Comm. re: in response to the Letter-Memorandum dated 2/8/96 submitted by the EEOC (emil) (Entered: 02/15/1996)

RECAP
137 March 26, 1996

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS of Magistrate Judge Naomi R. Buchwald Re: I respectfully recommend that the claimants' request for back pay be denied. Objections to R and R due by 4/9/96 (emil) (Entered: 03/27/1996)

RECAP
138 April 8, 1996

OBJECTIONS by Equal Employment Opp to [137-1] report and recommendations (emil) (Entered: 04/09/1996)

RECAP
139 April 15, 1996

OBJECTIONS by Joint Apprent. Comm. to [137-1] report and recommendations (emil) (Entered: 04/16/1996)

RECAP
140 April 18, 1996

RESPONSE by Equal Employment Opp Re: [139-1] objection to Mag. Judge Buchwald's Report and Recommendation (emil) (Entered: 04/19/1996)

RECAP
141 April 18, 1996

RESPONSE by Joint Apprent. Comm. Re: [138-1] objections to Mag. Judge Buchwald's Report and Recommendation (emil) (Entered: 04/22/1996)

RECAP
142 May 10, 1996

MEMORANDUM by Equal Employment Opp re: in response to the Court's request for add'l briefing on the appropriate standard of review of Mag. Judge Buchwald's Report and Recommendation on Damages. (emil) (Entered: 05/14/1996)

RECAP
143 May 22, 1996

MEMORANDUM & ORDER, We agree w/ the EEOC, for the reasons stated in its Memorandum on the Proper Standard of Review, that Mag. Judge Buchwald's Report and Recommendation is subject to a de novo review. Accordingly, we remand Mundle's claim for back pay to Judge Buchwald for reconsideration. We express no view as to the conclusion at which Judge Buchwald should arrive. We will be required to subject to de novo review any conclusions to which a party might object. Except as indicated above, Judge Buchwald's Report and Recommendation is adopted substantially for the reasons therein stated ( signed by Judge Whitman Knapp ); Copies mailed (emil) (Entered: 05/23/1996)

RECAP
144 May 30, 1996

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS of Magistrate Judge Naomi R. Buchwald Re: this Report and Recommendation is written in response to your Memorandum & Order dated 5/21/96, adopting my Report and Recommendation dated 3/25/96 except w/ respect to claimant Beverly Mundle, whose claim for back pay was remanded to me for reconsideration. Upon a close reading and review of the Report, I fear that I was misunderstood as to the basis upon which Mundle's claim was rejected. Thus, I again respectfully recommend a finding that Mundle is entitled to no back wages; Objections to R and R due by 6/13/96 (emil) (Entered: 05/31/1996)

RECAP
145 June 11, 1996

OBJECTIONS by Equal Employment Opp to [144-1] report and recommendations. Fld in night deposit on 6/11/96 at 5:38 p.m. (emil) (Entered: 06/13/1996)

RECAP
146 June 19, 1996

Case closed administratively Pursuant to Memorandum From the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, Dated June 15th, 1973. (kk) (Entered: 06/21/1996)

RECAP
147 June 21, 1996

MEMORANDUM & ORDER, we conclude that Ms. Mundle's back pay period should not end as of the date she began working for the Port Authority but should extend another five years, that is, through 1985. The EEOC has conceded that Ms. Mundle is not owed any back pay for the period through 1982. Accordingly, we remand the matter to Judge Buchwald for a determination of the back pay that should be awarded for the approximately three years in question ( signed by Judge Whitman Knapp ); Copies mailed (emil) (Entered: 06/24/1996)

RECAP
June 21, 1996

Case reopened (emil)

148 July 29, 1996

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS of Magistrate Judge Naomi R. Buchwald Re: Now that these disputes have been resolved, the parties should confer and arrive at a stipulated damages amount; Objections to R and R due by 8/12/96 (sent orig. doc. to Judge Knapp chambers on 7/29/96) (kg) (Entered: 07/29/1996)

