Thomas Younger, Individually, & on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated v. Glamorgan Pipe & Foundry Co., a Corp., Local 2864 of the United Steelworkers of Am., Afl-Cio, an Unincorporated Ass'n, & the United Steelworkers of Am., Afl-Cio, an Unincorporated Ass'n, Thomas Younger, Individually, & on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated v. Glamorgan Pipe & Foundry Co., a Corp., Local 2864 of the United Steelworkers of Am., Afl-Cio, an Unincorporated Ass'n & the United Steelworkers of Am., Afl-Cio, an Unincorporated Ass'n, Thomas Younger, Individually, & on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated v. Glamorgan Pipe & Foundry Co., Local 2864 of the United Steelworkers of Am., Afl-Cio, an Unincorporated Ass'n, United Steelworkers of Am., Afl-Cio, an Unincorporated Ass'n, Thomas Younger, Individually, & on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated v. Glamorgan Pipe & Foundry Co., a Corp., United Steelworkers of Am., Afl-Cio, an Unincorporated Ass'n, Local 2864 of the United Steelworkers of Am., Afl-Cio, an Unincorporated Ass'n, 561 F.2d 563 (4th Cir. 1977). · Go Syfert
Search
Thomas Younger, Individually, & on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated v. Glamorgan Pipe & Foundry Co., a Corp., Local 2864 of the United Steelworkers of Am., Afl-Cio, an Unincorporated Ass'n, & the United Steelworkers of Am., Afl-Cio, an Unincorporated Ass'n, Thomas Younger, Individually, & on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated v. Glamorgan Pipe & Foundry Co., a Corp., Local 2864 of the United Steelworkers of Am., Afl-Cio, an Unincorporated Ass'n & the United Steelworkers of Am., Afl-Cio, an Unincorporated Ass'n, Thomas Younger, Individually, & on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated v. Glamorgan Pipe & Foundry Co., Local 2864 of the United Steelworkers of Am., Afl-Cio, an Unincorporated Ass'n, United Steelworkers of Am., Afl-Cio, an Unincorporated Ass'n, Thomas Younger, Individually, & on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated v. Glamorgan Pipe & Foundry Co., a Corp., United Steelworkers of Am., Afl-Cio, an Unincorporated Ass'n, Local 2864 of the United Steelworkers of Am., Afl-Cio, an Unincorporated Ass'n, 561 F.2d 563 (4th Cir. 1977). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
22 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 12 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: State of Utah v. Su (ca5, 2024-07-18) · Strongest negative: Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Transport Workers Union (scotus, 1981-04-20)
Treatment trajectory · 1977 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1977 2001 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "but see" Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Transport Workers Union
SCOTUS · 1981 · signal: but see · confidence high
But see Younger v. Glamorgan Pipe & Foundry Co., 418 F. Supp. 743 (WD Va. 1976), vacated on other grounds, 561 F. 2d 563 (CA4 1977); Harden v. Illinois Bell *85 Telephone Co., No. 74 C 1505 (ND Ill., Apr. 8, 1975).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State of Utah v. Su
5th Cir. · 2024 · confidence medium
Co., 665 F.2d 1387, 1390 (5th Cir. 1982) (vacating and remanding for the district court to consider new authority from the Texas Supreme Court in a diversity case); Satcher v. Honda Motor Co., 993 F.2d 56 , 57–58 (5th Cir. 1993) (vacating and remanding for reconsideration in light of new statutory changes); see also, e.g., Jackson v. Crosby, 437 F.3d 1290, 1294 (11th Cir. 2006) (“Normally, when reviewing on direct appeal a ruling relying substantially upon precedent later overruled by the Supreme Court, we . . . simply remand the case to the district court for reconsideration in light of t…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Patterson v. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co.
