# McDowell v. Safeway Stores, Inc.

> District Court, E.D. Arkansas · November 29, 1983 · 575 F. Supp. 1007

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1462505

## Case

- **Full name:** Charlotte McDOWELL, Plaintiff, v. SAFEWAY STORES, INCORPORATED, Defendant, Retail Clerks Union Local 1583, Third-Party Defendant, John Nimmer, Carmen Smith, Cheryl Russ, Linda Nowden, Gwendolyn Doby, and James King, Intervenors
- **Court:** District Court, E.D. Arkansas
- **Decided:** November 29, 1983
- **Citations:** 575 F. Supp. 1007; 33 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1735
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion by Woods
- **Judges:** Woods
- **Cited by:** 9 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1462505

## Opinion text

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Pleadings
WOODS, District Judge.
1. Charlotte McDowell, the Plaintiff herein, filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on April 9, 1979 alleging that Safeway had discriminated against her on the basis of her race. McDowell did not file a charge of discrimination with the EEOC against the Retail Clerks Union Local 1583. Before the EEOC had an opportunity to make a determination of McDowell’s charge, McDowell asked for and received a Right-to-Sue Notice.
2. On January 30, 1980 Plaintiff McDowell filed the instant lawsuit against Safeway alleging that Safeway had illegally discriminated against her individually because of her race, and against all blacks as a class, all in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. (Title VII), and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (§ 1981). This suit was filed only against Safeway. The Retail Clerks Union was not named as a defendant. McDowell was a member of the Retail Clerks Bargaining Unit at all relevant times.
3. The complaint alleged disparate treatment of McDowell individually and disparate treatment of blacks as a class. There are no specifically identified or identifiable allegations of disparate impact in the complaint, nor were any raised at any time during the pendency or trial of this lawsuit.
4. The relevant time period for finding of liability under Title VII would be from October 10, 1978 (180 days prior to the filing of McDowell’s EEOC charge) to the present. The relevant time period for finding of liability under § 1981 is from Janu
*1011
ary 30, 1977 (3 years prior to the filing of this lawsuit).
5. McDowell is the only original Plaintiff in this lawsuit. Her individual allegations of race discrimination are that she was discharged because of her race and that she was denied entry into Safeway’s Store Management Training Program (SMTP) because of her race.
6. On May 23, 1980 James King filed a Petition for Intervention into this lawsuit. King was allowed to intervene by Order of Court on June 17, 1980. King alleged in his petition for intervention that Safeway had illegally discriminated against him in that he was denied a transfer to a truck driving position because of his race, and that he was denied a promotion to heavy duty mechanic because of his race. King is employed in Safeway’s Distribution Center and at all relevant times has been a member of the Teamsters Local 878 Bargaining Unit. King did file an EEOC charge against Safeway but did not file an EEOC charge against the Teamsters Union.
7. On May 23, 1980 Carmen Smith filed a Petition for Intervention into this lawsuit. Smith was allowed to intervene by Order of Court on July 14, 1980. Smith alleged in her Petition for Intervention that Safeway had illegally discriminated against her in that she was not properly trained because of her race and that she was discharged because of her race.
8. On July 15,1980 John Nimmer filed a petition for intervention into this lawsuit. Nimmer was allowed to intervene by Order of Court on August 18, 1980. Nimmer alleged in his Petition for Intervention that Safeway had illegally discriminated against him in that he was not properly trained as a Store Management Trainee because of his race, and that he was demoted from Store Management Training Program because of his race. Nimmer is employed in Safeway’s retail stores and at all relevant times has been a member of the Retail Clerks Bargaining Unit. Nimmer filed an EEOC charge against Safeway but did not file an EEOC charge against the Retail Clerks Union.
9. On July 2, 1981 Gwendolyn Doby filed a Petition for Intervention into this lawsuit. Doby was allowed to intervene by Order of Court on October 8, 1981. Doby alleged in hér Petition for Intervention that Safeway had illegally discriminated against her in that she was reprimanded because of her race, was given more difficult job assignments because of her race, was not transferred because of her race, and was assigned fewer working hours because of her race. Doby was employed in one of Safeway’s retail stores and was a member of the Retail Clerks Bargaining Unit. Doby filed an EEOC charge against Safeway but did not file an EEOC charge against the Retail Clerks Union.
10. On July 2, 1981 Linda Nowden filed a Petition for Intervention into this lawsuit. Nowden was allowed to intervene by Order of the Court on October 8, 1981. Nowden alleged in her Petition for Intervention that Safeway had illegally discriminated against her in that she was denied full-time status because of her race and that she was reduced from full-time status because of her race. Nowden is employed in Safeway’s retail stores and has been, at all relevant times, a member of the Retail Clerks Bargaining Unit. Nowden filed an EEOC charge against Safeway and the Retail Clerks Union. However, prior to filing her Petition to Intervene, she dropped her charge against the Union.
11. On July 2, 1981 Cheryl Russ filed a Petition for Intervention into this lawsuit. Russ was allowed to intervene by Order of Court on October 8, 1981. Russ alleged in her petition for intervention that Safeway had illegally discriminated against her in that she was denied promotions because of her race and that she was denied certain hours of work because of her race. Russ was employed in one of Safeway’s retail stores and was a member of the Retail Clerks Bargaining Unit. Russ filed an EEOC charge against Safeway but did not file an EEOC charge against the Retail Clerks Union.
12. On November 10, 1981 Marion King filed a petition for intervention into this
*1012
lawsuit. King alleged in his petition for intervention that Safeway had illegally discriminated against him in that he was discharged as a Store Manager for Safeway because of his race. King was employed as a Store Manager in Safeway’s retail stores but was not a member of the Retail Clerks Bargaining Unit. King filed an EEOC charge against Safeway, but did not file a charge against the Retail Clerks Union. On January 5, 1982 King was denied intervention into this lawsuit on the grounds that the intervention of a store manager would unduly delay the trial of this matter and unduly broaden the scope of this lawsuit. King subsequently filed a separate lawsuit against Safeway.
13. On February 23, 1982 the Court approved a Stipulated Order agreed upon by the parties setting forth the definition of a class and the delineation of the class issues. (Hereinafter, Stipulated Order).
14. The stipulated class was defined as “all black employees of Defendant, Safeway Stores, Inc., whether full-time or part-time, employed in Defendant Safeway’s Pulaski County stores at any time since January 30, 1977, who were members of the bargaining unit represented by the Defendant’s Retail Clerks Union, Local No. 1583 and who may-have been subjected to racially discriminatory treatment by Defendant Safeway in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 .
15. The class issues involved in this lawsuit were delineated as follows:
(a) Black employees being denied promotions or the opportunity to be promoted because of their race. A promotion is defined as the movement from one job classification within a bargaining unit to a different job classification within the bargaining unit with a higher rate of pay.
(b) Black employees being denied full-time employment status because of their race, specifically involving, (1) white part-time employees being given full-time status before black part-time employees with greater seniority; (2) white employees being given full-time status when initially hired while black part-time employees were denied full-time status; and (3) black full-time employees being reduced from full-time to part-time status before white full-time employees with less seniority.
(c) Black part-time employees being assigned fewer hours to work per week than white part-time employees with less seniority.
(d) Black employees being denied promotion, reclassification to full-time status and more hours of work because of their race in that such promotion, reclassifications and hours of work are given to white persons who have less seniority and are relatives of white officials, managers and other employees of Safeway.
(e) Black employees being discharged because of their race.
