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


Judge(s)

Buchwald, Naomi Reice (New York)

Eginton, Warren William (Connecticut)

Kearse, Amalya Lyle (New York)

Knapp, Percy Whitman (New York)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Graziano, Louis (New York)

Kramer, Cheryl (New York)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Byrne, Edward Thomas (New York)

Rothfeld, Norman (New York)

Judge(s)

Buchwald, Naomi Reice (New York)

Eginton, Warren William (Connecticut)

Kearse, Amalya Lyle (New York)

Knapp, Percy Whitman (New York)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Graziano, Louis (New York)

Kramer, Cheryl (New York)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Byrne, Edward Thomas (New York)

Rothfeld, Norman (New York)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

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

895 F.2d 86

Jan. 31, 1990

Jan. 31, 1990

Order/Opinion
113

1:84-cv-03373

Opinion and Order

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

828 F.Supp. 264

Aug. 31, 1993

Aug. 31, 1993

Order/Opinion
143

1:84-cv-03373

Memorandum and Order

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

1996 WL 274053

May 22, 1996

May 22, 1996

Order/Opinion
147

1:84-cv-03373

Memorandum and Order

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

1996 WL 345873

June 21, 1996

June 21, 1996

Order/Opinion

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

164 F.3d 89

Dec. 24, 1998

Dec. 24, 1998

Order/Opinion

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

186 F.3d 110

July 9, 1999

July 9, 1999

Order/Opinion

Resources

Docket

Last updated May 28, 2022, 3:07 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
1

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

May 14, 1984

May 14, 1984

3

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)

July 10, 1984

July 10, 1984

Pre-trial conference held (emil) (Entered: 02/03/1992)

July 24, 1984

July 24, 1984

15

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)

April 22, 1985

April 22, 1985

16

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)

July 12, 1985

July 12, 1985

NOTICE OF CASE ASSIGNMENT to Magistrate Judge Naomi R. Buchwald , endorsed on order of reference to Magistrate Judge. ; Copies mailed. (emil) (Entered: 02/03/1992)

July 12, 1985

July 12, 1985

58

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

June 23, 1987

June 23, 1987

62

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)

Aug. 18, 1987

Aug. 18, 1987

**Related case. (ICMSUSER) (Entered: 10/22/1991)

Oct. 22, 1991

Oct. 22, 1991

112

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

March 19, 1992

March 19, 1992

113

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)

Aug. 31, 1993

Aug. 31, 1993

Pre-trial conference held (jr) (Entered: 10/12/1993)

Oct. 7, 1993

Oct. 7, 1993

114

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)

Oct. 21, 1993

Oct. 21, 1993

Text not available. (Entered: 11/01/1993)

Nov. 1, 1993

Nov. 1, 1993

Text not available. (Entered: 11/01/1993)

Nov. 1, 1993

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) (Entered: 11/01/1993)

Nov. 1, 1993

Nov. 1, 1993

115

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)

Nov. 5, 1993

Nov. 5, 1993

Pre-trial conference held by M.J. Buchwald (cd) (Entered: 12/06/1993)

Dec. 1, 1993

Dec. 1, 1993

Pre-trial conference held by NRB (mk) (Entered: 12/28/1993)

Dec. 20, 1993

Dec. 20, 1993

116

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

Jan. 13, 1994

Jan. 13, 1994

Pre-trial conference held before Magistrate Judge Buchwald. (rag) (Entered: 04/12/1994)

April 4, 1994

April 4, 1994

117

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)

June 21, 1994

June 21, 1994

118

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)

June 21, 1994

June 21, 1994

119

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

July 15, 1994

July 15, 1994

120

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)

July 15, 1994

July 15, 1994

121

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)

Aug. 10, 1994

Aug. 10, 1994

Pre-trial conference held by Mag-Judge Buchwald. (kg) (Entered: 09/20/1994)

Sept. 19, 1994

Sept. 19, 1994

122

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)

Oct. 14, 1994

Oct. 14, 1994

123

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

Oct. 21, 1994

Oct. 21, 1994

124

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)

Oct. 28, 1994

Oct. 28, 1994

125

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)

Nov. 3, 1994

Nov. 3, 1994

126

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)

Nov. 30, 1994

Nov. 30, 1994

127

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)

May 10, 1995

May 10, 1995

Tele-conference held before Mag. Judge Buchwald (emil) (Entered: 05/17/1995)

May 16, 1995

May 16, 1995

Premotion conference held before Magistrate Buchwald. (rag) (Entered: 09/18/1995)

Sept. 18, 1995

Sept. 18, 1995

129

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)

Oct. 2, 1995

Oct. 2, 1995

128

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

Oct. 3, 1995

Oct. 3, 1995

130

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

Oct. 16, 1995

Oct. 16, 1995

131

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)

Oct. 16, 1995

Oct. 16, 1995

132

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

Dec. 13, 1995

Dec. 13, 1995

133

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

Jan. 16, 1996

Jan. 16, 1996

135

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

Feb. 1, 1996

Feb. 1, 1996

136

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)

Feb. 14, 1996

Feb. 14, 1996

137

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)

March 26, 1996

March 26, 1996

138

NOTICE OF MOTION by Equal Employment Opp for an order rejecting or modifying Mag. Judge Buchwald's 3/25/96 Report and Recommendation , Return date not indicated. (emil) (Entered: 04/09/1996)

April 8, 1996

April 8, 1996

138

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

April 8, 1996

April 8, 1996

139

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

April 15, 1996

April 15, 1996

140

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

April 18, 1996

April 18, 1996

141

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

April 18, 1996

April 18, 1996

142

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) 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)

May 10, 1996

May 10, 1996

144

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)

May 30, 1996

May 30, 1996

145

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)

June 11, 1996

June 11, 1996

146

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

June 19, 1996

June 19, 1996

147

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)

June 21, 1996

June 21, 1996

Case reopened (emil) (Entered: 08/08/1996)

June 21, 1996

June 21, 1996

148

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)

July 29, 1996

July 29, 1996

149

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

Aug. 7, 1996

Aug. 7, 1996

150

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

Aug. 7, 1996

Aug. 7, 1996

151

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)

Aug. 19, 1996

Aug. 19, 1996

152

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

Aug. 28, 1996

Aug. 28, 1996

153

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)

Sept. 9, 1996

Sept. 9, 1996

154

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)

Jan. 7, 1997

Jan. 7, 1997

155

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)

Feb. 14, 1997

Feb. 14, 1997

156

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)

June 16, 1997

June 16, 1997

157

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)

Aug. 13, 1997

Aug. 13, 1997

158

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)

Aug. 21, 1997

Aug. 21, 1997

159

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)

Oct. 17, 1997

Oct. 17, 1997

Indexed record on appeal files sent to the U.S.C.A. on October 17, 1997 by DT. (dt) (Entered: 10/17/1997)

Oct. 17, 1997

Oct. 17, 1997

160

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)

Oct. 28, 1999

Oct. 28, 1999

161

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)

Sept. 29, 2000

Sept. 29, 2000

Case closed. (kg) (Entered: 10/05/2000)

Sept. 29, 2000

Sept. 29, 2000

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

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 3 (New York), Union

Joint Apprenticeship Committee (New York), Non-profit or advocacy

Case Details

Causes of Action:

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

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

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:

Disparate Impact

Pattern or Practice

Discrimination-area:

Hiring

Testing

Training

Discrimination-basis:

Race discrimination

Sex discrimination

Race:

Black

Affected Gender:

Female

EEOC-centric:

Direct Suit on Merits