Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 31 views

    John F. Edwards v. Boeing Vertol Company, William Platt, Howard Stuverude, Joseph Wood, Local 1069 U.A.W, 750 F.2d 13, 3rd Cir. (1984)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is a court opinion regarding an employment discrimination case. It summarizes the following: 1) John Edwards had previously testified in a class action lawsuit against Boeing Vertol Co. alleging racial discrimination but was not a named plaintiff. The court previously found no pattern of discrimination but considered individual claims, including Edwards', and found he did not make a prima facie case. 2) On appeal, the court previously held the trial court lacked jurisdiction to consider the individual claims of non-named class members like Edwards. 3) Edwards then filed his own lawsuit against Boeing. The Supreme Court vacated the earlier judgment and remanded for reconsideration in light of a new case. However, the prior ruling that Edwards

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    John F. Edwards v. Boeing Vertol Company, William Platt, Howard Stuverude, Joseph Wood, Local 1069 U.A.W, 750 F.2d 13, 3rd Cir. (1984)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    31 views3 pages
    This document is a court opinion regarding an employment discrimination case. It summarizes the following: 1) John Edwards had previously testified in a class action lawsuit against Boeing Vertol Co. alleging racial discrimination but was not a named plaintiff. The court previously found no pattern of discrimination but considered individual claims, including Edwards', and found he did not make a prima facie case. 2) On appeal, the court previously held the trial court lacked jurisdiction to consider the individual claims of non-named class members like Edwards. 3) Edwards then filed his own lawsuit against Boeing. The Supreme Court vacated the earlier judgment and remanded for reconsideration in light of a new case. However, the prior ruling that Edwards

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1984-11-29 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 750 F.2d 13 Docket: 82-1826

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document is a court opinion regarding an employment discrimination case. It summarizes the following: 1) John Edwards had previously testified in a class action lawsuit against Boeing Vertol Co. alleging racial discrimination but was not a named plaintiff. The court previously found no pattern of discrimination but considered individual claims, including Edwards', and found he did not make a prima facie case. 2) On appeal, the court previously held the trial court lacked jurisdiction to consider the individual claims of non-named class members like Edwards. 3) Edwards then filed his own lawsuit against Boeing. The Supreme Court vacated the earlier judgment and remanded for reconsideration in light of a new case. However, the prior ruling that Edwards

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    31 views3 pages

    John F. Edwards v. Boeing Vertol Company, William Platt, Howard Stuverude, Joseph Wood, Local 1069 U.A.W, 750 F.2d 13, 3rd Cir. (1984)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is a court opinion regarding an employment discrimination case. It summarizes the following: 1) John Edwards had previously testified in a class action lawsuit against Boeing Vertol Co. alleging racial discrimination but was not a named plaintiff. The court previously found no pattern of discrimination but considered individual claims, including Edwards', and found he did not make a prima facie case. 2) On appeal, the court previously held the trial court lacked jurisdiction to consider the individual claims of non-named class members like Edwards. 3) Edwards then filed his own lawsuit against Boeing. The Supreme Court vacated the earlier judgment and remanded for reconsideration in light of a new case. However, the prior ruling that Edwards

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    750 F.

    2d 13
    36 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 576,
    36 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 34,951, 40 Fed.R.Serv.2d 500

    John F. EDWARDS, Appellant,


    v.
    BOEING VERTOL COMPANY, William Platt, Howard
    Stuverude,
    Joseph Wood, Local 1069 U.A.W.
    No. 82-1826.

    United States Court of Appeals,


    Third Circuit.
    Originally Argued Aug. 5, 1983.
    Resubmitted under Third Circuit
    Rule 12(6) Oct. 15, 1984.
    Decided Nov. 29, 1984.

    Alice W. Ballard, Samuel & Ballard, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant.