(f) Black employees being subjected to discriminatory treatment with regard to Safeway Store Management Training Program, specifically involving, (1) being denied proper training and being subjected to adverse treatment on the basis of race; (3) after entry into the program, being demoted or discharged from the program on the basis of race.
(g) Black employees subjected to discriminatory working conditions which can be remedied only through injunctive and declaratory relief including, (1) being assigned the least desirable shifts; (2) being subjected to racial harassment, racial epithets and racial jokes; (3) being given more onerous and difficult work assignments than white employees.” (Stipulated Order).
16. The parties stipulated that Intervenor James King was not a class representative, but that King would continue to prosecute and try his individual claims of racial discrimination at the Safeway Distribution Center. (Stipulated Order).
17. The parties stipulated that the Stipulated Order constituted the complete cer
*1013
tification of all class issues in this lawsuit except for the issue of whether the Plaintiff and Intervenors, all of whom had been hired by Safeway, could adequately represent a class of applicants who had not been hired by Safeway. This issue was submitted to the Court on the briefs of the parties. By order dated March 11,1982 the Court denied the Plaintiff and Intervenor’s request to represent a class of applicants because of failure to satisfy the typicality, commonality and adequacy of representation requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
18. The Retail Clerks Union, Local 1583, was not named as a defendant when the instant suit was filed on January 30, 1980.
19. Defendant, Retail Clerks Union, Local 1583, has been the exclusive bargaining representative for all nonsalaried employees, excluding meatcutters, employed in the retail stores throughout the Little Rock Division, since approximately 1959. The meatcutters are covered by a separate contract with a separate union and are not included in this litigation. The Retail Clerks Union and Safeway have negotiated a series of collective bargaining agreements covering the various bargaining units within the Little Rock Division. The employees and all of the retail stores in Pulaski County constitute one bargaining unit. The terms and conditions of employment of the employees in the Pulaski County Bargaining Unit have been set forth in a series of collective bargaining agreements between Safeway and the Retail Clerks Union. (Jt.Exh. 1, Stip. 12).
20. The Retail Clerks Contract contains certain provisions governing the following employment practices:
(a) Reclassification from part-time to full-time status;
(b) Reclassification from full-time to part-time status;
(c) Employees hired into full-time status;
(d) Scheduling of hours and shifts of part-time employees;
(e) Promotions;
(f) Rates of pay for any given classification in the bargaining unit; and
(g) Discharges.
(Jt.Exh. 1, Stip. 16, 26, 27; Def.Exh. 11, 12, 13).
21. If any employee believes that he or she has been wrongfully denied any right granted to the employee under the Retail Clerks Contract with regard to part-time and full-time status, scheduling of hours or shifts, promotions, rates of pay, or discharge, the employee may file a grievance with the Retail Clerks Union. The Retail Clerks contract provides for binding arbitration of such grievances. (Jt.Exh. 1, Stip. 26; Def.Exh. 11, 12, 13). However, probationary employees do not have any access to the grievance provisions of the Union contract.
22. Although the Retail Clerks Union was not named as a defendant when the instant lawsuit was filed on January 30, 1980, Plaintiff, McDowell and Intervenors, James King, Carmen Smith and John Nimmer filed a Motion with the Court to join the Retail Clerks Union as an indispensable party, alleging that there could not be adequate adjudication of the issues without the Retail Clerks Union as a party defendant.
23. By Order of the Court on July 2, 1981, the Court found the Union to be a necessary party. The Court further found that the Retail Clerks Union could not be joined in the Plaintiffs Title VII action because of the failure of any Plaintiff or Intervenor to file an EEOC charge against the Retail Clerks Union. The Court then found the Union to be an indispensable party, particularly for remedy purposes, and thus dismissed the Title VII claims of the Plaintiff for failure to join an indispensable party. However, the Court then ordered the Retail Clerks Union to be joined as a Defendant in the Plaintiff and Intervenor’s § 1981 cause of action. On October 8, 1981 Intervenors Doby, Nowden and Russ were permitted to intervene in the § 1981 case against both Defendants.
24. On a joint motion of all parties, the Court ordered the bifurcation of the trial into a liability phase and a remedy phase.
*1014
The Retail Clerks Union did not participate in the liability phase of the trial.
25. Defendant Safeway is a Maryland corporation duly licensed to do business in the State of Arkansas. (Jt.Exh. 1, Stip. 6).
26. The Little Rock Division of Safeway encompasses all of the State of Arkansas, and portions of Texas, Louisiana, Mississip: pi, Tennessee and Missouri. (Jt.Exh. 1, Stip. 7).
27. The Little Rock Division office is located in Little Rock, Arkansas. The Little Rock Division is responsible for all retail grocery stores located throughout the Division and for the Distribution Center located in Little Rock, Arkansas. (Jt.Exh. 1, Stip. 8).
28. The Little Rock Division Manager is in charge of the entire Little Rock Division. The Retail Operations Manager is responsible for all retail grocery stores in the Little Rock Division and reports directly to the Division Manager. The Distribution Center Manager is in charge of the Distribution Center and reports directly to the Division Manager. (Jt.Exh. 1, Stip. 9).
29. The retail grocery stores under the supervision of the Retail Operations Manager are divided into districts. Each district has a District Manager that reports directly to the Retail Operations Manager. The Store Manager within each district reports directly to the District Manager. (Jt. Exh. 1, Stip. 10). The Little Rock Division is divided into five districts of 12 to 13 stores per district. Four of the five districts are pie shaped out of the City of Little Rock. The four District Managers for those districts are officed in Little Rock. One district is located away from Little Rock, in northern Louisiana. The District Manager for that district is officed in Monroe; Louisiana. Districts have been drawn in a pie shape out of Little Rock so that as many District Managers as possible could be officed in the Little Rock Division office. Also, the travel time for the District Managers is equalized by having each of the four District Managers officed in Little Rock having some stores in the Little Rock area (including Benton) and out of the Little Rock area. (Mauldin, T. 4343-44).
30. The retail stores in Pulaski County are in three different districts. There is no correlation whatsoever between the district lines and the scope of the class involved in this lawsuit. (Mauldin, T. 4344).
31. Safeway has operated approximately 22 retail grocery stores in Pulaski County, Arkansas since January 30, 1977. These Pulaski County stores constitute portions of a number of different districts. The stores are identified by the following numbers:
STORE NO. ADDRESS
129 1724 Main Street
131 2100 Pike
144 614 North Beechwood
152 5501Kavanaugh
153 2400 South High
167 4110 West 12th
168 7507 Cantrell
172 8001 Geyer Springs
174 3000 South University
175 901 West Third
178/4011 4100 Asher
179 1919 West 12th
182 165 North Rodney Parham
198 4701 JFK Boulevard
199/266 4109 East Broadway
212 7511 Baseline
217/4006 3930 McCain
'220 10901 Rodney Parham
243 6800 Asher
258 8900 Geyer Springs
180/2038 Jacksonville
274 Sherwood
(Jt. Exh. 1, Stip. 11).
Class Issues
32. I find that the most pertinent credible and definitive testimony as to the class issues came from Safeway’s expert, Dr. Finis Welch. -Plaintiff-intervenors’ counsel engaged a total of three expert witnesses, none of whom personally testified in this case. Dr. Alda Moore’s testimony was never presented. Dr. Richard Goldstein, plaintiff-intervenors’ expert, was deposed by Safeway. Neither he nor his deposition was offered by plaintiff but was introduced by Safeway. Mr. Martin Mador testified by deposition as plaintiff-intervenors’ only expert witness.