RECAP
149 Aug. 7, 1996

OBJECTIONS by Joint Apprent. Comm. to [148-1] report and recommendations (emil) (Entered: 08/08/1996)

RECAP
150 Aug. 7, 1996

OBJECTIONS by Equal Employment Opp to [148-1] report and recommendations (emil) (Entered: 08/08/1996)

RECAP
151 Aug. 19, 1996

RESPONSE by Equal Employment Opp Re: [149-1] objections to Report and Recommendation. Fld in night deposit on 8/19/96 at 5:24 p.m. (emil) (Entered: 08/20/1996)

RECAP
152 Aug. 28, 1996

REPLY by IBEW Local 3 Re: [148-1] report and recommendations (emil) (Entered: 08/28/1996)

RECAP
153 Sept. 9, 1996

MEMORANDUM & ORDER, by Order dated 6/21/96, we remanded this matter to Mag. Judge Buchwald for a determination of the back pay to be awarded claimant Beverly Mundle for an approximately three-year period between 1983 and 1985. On 7/26/96, Mag. Judge Buchwald issued a Report and Recommendation. Having reviewed the Report and found its recommendations to be wholly reasonable, and having reviewed the parties' objections thereto, we adopt the Report in its entirety ( signed by Judge Whitman Knapp ); Copies mailed (emil) (Entered: 09/09/1996)

RECAP
154 Jan. 7, 1997

STIPULATION and ORDER, it is stipulated between the parties that following the decisions of the Court of 6/21/96 and the Report and Recommendation of 7/26/96 that the back wages and interest for Beverly Mundle covering the five years beginning January 1980 is a total of $51,662.81 ( signed by Magistrate Judge Naomi R. Buchwald ). (emil) (Entered: 01/07/1997)

RECAP
155 Feb. 14, 1997

MEMORANDUM & ORDER, by Order dated 6/21/96, we remanded this matter to Mag. Judge Buchwald for a determination of the back pay to be awarded claimant Beverly Mundle for an approximately three-year period between 1983 and 1985. On 7/26/96, Mag. Judge Buchwald issued a Report and Recommendation regarding the method to be used in determining the damages for claimant Beverly Mundle. We adopted the Report by Order dated 9/6/96. In accordance w/ the Report, the parties have stipulated to damages and interest for Ms. Mundle in the amount of $51,662.81, which stipulation was approved by Mag. Judge Buchwald on 1/6/97. We hereby approve this stipulation and find that Ms. Mundle is owed back pay and interest in the amount of $51,662.81 ( signed by Judge Whitman Knapp ); Copies mailed (emil) (Entered: 02/18/1997)

RECAP
156 June 16, 1997

ORDER, that The EEOC application under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e for an injunction prohibiting the Joint Apprenticeship Comm. from implementing a maximum age 22 requirement with respect to its apprenticeship program is granted . The EEOC application under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e for an injunction prohibiting the Joint Apprenticeship Comm from implementing its requirement of either a high school diploma or GED with respect to its apprenticeship program is denied . Back wages for Sadie Baxter, Yvette Behea, Alice Jenkins Dixon, Grace McGovern, Madeline Molina Arosemena and Cecilia Trummer be denied . EEOC's application under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 UY.S.C. Section 2000e for a judgment in its favor and against the JAC in the amount of $51,662.81 to Beverly Mundle is granted. ( signed by Judge Whitman Knapp ); Copies mailed (lam) (Entered: 06/18/1997)

RECAP
157 Aug. 13, 1997

NOTICE OF APPEAL by Equal Employment Opp ; from [156-1] order that The EEOC application under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e for an injunction prohibiting the Joint Apprenticeship Comm. from implementing a maximum age 22 requirement with respect to its apprenticeship program is granted, [156-2] relief The EEOC application under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e for an injunction prohibiting the Joint Apprenticeship Comm from implementing its requirement of either a high school diploma or GED with respect to its apprenticeship program is denied, [156-3] relief Back wages for Sadie Baxter, Yvette Behea, Alice Jenkins Dixon, Grace McGovern, Madeline Molina Arosemena and Cecilia Trummer be denied, [156-4] relief EEOC's application under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 UY.S.C. Section 2000e for a judgment in its favor and against the JAC in the amount of $51,662.81 to Beverly Mundle is granted., [156-5] relief . Copies of notice of appeal mailed to Attorney(s) of Record: Norman Rothfeld. *(Filed by the E.E.O.C.)*. (dt) (Entered: 08/14/1997)