    Jerome A. Hoffman, John M. Coleman, Dechert, Price & Rhoads,
    Philadelphia, Pa., for appellees.
    Before GIBBONS and HUNTER, Circuit Judges and MANSMANN,
    District Judge* .
    OPINION ON REMAND
    GIBBONS, Circuit Judge:

    This appeal is before us on remand from the Supreme Court of the United
    States, which on July 2, 1984 vacated our prior judgment and remanded for
    reconsideration in light of its decision in Cooper et al. v. Federal Reserve Bank
    of Richmond, --- U.S. ----, 104 S.Ct. 2794, 81 L.Ed.2d 718 (1984). See --- U.S.
    ----, 104 S.Ct. 3566, 82 L.Ed.2d 867. After receipt of the Supreme Court's
    mandate we afforded the parties the opportunity to comment as to an
    appropriate disposition. We reinstate our prior judgment.

    In 1971 employees of Boeing Vertol Co. filed a class action on behalf of all
    black employees of that company, alleging a company-wide pattern or practice
    of racial discrimination. John F. Edwards was a witness in the trial of that
    action, but not a named plaintiff. The district court held that Boeing Vertol Co.
    had not engaged in a pattern or practice of racial discrimination, and this court
    affirmed. Croker v. Boeing, 437 F.Supp. 1138, 1192 (E.D.Pa.1977), aff'd, 662
    F.2d 975 (3d Cir.1981) (in banc). The district court undertook to consider
    claims of individuals, including Edwards, as well as pattern or practice
    discrimination. The court purported to find that Edwards had failed to make out
    a prima facie case of individual racial discrimination.

    On appeal this court, on the authority of Dickerson v. United States Steel


    Corp., 582 F.2d 827 (3d Cir.1978), held that the district court had no
    jurisdiction to decide the individual claims of class members who were not
    named plaintiffs and who had not established the jurisdictional predicates for
    their individual actions. For that reason this court refused to address Edwards'
    claim on the merits. 662 F.2d at 997-98 and n. 12.

    Edwards, having received from the Equal Employment Opportunity


    Commission a notice of right to sue, had, even before our decision, filed a pro
    se complaint, which after our decision he pressed. The district court decided in
    favor of Boeing, holding that Edwards had failed to make out a prima facie case
    of racial discrimination. Edwards appealed to this court, which on September 8,
    1983 reversed, and remanded for a new trial. 717 F.2d 761.

    Our earlier opinion decided three issues: that the trial court erred in striking
    Edwards' jury trial demand; that the trial court erred in excluding evidence of
    acts of discrimination which occurred prior to May 25, 1973; and that the
    judgment in favor of Boeing Vertol Co. in the Croker class action did not bar
    his action. Only the third issue is affected by the Supreme Court's action.

    In the Cooper case the Supreme Court rejected the claim that a district court in
    a Rule 23 class action had an obligation to adjudicate claims of all class
    members. It might be inferred, from language in the Cooper opinion, that the
    district court had discretion to adjudicate such claims if it so desired; a question
    we need not decide.1 Were we to draw such a reverse inference from the
    holding in Cooper that would suggest, perhaps, that Dickerson v. United States
    Steel Corp., supra, was erroneously decided. Boeing Vertol Co. urges that we
    do so. Doing so, however, in no way advances its position.

    Our judgment in Croker v. Boeing Vertol Co., 662 F.2d 975 (3d Cir.1981), is

    long since final, as even a motion to reopen under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60 would be


    untimely. In that case we held that we would not address the merits of Edwards'
    claim because under Dickerson the district court lacked jurisdiction to litigate
    it. Because Edwards was unable to appeal in Croker the district court's decision
    on the merits of his claim, he cannot now be collaterally estopped from reasserting the issue of discrimination in the present action. Restatement (Second)
    of Judgments Sec. 28(1) (1982). Our decision in Croker, therefore, whether
    right or wrong, prevents Boeing Vertol Co. from raising the defense of
    collateral estoppel. The district court thus properly entertained Edwards' claim
    of individual discrimination.

    Our judgment of September 8, 1983 will, therefore, be reinstated.

    Hon. Carol Los Mansmann, United States District Judge for the Western
    District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation

    It should be noted that even if Cooper makes consideration of claims of


    individual class members discretionary, the Dickerson opinion supplies a useful
    guide as to the factors to be considered in the exercise of that discretion, and the
    outcome might be no different

    You might also like