33. Mr. Mador has a B.A. degree in psychology from Yale (Plf.Exh. 20A, p. 12).
*1015
He is currently employed as a computer analyst by the NAACP Legal Defense Fund (Plf.Exh. 20A, pp. 8-12).
34. Mr. Mador stated that he would not be testifying as an expert statistician; his role was, according to him, limited to that of a computer analyst. (Plf.Exh. 20A, p. 7). Moreover, in numerous instances in his deposition, Mr. Mador stated that he would not be offering to the Court his opinion as to the meaning or significance of the material which he developed. (Plf.Exh. 20A, p. 8, 17, 49, 50-51, 83). Explicitly, he stated that he would not be asked at trial to draw any conclusions from the data. (Plf.Exh. 20A, p. 36).
35. Mr. Mador’s deposition and work product was offered into evidence as Plaintiff’s Exhibit 20. (Welch, T. 2122). His work product was composed of a series of computer printouts which were labeled for purposes of discussion in his deposition and in court as Exhibits 3A through 3J. Mr. Mador stated that he would offer no conclusions as to the bottom line meaning of any of these exhibits. (Plf.Exh. 20A, p. 17, 36, 49-51, 83). Additionally, the exhibits contained numerous errors and over-inclusions, according to the uncontroverted testimony of Dr. Welch. (Welch, T. 2225-97).
36. During his deposition Mr. Mador admitted that his Exhibit 3A was in error and that he could not rely upon it. (Def.Exh. 55, p. 61, 63). Mr. Mador agreed to correct the errors and resubmit it. However, this was never done. (Welch, T. 2249).
37. Many of Mr. Mador’s exhibits depend on the ranking scheme which he developed. The ranking scheme he used was introduced as Defendant’s Exhibit 16. (Welch, T. 2228). Based on the salary of a particular job contained in the EPIC database, Mr. Mador ranked the jobs, with the highest paid job receiving a rank of 1. (Welch, T. 2229).
38. In doing so, Mr. Mador developed ranks for 63 job categories. An inspection by Dr. Welch revealed that 32 of the job categories in the 63 categories were for jobs which were not included in the Stipulated Order. (Welch, T. 2235). Additionally, Dr. Welch noted that the ranks were not equidistant in the sense that the difference between ranks were not constant. (Welch, •T. 2235). Dr. Welch extensively examined the first 25 job categories included in Mr. Mador’s ranks. He found that of the first 25' job categories, there were 14 which were irrelevant in that they represented job categories which were not a part of the Stipulated Order. (Welch, T. 2239). He further noted that the job category “Head Produce Clerk” and “Produce Manager” were the same job but that the former had a rank of 3 and the latter a rank of 12. (Welch, T. 2236). Indeed, Dr. Goldstein stated in his deposition that the rankings appeared strange to him. (Def.Exh. 55, p. 116-17).
39. Mr. Mador’s exhibits are also flawed since they include all persons who were ever in a relevant Safeway Store. That is, all of his printouts include all information for all employees who ever worked in a Safeway Store in Pulaski County regardless of whether they were in Pulaski County during the relevant time period and includes all changes in employment without regard to where the employee happened to be at the time. (Welch, T. 2249).
40. Dr. Welch stated that the data presented in Mr. Mador’s printouts were the type which is commonly developed as a beginning point in statistical analysis — it did not represent a finished product. (Welch, T. 2260). Dr. Goldstein had read a copy of the transcript of Dr. Welch’s deposition and was familiar with Dr. Welch’s criticisms of Mr. Mador’s exhibits. (Def. ' Exh. 55, p. 123). Based on this reading and a review of Mr. Mador’s printouts, Dr. Goldstein stated that he did not have any reason to dispute Dr. Welch’s criticisms of Mr. Mador’s exhibits. (Def.Exh. 55, p. 123).
41. Finally, Dr. Welch stated that- the data as offered by Mr. Mador were not in a form that was amenable to statistical analysis. (Welch, T. 2260). Specifically, he observed that the printouts did not contain any dispersion statistics which would be required to perform statistical tests of the
*1016
data. (Welch, T. 2276). Concurring with Dr. Welch, Dr. Goldstein, when asked if there were any valid statistical analyses which could be derived from this data, responded, “No, I don’t see how.” (Def.Exh. 55, p. 124).
42. Dr. Goldstein was initially contacted for work on this case by Mr. Mador in late October or early November of 1982. (Def. Exh. 55, p. 11). His initial instructions were to review the report of Safeway’s expert witness, Dr. Finis Welch, and to observe strict cost limits in doing so. (Def. Exh. 55, pp. 96-97). When contacting him for work on this case, Mr. Mador stated that there were problems with Plaintiff’s case. (Def.Exh. 55, p. 108). Mador also stated that he would not testify since there were no clear answers contained in his (Mador’s) material. (Def.Exh. 55, P. 109). Further, Mr. Mador indicated to Dr. Gold-stein that there were errors contained in his (Mador’s) materials. (Def.Exh. 55, p. 109).
43. Dr. Goldstein’s original role in the case was to provide questions to serve as a basis for the cross-examination of Finis Welch. (Def.Exh. 55, pp. 97-98). He agreed to testify for Plaintiff and Intervenors in January of 1983 after the testimony of Dr. Welch had concluded. (Def.Exh. 55, pp. 105-106). Subsequent to this time and the taking of his deposition on August 9, 1983, Dr. Goldstein essentially performed no work on this case. (Def.Exh. 55, p. 106).
44. Dr. Goldstein’s presumed role in testifying was to be extremely limited. He planned to introduce no exhibits. (Def. Exh. 55, p. 10). He was unaware of the relevant time period for the case (Def.Exh. 55, pp. 128-29), and he never received a copy of the Stipulated Order. (Def.Exh. 55, p. 125). He stated that he was not familiar with the union contract. (Def.Exh. 55, p. 137). Moreover, he never reviewed the data base used by Dr. Welch. (Def. Exh. 55, pp. 93-94), and, because of this, stated that he planned no recalculations (Def.Exh. 55, p. 113). He had reviewed Dr. Welch’s Volume II (Def.Exh. 1C) where the methods for creating the database were described. Based on his review, he stated in his deposition that he had no objections to the manner in which Dr. Welch created the data base used in his analysis of the statistical issues in this case. (Def.Exh. 55, p. 129). Goldstein explicitly stated that he would offer no evidence of whether discrimination exists. (Def.Exh. 55, p. 126).
45. As he understood it, his role in testifying was to describe potentially biasing factors in Dr. Welch’s study and factors which might limit its ability to show that the data are consistent with no discrimination. (Def.Exh. 55, p. 93). He was asked by Plaintiff and Intervenors’ counsel to testify that his problems or reservations dealing with Dr. Welch’s analysis implied that the data showed discrimination. He stated that he was unable to do this. (Def. Exh. 55, pp. 112-13). He was also asked by Plaintiff and Intervenors’ counsel to provide testimony on the question of nepotism and stores in ghetto neighborhoods. Goldstein stated that he could do nothing statistical with either of these issues since he had no access to primary data. (Def. Exh. 55, pp. 110, 112-13).