N.D. Ind. · 1980 · confidence medium
Co. and Teamsters v. U. S., 424 U.S. 747 , 96 S.Ct. 1251 , 47 L.Ed.2d 444 , Younger v. Glamorgan Pipe & Foundry Co., 561 F.2d 563, 565 (4th Cir. 1977), where the district court made many observations about “duplication of effort,” “efforts to enlarge the class beyond that which was originally found,” and a lack of timely and efficient presentation of the case.
cited Cited "see" Myers v. Gilman Paper Co.
S.D. Ga. · 1981 · signal: see · confidence high
See Younger v. Glamorgan Pipe and Foundry Co., 561 F.2d 563, 565 (4th Cir. 1977) (per curiam) (Teamsters “appears to require” finding of discrimination in hiring to hold seniority system invalid).
discussed Cited "see" Westfield Centre Service, Inc. v. Cities Serv. Oil Co.
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. · 1980 · signal: see · confidence high
See Younger v. Glamorgan Pipe and Foundry Co., 418 F. Supp. 743 (W.D.Va. 1976), vacated and remanded on other grounds 561 F. 2d 563 (4 Cir.1977), citing Taylor v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co., 6 FEP Cases 673 (N.D.Ala. 1973), where the court reasoned that counsel fees are appropriate for efforts which were successful but that the portion of counsel's time expended toward an unsuccessful result should not be rewarded.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." 20 Fair empl.prac.cas. 1345, 21 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 30,286 United States of America and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and Cross-Appellants v. Lee Way Motor Freight, Inc., and Cross-Appellee, and International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, and Cross-Appellant
10th Cir. · 1979 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also United States v. East Texas Motor Freight System, 564 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1977), and James v. Stockham Valves & Fittings Co., 559 F.2d 310 (5th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1034 , 98 S.Ct. 767 , 54 L.Ed.2d 781 (1978). 237 In Younger v. Glamorgan Pipe and Foundry Company, 561 F.2d 563 (4th Cir. 1977), it was found that because of the employer's seniority and job-bidding practices blacks were frozen into the departments in which they predominated until the inception of open bidding and that the result was discrimination against blacks because of their race.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Thomas Younger, Individually, and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated
v.
Glamorgan Pipe and Foundry Company, a Corporation, Local 2864 of the United Steelworkers of America, Afl-Cio, an Unincorporated Association, and the United Steelworkers of America, Afl-Cio, an Unincorporated Association, Thomas Younger, Individually, and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated v. Glamorgan Pipe and Foundry Company, a Corporation, Local 2864 of the United Steelworkers of America, Afl-Cio, an Unincorporated Association and the United Steelworkers of America, Afl-Cio, an Unincorporated Association, Thomas Younger, Individually, and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated v. Glamorgan Pipe and Foundry Company, Local 2864 of the United Steelworkers of America, Afl-Cio, an Unincorporated Association, United Steelworkers of America, Afl-Cio, an Unincorporated Association, Thomas Younger, Individually, and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated v. Glamorgan Pipe and Foundry Company, a Corporation, United Steelworkers of America, Afl-Cio, an Unincorporated Association, Local 2864 of the United Steelworkers of America, Afl-Cio, an Unincorporated Association
76-2278.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Sep 23, 1977.
561 F.2d 563
Cited by 9 opinions  |  Published

