Slack v. Havens

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
522 F.2d 1091 (1975)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A claim for back pay under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is considered equitable relief, not a legal remedy for damages, and therefore does not entitle the defendant to a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment. Furthermore, a successor corporation may be held liable for a predecessor's discriminatory acts if there is a substantial continuity of business operations and the successor had an opportunity to defend itself.

Facts:

Four black women, Slack, Matthews, Hampton, and Hale, were employed in the bonding and coating department of a business owned by Glenn C. Havens.
On January 31, 1968, their supervisor, Pohasky, instructed them and a white co-worker, Murphy, that they would be required to perform heavy janitorial cleaning the next day.
The four women protested the assignment.
The following day, Pohasky excused the white co-worker from the cleaning duty but insisted the four black employees perform the task.
When they protested again, Pohasky made racially discriminatory remarks, stating that 'Colored people should stay in their places' and 'Colored people are hired to clean because they clean better.'
Upon their continued refusal to perform the janitorial work, the four women were fired.
After the women were discharged, the business was incorporated as Havens International, which continued the same operations.
Havens International was later dissolved, and its assets were transferred to Calgon Corporation.

Procedural Posture:

After being terminated, the four women pursued state remedies.
They then filed discrimination charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
Upon receiving right-to-sue letters, the women sued their former employers, Glenn C. Havens and Havens International, in federal district court (a court of first instance).
The district court, sitting without a jury, found in favor of the women and awarded them damages for back pay.
The employers, Havens and Havens International, appealed the judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does an award of back pay under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 constitute a legal remedy of damages, thereby entitling a defendant to a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment?

Opinions:

Majority - Judge Hufstedler

No, an award of back pay under Title VII is an integral part of the equitable remedy of reinstatement and does not constitute a legal claim for damages that would trigger the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial. The court reasoned that Title VII's statutory language refers to 'equitable relief' and makes back pay a discretionary award, distinguishing it from statutes like Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act which explicitly provide for 'damages' and were found to require jury trials in Curtis v. Loether. Treating back pay as part of the overall equitable remedy of making the plaintiff whole aligns with the traditional distinction between legal and equitable remedies. The court also held that Havens was an 'employer' under the Act's clear statutory definition based on the 'current or preceding calendar year,' and that Havens International was liable as a successor corporation because it had a full opportunity to present its defenses and there was a substantial continuity of the business, satisfying the nine-factor test from EEOC v. MacMillan Bloedel Containers, Inc.

Analysis:

This decision solidifies the characterization of Title VII remedies, specifically back pay, as purely equitable, thereby denying defendants the right to a jury trial in such cases. By aligning with several other circuit courts, this ruling created a strong, uniform precedent that shaped civil rights litigation strategy for decades, keeping these complex cases in front of judges who were seen as better equipped to handle the intricacies of employment law. Furthermore, the court's adoption of a broad test for successor liability prevents employers from using corporate restructuring as a shield to evade responsibility for discriminatory acts, reinforcing the remedial purpose of Title VII to provide make-whole relief for victims.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Slack v. Havens (1975)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"