46. In short, Dr. Goldstein’s analysis of the statistical issues in this case was sharply limited. As he stated it, he could not disagree with Dr. Welch’s conclusions without data. (Def.Exh. 55, p. 133). Goldstein stated that the reason he did not analyze the data base in the time period of his employment from November, 1982 to his deposition on August 9, 1983 was that Mr. Walker was unwilling to authorize him to do the analysis. (Def.Exh. 55, p. 165). He further stated that the constraints imposed on him by counsel for Plaintiff and Intervenors made him uncomfortable in providing expert testimony in the case. (Def.Exh. 55, p. 166). Dr. Goldstein did review Dr. Welch’s report and, as his deposition reflects, had no serious disagreements with the report. (Def.Exh. 55).
47. Dr. Goldstein did not testify at trial, though his deposition was introduced by Safeway as part of its case-in-chief. (Def. Exh. 55, T. 4742-4746).
*1017
48. Dr. Finis Welch served as the statistical expert for Safeway. He brought an impressive array of credentials to this task as can readily be seen from a review of his resume. (Def.Exh. 1A, pp. 114-24). He is currently Professor of Economics at the University of California at Los Angeles. Additionally, he serves as President of Welch Associates and of UNICORN Research Corporation, both of which do contract research. (Welch, T. 2127).
49. Dr. Welch has an undergraduate degree in mathematics and agricultural economics from the University of Houston. In 1966, he received his Ph.D. in Economics from the University of Chicago. (Def.Exh. 1A, p. 114). He testified that, while in attendance at the University of Chicago, approximately one half of all of his courses were in statistics, mathematics, or econometrics. Also, he had a qualifying field in econometrics at the University of Chicago. (Welch, T. 2132).
50. Subsequent to his graduation, he pursued a number of learned activities. Initially, he served as a professor of economics at Southern Methodist University. In 1969 he was appointed a faculty fellow at the National Bureau of Economic Research. From 1971-1973 he served as Professor and Executive Officer of the Ph.D. program in economics at the City University of New York. From 1973 to the present, he has served as Professor of Economics at the University of California at Los Angeles. (Def.Exh. 1A, pp. 114-15). During the Spring of 1974, he founded and directed a program in labor and population studies for the Rand Corporation. (Welch, T. 2130). Finally, he has conducted a graduate seminar on labor economics and labor-related research for the past ten years. (Welch, T. 2129).
51. Dr. Welch either has been or currently is a member of several editorial boards responsible for the publication of scholarly journals in the field of economics. Among the editorial boards on which Dr. Welch currently serves are the
Economics of Education Review, Journal of Economic Literature,
and the
Journal of Labor Research.
(Def.Exh. 1A, p. 116).
52. Among Dr. Welch’s other professional activities are a number of distinguished committees on which he has served. In addition, he has served as a consultant to a wide range of organizations, including the Department of Labor. (Def.Exh. 1A, pp. 116-17). Dr. Welch stated that he was a member of a number of professional organizations; these included the American Economic Association and the Econometric Society. (Welch, T. 2129). Among his honors is that of currently serving as a Fellow of the Econometric Society. (Def.Exh. 1A, p. 117).
53. His publications are numerous and generally relate to topics in the field of labor economics. Finally, he has previously offered expert testimony in cases such as that before the Court. (Def.Exh. 1A, pp. 118-24).
54. Dr. Welch was offered for certification as an expert witness in statistics, labor economics, and computer programming and operations. Plaintiff and Intervenors’ counsel, John Walker, stated, “... I think his qualifications are sufficiently impressive for him to be certified.” (Welch, T. 2139). The Court agreed and accepted Dr. Welch as an expert in the fields of statistics, labor economics, and computer programming and operations.
55. Safeway introduced as Exhibits 1-A, 1-B, 1 — C and 2-A, 2-B and 2-C several volumes of information produced by Dr. Welch. Defendant’s Exhibit 1-A is titled by Dr. Welch “Volume I Statistical Analysis of Employment Practices: February 1, 1977 to December 31, 1981.” Dr. Welch’s Volume 1-A is titled “Volume 1-A Statistical Analysis of Employment Practices: Supplement for period February 1, 1977 to January 29, 1980” and was submitted as Defendant’s Exhibit 1-B. Defendant’s Exhibit 1 — C was titled by Dr. Welch “Volume II: Data and Data Processing.” Dr. Welch’s Volume III appeared as three separate bound copies and has been introduced as Defendant’s Exhibit 2-A, B, and C. These Exhibits contain a copy of the em
*1018
ployment data used by Dr. Welch as the main source of data in his analysis. (Welch, T. 2126-2127)..
56. Dr. Welch’s main analysis of the statistical issues posed in this case is contained in Defendant’s Exhibit 1A. The analysis in this exhibit covers the complete time period from February 1, 1977 through December 31, 1981 for which data was available. Dr. Welch also completed an analysis of the statistical issues for a shortened time period; this time period was from February 1,1977 through January 29, 1980. He stated that he followed this procedure in order to assure himself that the patterns he determined for the longer time period also held prior to the filing of the case. That is, he attempted to determine whether there had been any significant changes in the employment patterns between the two segments of the liability period. (Welch, T. 2127).
57. The results of Dr. Welch’s statistical analysis are presented, along with detailed written explanations of the analysis, including Tables and Figures, in Defendant’s Exhibits 1A and IB.
58. Dr. Welch’s report is voluminous. I have carefully examined it and have heard his testimony in explication. I find that Dr. Welch has properly analyzed the Safeway employment data and that his conclusions are correct. (DX 1A, IB, 1C, 2A, 2B, 2C). I find that his data base is proper and his methodology is correct. I observed Dr. Welch’s demeanor on the witness stand for several days of direct and cross examination. In short, he convinced the Court beyond any reasonable doubt that he was an eminently qualified Labor Economist who had taken all appropriate precautions to see that the data was accurately presented and analyzed. The Court has also read the depositions of the Plaintiff and Intervenors’ experts and finds that they did absolutely nothing to discredit Dr. Welch’s methodology or his conclusions. As a matter of fact, Dr. Goldstein supports Dr. Welch. Even if Dr. Goldstein had not supported Dr. Welch, the Court would have credited his testimony. The only statistical exhibits produced by Plaintiff and Intervenors were those of Mr. Mador. Dr. Welch discredited these exhibits and Dr. Goldstein seems to agree. The Court having listened to Dr. Welch’s critique and having personally examined the multitude of errors concludes that they contribute nothing to Plaintiff’s case. Given the fact that Plaintiff and Intervenors were given to November 22, 1981 to find Mr. Mador after the trial had begun in March and then were allowed over Safeway’s strong objections to call a rebuttal expert (Dr. Goldstein) who had from November, 1982 to August, 1983 to carefully analyze Dr. Welch’s findings, conclusions and methodologies, the decision to credit Dr. Welch’s testimony is the only one to make which would not be clearly erroneous.
59. Dr. Welch provided an extensive analysis of promotion activity of Safeway from February 1, 1977 to December 31, 1981. This analysis is pertinent to the charges specified in section (a) and to one of the charges in section (d) of the Stipulated Order. (Def.Exh. 1A, p. 31). Dr. Welch divided his promotion analysis into two components. The first analyzed promotional activities of Safeway between specific job groups, while the second component investigated the statistical evidence for the aggregate of all promotions. (Def.Exh. 1A, p. 31).
60. Based on the total evidence offered by Dr. Welch relating to his analysis of the promotion practices of Safeway in the time period between February 1, 1977 to December 31, 1981, I find that there is no statistically significant evidence that Safeway’s promotion practices have a differential effect on blacks. There is no statistically significant evidence that blacks are either more or less likely to be promoted than whites. (Welch, T. 2182).
