Path: bloom-picayune.mit.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!americast.com!americast.com!americast-post Newsgroups: americast.wpost From: americast-post@AmeriCast.Com Organization: American Cybercasting Approved: americast-post@AmeriCast.com Subject: CHRONOLOGY OF DU PONT BIAS CASE=1973 Date: Mon, 23 Nov 92 09:54:16 EST Message-ID: <20.1992Nov23.095416@AmeriCast.com> CHRONOLOGY OF DU PONT BIAS CASE=1973 Discrimination complaint is filed by John R. Williams and other black workers against Du Pont and the Neoprene Craftsmen Union. Three weeks later, the judge who first was assigned the case withdraws. The case is reassigned to U.S. District Judge Rhodes Bratcher, who orders pretrial conference for spring 1974.1974 Pretrial conference is delayed because discovery, the gathering of information by both sides, is not completed. The scenario will be repeated for almost 20 years. Du Pont and the union ask the court to dismiss the case. The black workers fight dismissal.1975 Judge denies the defendants' motion to dismiss, and shortly thereafter this case is consolidated with a related lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (The EEOC case also was filed in 1973.) Parties continue the process of discovery, requesting data and putting questions to represen- tatives for each side. The workers add a new lawyer.1976 Judge Bratcher denies another request by Du Pont to end the case. Par- ties continue to fight over access to information. Key questions revolve around the numbers of blacks hired at various points, their assignments, education and the particulars of the collec- tive bargaining agreement.1977 While the Du Pont case grinds on, the Supreme Court in a separate dispute (Teamsters v. United States) protects some discriminato- ry seniority systems that originated before the 1964 act took ef- fect. Judge Blatcher dies.1978 The workers and the EEOC file testimony taken from numerous com- pany and union officials at the court, and disputes over other interview and information requests continue.1979 The first orders signed by Judge Thomas A. Ballantine Jr. appear on the docket sheet. (Ballantine will remain on the case until shortly before his death in February 1992.) Meanwhile, the black workers replace their lawyers. Du Pont and the union request judgment in their favor based on the Teamsters ruling. Ballantine rules for Du Pont.1980 The workers, joined by the EEOC, appeal the judgment for Du Pont.1982 The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Cincinnati, rev- erses Ballantine's summary judgment and says the case should go to trial. Parties continue to argue over access to information. The workers and the EEOC seek employee names, job titles, infor- mation about how vacancies were filled and other facts. Du Pont, meanwhile, asks workers to cite specifics to prove their allega- tions that the system was adopted with a discriminatory purpose. Workers change lawyers again.1983-85 Discovery continues. Pretrial conferences are scheduled and post- poned. During this time, judge grants some of the workers' mo- tions to compel Du Pont to turn over information, denies other requests. The EEOC lawyers change.1986-88 More of the same. Parties are interviewed. Information is filed with the court. Lawyers are substituted.1989 Supreme Court rules in Lorance v. AT&T Technologies that the deadline for challenging a seniority system begins running when the system is adopted, not when it adversely affects workers. Du Pont asks for a judgment based on Lorance, saying that the work- ers missed the deadline for challenging the seniority system. Responses and counter-responses follow. The workers change lawyers again.1991 Ballantine rules in part for Du Pont but says the workers still have opportunity to prove that the 1950s seniority system was, in effect, readopted through the 1970s. The workers assert that the system was readopted each time a new collective bargaining agree- ment was struck.1992 Ballantine dies in February. The case is transferred to Judge Carl B. Rubin, who urges parties to end discovery. Rubin holds trial Oct. 19-22. Rubin rules Nov. 16 that Du Pont intentionally discriminated against black workers. He asks parties to submit recommendations to him on money damages by Dec. 15.09:01 11- 23C9999----- Copyright 1992, The Washington Post. This story is from the Washington Post's Capitol Edition On-Line and is not to be ar- chived or redistributed. For more information, send-email to American Cybercasting Cor- poration (usa@AmeriCast.COM)