RECAP
158 Aug. 21, 1997

NOTICE OF CROSS-APPEAL by Joint Apprent. Comm. FRom the judgment entered on the June 18, 1997. Fee pd. $105.00, rec. # 295416. Copies sent to atty of record: Louis Graziano, Esq. (as) (Entered: 08/21/1997)

RECAP
159 Oct. 17, 1997

Notice that the record on appeal has been certified and transmitted to the U.S. Court of Appeals: [157-1] appeal by Equal Employment Opp on October 17, 1997 by DT. (dt) (Entered: 10/17/1997)

RECAP
Oct. 17, 1997

Indexed record on appeal files sent to the U.S.C.A. on October 17, 1997 by DT. (dt)

160 Oct. 28, 1999

MANDATE OF USCA (certified copy) Re: remanded [157-1] appeal by Equal Employment Opp - ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, it is now hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the judgment of the district court be and it hereby is vacated and the case is remanded to said district court for further proceedings in accordance with the opinion of this court. FOR THE COURT Carolyn Clark Campbell, Clerk by: Beth J. Meador, Adm. Attorney ISSUED AS MANDATE: 10/26/99 (rag) (Entered: 10/29/1999)

RECAP
161 Sept. 29, 2000

CONSENT DECREE JUDGMENT, EEOC and the JAC do hereby stipulate and consent to the entry of this Decree as final and binding between the parties signatory hereto and their successors or assigns. This Decree resolves in full all of the issues relating to any federal or state claims or administrative charges that were or could have been asserted by the EEOC through the date of the execution of this Decree, including any and all claims asserted in the action and any claims arising out of the JAC's maintenance of a maximum age or high school diploma requirement for applicants to its apprenticeship. The parties agree that this Court has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this action and of the parties, that venue is proper, and that all administrative prerequisites have been met. In settlement of this action, and in consideration for the benefits provided herein, the JAC agrees to the following compensation for the women and minorities who were allegedly subject to discrimination as set forth in this action. Each party shall bear its own attorney's fees and costs incurred in this action, and no Claimant shall be deemed to be a prevailing party under the law with respect to any of the issues in this action. This Decree will remain in effect for 3 years from the date of entry, at which point it will terminate by its own terms w/o further action by the court or the parties. ( signed by Judge Whitman Knapp ) Entered On Docket: 10/5/00. (kg) (Entered: 10/05/2000)

RECAP
Sept. 29, 2000

Case closed. (kg)

Case Details

State / Territory:

New York

Case Type(s):

Equal Employment

Key Dates

Filing Date: May 14, 1984

Closing Date: 2003

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on behalf of blacks and women who were impacted by certain education and age requirements for admission to electrician apprenticeship programs.

Plaintiff Type(s):

EEOC Plaintiff

Attorney Organizations:

EEOC

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: No

Class Action Outcome: Not sought

Defendants

Non-profit or advocacy

Joint Apprenticeship Committee

Union

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 3

Case Details

Causes of Action:

Title VII (including PDA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e

Other Dockets:

Southern District of New York 1:84-cv-03373

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit 89-06165

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit 97-06193

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit 97-06203

Available Documents:

Any published opinion

Trial Court Docket

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff OR Mixed

Relief Granted:

Damages

Unknown

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Amount Defendant Pays: Unknown

Order Duration: 2000 - 2003

Issues

General/Misc.:

Pattern or Practice

Discrimination Area:

Disparate Impact

Hiring

Testing

Training

Discrimination Basis:

Race discrimination

Sex discrimination

Affected Race(s):

Black

Affected Sex/Gender(s):

Female

EEOC-centric:

Direct Suit on Merits

Recommended Citation