61. The parties stipulated to the following class issue regarding movement from part-time to full-time status: “Black employees being denied full-time employment status because of their race, specifically involving (1) white part-time employees being given full-time status before black part-
*1019
time employees with greater seniority.” (Stipulated Order).
62. In Chapter 5 of Defendant’s Exhibit 1A, Dr. Welch initially addresses the question of whether there is a differential impact on blacks in movement from part-time status. The methodology used is similar to that used in his analysis of promotions. That is, pools of employees eligible for transition from part-time to full-time status were formed for each calendar date such a transition took place. Next, the race distribution of the persons moving from part-time to full-time status was compared to the race distribution of the pools from which they were drawn. (Def.Exh. 1A, p. 41).
63. The evidence offered by Dr. Welch, proves that there is no merit in the allegation that blacks are differentially treated in their reclassification from part-time to full-time status. The Court accepts Dr. Welch’s findings and it finds no merit to the claim that blacks are less likely than whites to be reclassified from part-time to full-time status.
64. The parties stipulated to the following class issue regarding full-time new hires: Black employees being denied full-time employment status because of their race, specifically involving, ... (2) white employees being given full-time status when initially hired while black part-time employees were denied full-time status. (Stipulated Order).
65. Safeway did not offer any statistical analysis of its practice of hiring employees into full-time positions. Dr. Welch stated that the reason for not offering any such evidence was that the EPIC data base does not contain information on pre-Safeway work histories. In Dr. Welch’s opinion, this information would have been essential to the evaluation of the initial assignments. (Def.Exh. 1A, p. 5). This is precisely the information provided in Defendants Exhibits 41 and 54. Further, Dr. Welch cited the fact that of more than 700 new hires during a liability period, only 16 persons were hired initially as full-time employees. (Def. Exh. 1A, p. 6).
66. The parties stipulated to the following class issue regarding reclassifications from full-time to part-time status: “Black employees being denied full-time employment status because of their race, specifically involving, ... (3) black employees being reduced from full-time to part-time status before white full-time employees with less seniority.” (Stipulated Order).
67. On March 1, 1981, due to poor economic conditions, Safeway laid off a number of part-time employees and reclassified a number of full-time employees to part-time status. Both Intervenor Nowden and class member witness Norris were among those reclassified to part-time status. Intervenor Nowden claims that the reclassification was discriminatory while class member witness Norris concedes that the reclassification was due to economic conditions. In any event, when Nowden and Norris were reclassified to part-time status, there were no other food clerks with less full-time seniority, either black or white, who remained in full-time status. (Def.Exh. 40; Mauldin, T. 4410-12).
68. Dr. Welch noted that there have been only 22 movements from full-time to part-time status and that one employee accounted for two of these changes. (Def. Exh. 1A, p. 51). Dr. Welch did not perform a test of the statistical significance of these transitions since he considered the change too infrequent. Rather, he concentrated on full-time seniority and identified cases where he knew that the person moving to part-time status had less seniority than other employees, and cases where it could not be determined whether the person had more or less seniority than the person being reduced to part-time status. (Def.Exh. 1A, pp. 51-52). The ambiguity was caused by the fact that the EPIC data base was introduced in 1976 and pre-1976 work history which would show the length of service in part-time and full-time status was not entered into the data base. (Def.Exh. 1A, p. 53).
69. On the particular day a reduction in status to part-time took place, Dr. Welch placed the candidates in the pool of employ
*1020
ees according to their full-time seniority. He then calculated two numbers for each person in the pool; their known tenure in full-time status and their known tenure in full-time status plus the period of indeterminate tenure. (Def.Exh. 1A, p. 54). As described by Dr. Welch,
The first is the least amount of time someone could have been full-time while the second is an upper limit for full-time seniority. If the upper limit for the person actually reduced to. part-time status falls short of the lower limit for everyone else in the pool, we know for sure that the affected employee had the least full-time seniority. Similarly, if the minimum for the affected party exceeds the maximum for anyone else, we know that the affected party did not have the least full-time seniority.
(Def-Exh. 1A, p. 54).
70.- Of the 22 status changes, 11 were such that Dr. Welch determined that the person receiving a reduction to part-time status was the person with the least full-time seniority. In two of the cases, Dr. Welch determined that the person who was reduced to part-time status did not have the least full-time seniority. The remaining nine cases were considered ambiguous; however, Dr. Welch considered three cases to be so extreme that he thought it likely that the person with the least full-time seniority was the one demoted. (Def.Exh. 1A, pp. 54-55). Because of the infrequency of movement from full-time to part-time status, an alternative assumption designed to reduce the number of indeterminate cases was introduced by Dr. Welch. The alternative assumption was to formulate a rule that if someone was a part-time employee at the beginning of the EPIC tracing to consider the entire indeterminate period as being spent in part-time status. (Def.Exh. 1A, p. 56). Given this assumption, there remained only three indeterminate cases. In 15 of the remaining cases, the employee reduced to part-time status had the least full-time seniority. In four of the cases, the employee reduced to part-time status did not have the least full-time seniority. (Def.Exh. 1A, p. 57; Table 5.5, Appendix I). Of these four employees, one was black and three were white.
71. Dr. Welch made two general observations concerning this data. First, as a general rule the person being reduced to part-time status did have the least full-time seniority. Second, there were obvious but infrequent exceptions (1 black, 3 whites) to this rule; however, the exceptions were so infrequent as to make it impossible to conduct any statistically valid test for the differential impact on blacks. (Def.Exh. 1A, p. 57).
72. The parties stipulated to the following class issue regarding the assignment of part-time hours: “Black part-time employees being assigned fewer hours to work per week than white part-time employees with less seniority.” (Stipulated Order).
73. Dr. Welch failed to find any statistical evidence of discrimination in the average number of part-time hours assigned to blacks based on a test of the means, the Chi-square test of the full distribution of part-time hours, or on the regression models run on either the complete time period or on the individual years for which data were available. Whatever statistical evidence is available suggests that blacks work more part-time hours than whites; however, this evidence is not statistically significant. (Def.Exh. 1A, p. 59). Based on this careful and complete statistical analysis, there is no significant evidence of a differential between the average number of hours worked by part-time employees who are black or who are white.
74. The parties stipulated to the following class issue regarding relatives: “Black employees being denied promotions, reclassifications to full-time status and more hours of work because of their race in that such promotions, reclassifications and hours of work are given to white persons who have less seniority and are relatives of white officials, managers and other white employees of Safeway.” (Stipulated Order).
75. The Plaintiff and Intervenors’ evidence on the issue consisted of general
*1021
allegations of preferential treatment, generally lacking any proof of qualifications or seniority standing of either the black employee or the white relative that allegedly received preferential treatment. In addition to these general allegations, Plaintiff and Intervenors introduced a list of white relatives who work for Safeway in Pulaski County. (Plf.Exh. 48).
76. Employment Relations Manager Mauldin explained that there was no prohibition against hiring relatives of current employees. Mauldin explained that relatives of current employees are an excellent source of new employees for Safeway. (Mauldin, T. 4430).
77. Employment Relations Manager Mauldin responded to the general allegations of favoritism toward white employees by responding that relatives of white employees and relatives of black employees were treated no differently. Mauldin cited examples of black employees being given preferential treatment because of their relatives who were working for Safeway. One such employee was class member Gloria King who was reclassified from part-time to full-time and transferred to Little Rock when her husband, then Store Manager, Marion King, was transferred from Pine Bluff to Little Rock. (Mauldin, T. 4430-33).
