Employment Practices Decisions Archive: 1937 - 1995, [EMPLOYMENT-PRACTICES ¶6,717] , EMPLOYER NOT LIABLE FOR “REVERSE BIAS” STEMMING FROM SENIORITY RELIEF, (May 26, 1978), Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, (May 26, 1978)

[EMPLOYMENT-PRACTICES ¶6,717] EMPLOYER NOT LIABLE FOR “REVERSE BIAS” STEMMING FROM SENIORITY RELIEF

Decision of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,

No. 78-32May 26, 1978

Title VII--Civil Rights Act of 1964

Reverse Discrimination--Seniority Adjustments--Court-Ordered Remedy.--There was no reasonable cause to believe that an employer violated the Act by laying off and failing to recall male employees following the granting of layoff protection to female employees pursuant to a court ordered remedy for sex discrimination. Evidence indicated that the employer’s actions were taken in conformity with the court order, and that they were not a pretext to disguise unlawful conduct.

[Full Text of EEOC Decision]

Summary of Charge:

Charging Parties allege that Respondent has engaged in an unlawful employment practice in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, by denying them seniority and recall rights because of their sex, male.

Jurisdiction:

Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Section 701(b) of the Act. Timeliness and all other jurisdictional requirements have been met.

Summary of Investigation

It is undisputed that the Charging Parties were laid off by Respondent pursuant to a seniority system calling for layoff in inverse order of seniority. [1] The Charging Parties allege that but for Respondent’s compliance with a federal district court’s remedial order enjoining the layoff of junior female employees, they would not have been laid off, or would have had earlier recall rights. The record shows that --, 1974, the United States District Court found Respondent in violation of Title VII by discriminating against female job applicants and employees in recruitment, hiring, promotion, and compensation. Pursuant to this finding, the court subsequently enjoined the layoff of an identified class of female employees who were found to have been the victims of employment discrimination.

The Title VII statutory scheme, specifically Sections 706(f)(3) and 706(g), empower federal district courts to order “such affirmative action as may be appropriate” to redress violations of Title VII. The broad scope of judicial remedial authority under Title VII was specifically affirmed by the United States Supreme Court. [2]

Under these facts and circumstances, it is the policy of this Commission not to engage in a substantive review of a judicial finding of discrimination, nor to rule on the merits of a remedy ordered pursuant to that finding. The evidence of record shows that Respondent’s actions in the instant case were taken directly pursuant to, and in conformity with the court order. There is no evidence to indicate that Respondent’s justification was a pretext to disguise unlawful conduct.

Accordingly, we conclude that there is no reasonable cause to believe that the Charging Parties were discriminated against because of their sex, as alleged.

Conclusion

There is no reasonable cause to believe that Respondent has engaged in an unlawful employment practice in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.