561 F.2d 563

18 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 454

Thomas YOUNGER, Individually, and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Appellant,
v.
GLAMORGAN PIPE AND FOUNDRY COMPANY, a corporation, Appellee,
Local 2864 of the United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO,
an unincorporated association, and the United
Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, an
unincorporated association,
Defendants.
Thomas YOUNGER, Individually, and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Appellee,
v.
GLAMORGAN PIPE AND FOUNDRY COMPANY, a corporation, Appellant,
Local 2864 of the United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO,
an unincorporated association and the United
Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, an
unincorporated association,
Defendants.
Thomas YOUNGER, Individually, and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v.
GLAMORGAN PIPE AND FOUNDRY COMPANY, Appellant,
Local 2864 of the United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO,
an unincorporated association, Appellee,
United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, an unincorporated
association, Defendant.
Thomas YOUNGER, Individually, and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v.
GLAMORGAN PIPE AND FOUNDRY COMPANY, a corporation, Appellant,
United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, an unincorporated
association, Appellee,
Local 2864 of the United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO,
an unincorporated association, Defendant.

Nos. 76-2278 to 76-2281.

United States Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit.

Argued June 10, 1977.
Decided Sept. 23, 1977.

Randall G. Johnson, Richmond, Va. (Henry L. Marsh, III, William H. Bass, III, Hill, Tucker & Marsh, Richmond, Va., Jerry L. Williams, Danville, Va., Jack Greenberg and Barry L. Goldstein, New York City, on brief), for appellant in 76-2278, appellee in 76-2279.

John R. Erickson, Washington, D. C. (Francis T. Coleman, Washington, D. C., on brief), for appellee in 76-2278, appellant in 76-2279, 76-2280 and 76-2281.

John C. Falkenberry, Birmingham, Ala. (Cooper, Mitch & Crawford, Birmingham, Ala., Michael H. Gottesman, Bredhoff, Cushman, Gottesman & Cohen, Washington, D. C., Bernard A. Kleiman, Chicago, Ill., on brief), for appellee in 76-2278, 76-2280 and 76-2281.

Before WINTER, BUTZNER and RUSSELL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

[*~563]1

We decide that the district court's final order in this suit, brought under the provisions of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq., to redress alleged discriminatory employment practices, must be vacated and the case remanded for further consideration in the light of controlling Supreme Court decisions announced since the district court's decision.

2

The suit is a class action by black employees and former employees of Glamorgan Pipe and Foundry Co. (Glamorgan) against it and the unions which represent Glamorgan employees in collective bargaining. Plaintiffs' basic claim is that defendants practiced racial discrimination with respect to the compensation, terms, conditions and privileges of employment, promotion and transfer of black employees after the effective date of the Act (July 2, 1965). As set forth in two written opinions, Younger v. Glamorgan Pipe and Foundry Company, 418 F.Supp. 743 (W.D.Va.1976), the district court made a number of basic findings. It found that blacks tend to predominate in Glamorgan's melting, Delavaud finishing and soil pipe finishing departments, and its labor pool. It concluded, however, that "(p)laintiffs failed to show why the situation exists or that the Company intended for it to exist (and) (d) efendants, by the same token, failed to show why the situation exists or that it did not result from racially discriminatory practices, although unintentional." 418 F.Supp. at 761.

3

The district court also found that until 1969 Glamorgan had a job-bidding promotion system which restricted bids for vacancies to employees already employed in the department in which a job opening arose. After 1969, anyone from any department could bid for a vacancy. Since 1965, Glamorgan had company and departmental seniority, and the system is embodied in its collective bargaining agreements. Under the system, an employee accumulates company seniority after the first three months of employment and departmental seniority after the first thirty days of employment in the particular department. A permanent transfer to another department works a forfeiture of departmental seniority in the department from which the transfer is made, and new departmental seniority, of course, does not begin to accumulate until after thirty days of employment in the new department.

4

Although the district court made no finding that defendants practiced racial discrimination in the initial hiring of black employees, it concluded that the class of black employees employed prior to January 1, 1969, in the labor pool or in the melting, Delavaud finishing, or soil pipe finishing departments was entitled to relief under Title VII because Glamorgan's seniority and job-bidding practices froze blacks into the departments in which they predominated until the inception of open bidding and thus discriminated against blacks because of their race. The district court granted injunctive relief and awarded back pay to a number of employees and attorneys fees. Almost all of the parties appeal, raising myriad contentions.

5

Since the district court's determination of liability, the Supreme Court has decided Franks v. Bowman Transportation Co., 424 U.S. 747, 96 S.Ct. 1251, 47 L.Ed.2d 444 (1976), and International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324, 97 S.Ct. 1843, 52 L.Ed.2d 396 (1977). We think that the district court must reconsider its decision in the light of their holdings. To the extent that it relied on Glamorgan's seniority system as perpetuating pre-Act employment discrimination, the district court should give close attention to Teamsters. To the extent that it relied on Glamorgan's seniority system as perpetuating post-Act employment discrimination, the district court should give close attention to Bowman. We call attention to the fact that Bowman and Teamsters both appear to require a finding of initial discrimination in hiring as the premise upon which the operation of a seniority system may be held to be in violation of Title VII. Teamsters also recognizes that such discrimination may be proved by statistical evidence alone, and Teamsters makes clear who has the burden of proof of a prima facie case, how one may be proved and how the burden of proof may shift thereafter.

[*~564]6

VACATED AND REMANDED.