78. Safeway also presented an exhibit listing black employees who had relatives working at Safeway in Pulaski County. (Def.Exh. 48). Plaintiff McDowell had several relatives working for Safeway and other Intervenors and witnesses had numerous relatives working for Safeway in various positions.
79. While neither the Plaintiff and Intervenors nor Safeway presented any statistical analysis limited solely to relatives, the statistical analysis presented by Defendant Safeway and prepared by Dr. Welch showed that there was no significantly statistical difference between the treatment of blacks and whites in the areas of promotion, reclassifications from part-time to full-time status, and assignment of hours to part-time employees. (Def.Exh. 1A, IB). Further, even class witness Miles Henderson stated that there was no discrimination in hiring. (Henderson, T. 1025).
80. The parties stipulated to the following issue regarding discharges: “Black employees being discharged because of their race.” (Stipulated Order).
81. Given the definition of the termination reasons which implied discharge, Dr. Welch proceeded to analyze the statistical evidence of discharge activity by dividing his analysis into two components: post-probationary discharges and probationary discharges. (Def.Exh. 1A, p. 70). Plaintiff and Intervenors’ expert, Dr. Goldstein, stated that he had no reservations with the separation of the analysis into the two components used by Dr. Welch. (Def.Exh. 55, pp. 140-41).
82. With regard to post-probationary discharges, Dr. Welch concluded that the statistical evidence did not offer proof of a statistically significant differential treatment of blacks who are discharged in the post-probationary period.
83. With regard to probationary discharges and in support of their claim that blacks are disproportionately discharged, the Plaintiff and Intervenors presented anecdotal evidence through Intervenor Carmen Smith and class member witnesses Betty Amos, Viveca Wilson, Olivia White, Pervis Lloyd, and Shirley Starks, all of whom claimed that they were discharged during their 30-day probationary period because of their race.
84. Plaintiff and Intervenors presented no statistical analysis concerning Safeway’s probationary discharge practices.
85. Safeway responded to these allegations by presenting admissible testimonial and documentary evidence, not only concerning the discharges of the class member witnesses who testified, but also for all of the sixty probationary discharges in Pulaski County from January, 1977 through 1981. (Goens, T. 4025-28, 4030-34; L. Hill, T. 3472-79; S. Hill, T. 4246-62; Marcussen, T. 4308-10; Marks, T. 4690-92; Clark, T.
*1022
4699-4701; Maurice, T. 4710-13; B. Smith, T. 4719-21; Harms, T. 4733-34; Def.Exh. 46, 47, 52).
86. In addition to the evidence concerning the reasons for each of the sixty probationary discharges, Defendant Safeway provided a statistical analysis of its probationary discharges.
87. A summary of Dr. Welch’s analysis of probationary discharges is contained in Table 7.1 of his report. (Def.Exh. 1A, p. 73; Table 7.1, Appendix I). In this table the total number of new hires in the Courtesy Clerk, Apprentice Clerk and Journey Clerk categories is reported together with the number of persons who were discharged from these categories during their first 30 days of employment. Dr. Welch also displayed in this table the actual and expected number of blacks discharged during the probationary period. Based on this data he computed a measure of the statists cal significance of the difference between the actual and expected number of blacks. This calculation was performed by calculating the expected proportion of black representation among discharges and the actual proportion of black representation among discharges. The statistical significance of the difference between the two proportions was then calculated by using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution. (Def.Exh. 1A, pp. 71-72, 84).
88. The outcome of Dr. Welch’s statistical test is listed under the column labeled “Number of Standard Deviation Units” in his Table 1. Since the number of reported standard deviations is, except for one “small number case” in the Journey Clerk category, greater than two, Dr. Welch concluded that the data supported the inference that newly hired blacks were statistically more likely than whites to be discharged during probation. (Def.Exh. 1A, p. 72).
89. However, Dr. Welch also noted that 20.6% of the new hires during the 02/01/77 to 12/31/81 period were black. Of the persons hired during this time period, 83.8% eventually passed probation, and, of these persons, blacks represented 18.14% of the total. (Def.Exh. 1A, pp. 72-74). The relevant labor market for total black representation in Little Rock/North Little Rock Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA) is 18.0%. (Def.Exh. 1A, p. 72). Dr. Welch used these observations to conclude that the data were about what one would expect from an affirmative action policy to recruit blacks. Based on these data, the fact that after the probationary period 18.14% of Safeway’s work force is black and that this corresponded to black representation in the relevant labor market, Dr. Welch observed that the fact that blacks are not underrepresented among persons surviving probation is consistent with employment patterns he has studied where the employer has an affirmative hiring policy. (Def.Exh. 1A, p. 8).
90. While a statistically significant disparity between black and white discharge rates during probation was revealed by the analysis of the data, a full consideration of the data suggests that they are not unlike those which would be expected from an effective affirmative action policy. Standing alone this evidence would be entitled to little weight, but it serves to buttress the other evidence including the chart explaining the whole range of employment decisions analyzed and the individual reasons for each discharge.
91. Moreover, Dr. Welch stated that it is statistically unsurprising to find one employment practice which shows a differential in favor of whites given' the large number of employment practices analyzed in this case. (Welch, T. 2296-99).
92. Dr. Welch calculated the exact probability of finding one statistically significant result favoring whites (probationary discharges) out of the 17 employment practices which he investigated. The chance or probability that when 17 comparisons between blacks and whites are made that one would find one practice favoring whites in a race-blind or neutral environment was computed by Dr. Welch to be 58 percent. (Welch, T. 2298). Thus, finding one statistically significant result favoring whites is unsurprising. (Welch, T. 2299). After re
*1023
viewing this table, Dr. Goldstein agreed with Dr. Welch that finding one of the tests showing whites were favored was a statistically unsurprising result. (Def.Exh. 55, p. 165).
93. Additionally, Dr. Welch cautioned that he knew of no accurate way of testing for class-wide disparate treatment in termination without detailed case-by-case records of individual decisions. These data were not available to him. (Def.Exh. 1A, p. 8).
94. Safeway heeded Dr. Welch’s caution and provided a detailed case-by-case analysis of each and every probationary discharge. (Def.Exh. 46, 47, 51, 52). Not only do these Exhibits, buttressed by live testimony, reflect a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for each discharge, but also one observes the same and/or similar reasons listed for discharged probationary employees who were black and white.
95. The parties stipulated to the following class issue regarding the Store Management Training Program: “Black employees being subjected to discriminatory treatment with regard to the Safeway Store Management Training Program, specifically involving: (1) being denied entry into the program on the basis of race; (2) after entry into the program, being denied proper training and being subjected to adverse treatment on the basis of race; and (3) after entry into the program, being demoted or discharged from the program on the basis of race.” (Stipulated Order).
96. In addition to this anecdotal, rebuttal evidence, Safeway produced a statistical analysis of its practices concerning the entry into and the completion of the Store Management Training Program by its employees.
97. Dr. Welch’s analysis of Safeway’s Store Management Program is contained in Chapter 8 of Defendant’s Exhibit 1A. He divided his analysis into 3 components: analysis of entry into the program, analysis of successful completion of the program, and analysis of promotion to the managerial level. (Def.Exh. 1A, p. 79). Dr. Welch’s analysis of these issues paralleled the charges in Section (f) of the Stipulated Order. (Def.Exh. 1A, p. 79).
98. After analyzing the likelihood of entry into the SMTP, of completion of the program, and of promotion to a management position, Dr. Welch found no statistical evidence of an adverse differential effect on blacks. (Def.Exh. 1A, p. 84). However, the almost 2 to 1 overrepresentation of blacks among persons entering the program suggested to him an effort to increase the representation of blacks in management. The higher entry rate for blacks, coupled with the somewhat lower completion success of blacks and the higher likelihood that blacks who successfully complete the program would attain a management position, were very similar to Dr. Welch’s findings for probationary discharges. Both of these findings are consistent with an attempt to increase black representation at all levels of the work force. (Def. Exh. 1A, p. 84).
99. The parties stipulated to the following class issue concerning shift assignments: “Blacks subjected to discriminatory working conditions which can be remedied only through injunctive and declaratory relief including, (1) being assigned the least desirable shifts.” (Stipulated Order).
100. Plaintiff and Intervenors presented no statistical analysis concerning Safeway’s assigning of shifts to employees.
101. Defendant Safeway did present a statistical analysis concerning Safeway’s practice of scheduling shifts.
102. Based on the total analysis of premium, overtime, and Sunday and holiday hours, Dr. Welch concluded that the assignment of these hours to blacks and whites occurs in a race-neutral fashion and that there is no statistical evidence that blacks receive more or less hours of any type than whites. Consequently, it is illogical to conclude that blacks are assigned to the least desirable shift, presuming any constant definition of “least desirable”.
103. The Court credits Dr. Welch’s analysis and was impressed with its thoroughness. Plaintiff and intervenors failed to
*1024
controvert any portion of Dr. Welch’s findings regarding this issue and the Court accepts Dr. Welch’s conclusions after hearing the testimony and evaluating. all the evidence.
104. The parties stipulated to the following class issue concerning work assignments: “Blacks subjected to discriminatory working conditions which can be remedied only through injunctive and declaratory relief including, ... (3) being given more onerous and difficult work assignments than white employees.” (Stipulated Order).
105. In support of their allegation that blacks as a class are assigned to more onerous working conditions, Plaintiff and Intervenors were unable to produce any evidence other than anecdotal testimony that a. few witnesses had to do cleanup work and other work which they considered to be menial. Defendant Safeway provided evidence that all employees, white and black, in the store, up to and including managers, do cleanup work and other menial tasks, (e.g., Mahaffey, T. 3189; Martin, T. 3304; Hanle, T. 3964).
106. After hearing all the evidence, the Court finds that such work assignments were not made on the basis of race.
Individual Claims of Plaintiffs and Intervenors
107. In addition to the statistical testimony developed in this case, there was a mass of other testimony concerning the class allegations. In consideration of these allegations, it is proper to examine the Safeway affirmative action plan. Safeway is required by Executive Order 11246 to have an Affirmative Action Plan. The language and format of Safeway’s Affirmative Action Plan were developed on a national level at Safeway headquarters in Oakland. This national plan was adopted and implemented on a divisional level throughout the country. Only the goals and timetables of the Affirmative Action Plan are unique to the Little Rock Division. (Mauldin, T. 4356-57).
108. The Division Manager in the Little Rock Division is ultimately responsible for the implementation of the Affirmative Action Plan. The Division Manager delegates the functional responsibility of implementing the Affirmative Action Plan to the Employment Relations Manager. The Division Manager and the Employment Relations Manager are the two persons in the Little Rock Division who are actually responsible for the implementation of the Affirmative Action Plan. (Mauldin, T. 4357).
109. Goals and timetables within the Little Rock Division are set on a district-by-district basis within the Division. This is the way in which goals and timetables are set within divisions in Safeway all .over the country. (Mauldin, T. 4357).
110. In setting goals and timetables for bargaining unit positions, Safeway utilizes the general population percentage of minorities in the various Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSA’s) in which the stores in the district are located. The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP), the governmental body charged with responsibility for overseeing Executive Order 11246, accepts Safeway’s method of setting goals and determining underutilization by comparison to general population statistics. However, the OFCCP would rather Safeway use the full eight factor availability analysis to determine underutilization. The effect of adopting the eight factor analysis would be to decrease the goals that Safeway sets in its affirmative action plan. Safeway has consistently rejected the efforts of the OFCCP in this regard. (Mauldin, T. 4357-58). ■
111. Within the Little Rock Division, goals and timetables are separately set for each of the five districts comprising the Little Rock Division. As discussed earlier, the geographic areas of these districts do not in any manner correspond to the geographic area covered by the scope of this lawsuit since this lawsuit involves stores in Little Rock, North Little Rock and Jacksonville which are in parts of three different districts within the Little Rock Division. (Mauldin, T. 4344, 4357).
*1025
112. Within the Little Rock. Division, the persons who make the personnel decisions are the District Managers, the Employee Relations Supervisor, and the Employment Relations Manager. The District Managers make decisions, with input from the Employment Relations Manager, on promotions and discharges of bargaining unit personnel. The Employee Relations Supervisor is responsible for the hiring and initial placement of bargaining unit personnel and reports directly to the Employment Relations Manager. The Employment Relations Manager is responsible for making personnel decisions concerning the administration of the Union contracts in areas such as reclassifications from part-time to full-time, promotions, discharges, etc. (Maul-din, T. 4364).
113. The Affirmative Action Representative reports directly to the Employment Relations Manager. This is not a decision-making position. The Affirmative Action Representative is responsible for reporting and record keeping requirements under Executive Order 11246, and for providing the persons who make personnel decisions with reports on information concerning affirmative action efforts. (Mauldin, T. 4364-65).
114. The Affirmative Action Representative prepares a quarterly affirmative action report which is submitted to Safeway’s headquarters in Oakland which monitors the Little Rock Division’s progress. The Affirmative Action Representative also prepares quarterly reports for the five District Managers within the Little Rock Division, itemizing underutilization by job groupings in each store. In addition to the District Managers, this report is given to the Division Manager, the Employment Relations Manager, and the Retail Operations Manager. Further, the Affirmative Action Representative prepares a monthly report on underutilization which shows total underutilization by each store. This report is also distributed to the Division Manager, the Retail Operations Manager, the Employment Relations Manager, the Employee Relations Supervisor, and the District Managers. In addition, the Affirmative Action Representative and the Employment Relations Manager monitor weekly and monthly computer reports on promotions and terminations and new hires. (Mauldin, T. 4356-66).
115. .. The Little Rock Division also has quarterly district managers meetings which are attended by the District Managers, the Division Manager, the Retail Operations Manager, the Employment Relations Manager, and the Employee Relations Supervisor. The sole topic of these meetings is affirmative action and Safeway’s efforts to meet its affirmative action goals. In addition, there are semi-annual store managers meetings where affirmative action efforts are discussed. Finally, there are frequent information meetings between Employment Relations Managers and all decision makers concerning affirmative action within the Little Rock Division. (Maul-din, T. 4366).
116. The OFCCP has audited Safeway’s Affirmative Action Plan from time to time. The Little Rock Division has never been charged or found by the OFCCP to be deficient in fulfilling its affirmative action obligations under Executive Order 11246. The only area of contention between Safeway and the OFCCP has been that the OFCCP has asked Safeway to prepare a full eight factor analysis to determine availability while Safeway wants to use general population figures, which yields higher goals. (Mauldin, T. 4366-67).
117. With respect to promotions of blacks, Stephanie Adams and Intervenor Doby claimed that they were denied promotions because of race (Doby T. 763-66, 768-69, 787, 824-26; Adams, T. 331-32, 334-40, 348-50). Against their claims the record is replete with uncontradicted testimony that many blacks had been promoted by Safeway. As a matter of fact, Ms. Adams has been promoted since this litigation began. (Mauldin, T. 4374-76).
118. Under the collective bargaining agreement between Defendant Safeway and Defendant Retail Clerks Union, after giving due regard to seniority, Safeway may promote employees within its discre
*1026
tion. All things being equal, Safeway promotes by seniority. The collective bargaining agreement provides a recourse to employees who believe they were passed over for promotion through the grievance procedure. It should be noted that a reclassification from part-time to full-time within the same job classification is not a promotion and not governed by this contractual provision, but by other provisions within the collective bargaining agreement. (Mauldin, T. 4369-70).
119. Employment Relations Manager Mauldin testified that Safeway is very mindful of its Affirmative Action Program in making promotional decisions. Mauldin testified that Safeway purposefully looks for qualified blacks and females. (Mauldin, T. 4370).
120. With regard to the allegations by Intervenor Nowden and class member Adams that they were denied promotions to front end manager, Employment Relations Manager Mauldin explained that the front end manager position was nothing more than one of a number of functions performed by an employee in the food clerk classification, just as stocking and checking are functions within the food clerk classification. Employees who act as front end managers are still classified and paid as food clerks. (Mauldin, T. 4348). Accordingly, a functional move from checker to front end manager is simply a move within the employee’s current classification and not a promotion according to the Stipulated Order. Similarly, there is no classification of assistant deli manager, and the position sought by Doby was simply one of a number of functions performed by a deli clerk classification. (Mauldin, T. 4374).
121. Testimony adduced on behalf of the plaintiff and intervenors does not contradict the statistical conclusion that there is no discrimination in advancement of Safeway employees from part-time to full-time status.
122. In response to the general allegation that Safeway discriminates in reclassifying employees from part-time to full-time status, Employment Relations Manager Mauldin explained the ways in which an employee could achieve full-time status:
(A) By far the most common method of achieving full-time status is by being the most senior available part-time employee within a classification in Pulaski County when a full-time vacancy occurs in that classification. (Mauldin, T. 4382-83).
(B) Another way in which an employee can achieve full-time status is by working 40 hours for four consecutive weeks. Once this occurs, the employee is automatically reclassified from part-time to full-time status by operation of the collective bargaining agreement. This most often occurs with food clerks whose function is night stocking. These are the least desirable hours but it is a full-time position. Once they have worked at the position for four weeks, they are automatically reclassified to a full-time position. (Mauldin, T. 4381-83).
(C) An employee can achieve full-time status by being promoted into a classification that has no part-time positions, such as head clerk, department manager, or Store Management Training Program. (Mauldin, T. 4381-82).
(D) Finally, an employee can obtain full-time status by being hired into a full-time position. Although rare, this does occur. As noted earlier, some classifications have no part-time employees. In filling vacancies in these full-time classifications, Safeway can promote from within or hire from without. Normally Safeway choses to promote from within, but in some circumstances Safeway will hire from the outside. This most often occurs when Safeway needs to hire someone with a particular skill (such as a florist) or a night stocker (because other food clerks are not willing to work nights). (Mauldin, T. 4381-84).
123. An analysis of the evidence discloses that in these exceptions to the seniority rule, racial discrimination has not been involved. Both blacks and whites have taken advantage of these exceptions to move from part-time to full-time employment. All employees have recourse to the con
*1027
tract grievance procedure if they feel they were wrongfully passed over for a reclassification from part-time to full-time status. (Mauldin, T. 4385-86).
124. Intervenor Nowden and class member witnesses Adams and Jefferson testified that while employees were hired into full-time positions at a time when Now-den, Adams and Jefferson were still part-time and seeking a full-time position (Now-den, T. 1125-27, 1230-56; Adams, T. 350-51, 374-76; Jefferson, T. 272, 287-95, 298-99). During the pertinent period out of 700 new hires only 16 persons were hired initially as full-time employees. (Def.Exh. 1A, p. 6). Two blacks who testified as class member witnesses, Ronald McCollum and Melvin Pride, were hired as full-time food clerks (McCollum, T. 1061; Pride, T. 1977).
125. In response to the general allegation that it discriminated against part-time employees by hiring full-time white employees, Employment Relations Manager Maul-din explained Safeway’s practice with regard to the hiring of new employees in a full-time status. First of all, it is very rare for Safeway to hire an employee into a full-time position. However, if a full-time vacancy in a classification occurs, and no part-time employee is available, then Safeway can hire a full-time employee. This occurs most often in the hiring of food clerks who function as night Stockers. Also, if a vacancy occurs in a position which has no part-time status, Safeway can either promote an employee into the full-time position or hire a new employee for the full time position. Generally, Safeway choses to promote from within and hire a new employee only if the new employee has some special skill needed by Safeway. (Mauldin, T. 4412-13).
126. I find an absence of credible proof that there was discrimination in the hiring of full-time employees.
127. I also find an absence of discrimination in reclassification of employees from full-time to part-time status. The Plaintiff and Intervenors’ only anecdotal evidence concerning this issue consisted of testimony by Intervenor Nowden who claimed she was discriminatorily reclassified from full-time to part-time status on September 28, 1980 and again on March 1, 1981. (Now-den, T. 1144-49, 1151-65, 1240-51). Class member witness Ray Norris testified that he too was reclassified from full-time to part-time status on March 1, 1981, but Norris conceded that the reclassification was due to a reduction in force due to poor economic conditions, and that the reduction was not discriminatory. (Norris, T. 1095).
128. Employment Relations Manager Mauldin explained that a reclassification from full-time to part-time only occurs when either the employee voluntarily asks for such reclassification or there is a reduction in force. Reductions in force are made by reclassifying the least senior full-time employee. This is done by date of obtainment of full-time seniority, not by date of hire. (Mauldin, T. 4409-10).
129. When Intervenor Nowden was reclassified from full-time to part-time status on September 28, 1980, she was the least senior food clerk in her store, but not in Pulaski County. There were three less senior full-time food clerks who were performing the function of night stocker in other stores in Pulaski County. Two of these employees were white, and one was black. (Def.Exh. 40). Intervenor Nowden filed a grievance with the Union stating that she was improperly reclassified to part-time status under the provisions of the contract. Although the three less senior full-time food clerks were performing a different function than Nowden (night stocking vis-a-vis checking), the fact remains that they were food clerks with less full-time seniority than Intervenor Nowden. (Def.Exh. 40). After this was brought to Safeway’s attention at a grievance meeting, Nowden was reclassified from part-time to full-time status. (Nowden, T. 1151-53, 1159-60; Mauldin, T. 4411). Nowden made no allegation that the grievance was handled improperly and it is obvious that, in this case, the grievance procedure worked to the employee’s benefit.
*1028
130. The Court finds that there was no discrimination with respect to the assignment of hours of work for part-time employees.
131. The only specific evidence presented by Plaintiff and Intervenors on this issue was the identification of certain white employees with less seniority who, from time to time got more total hours at the end of the week than Intervenors Nowden and Doby. Neither Nowden nor Doby alleged that these white employees were actually scheduled to work more hours, but alleged that Safeway, through unscheduled call-in hours, gave these employees more hours even though they had less seniority than Nowden and Doby. (Nowden, T. 1267-74; Doby 785-87, 812-816).
132. Plaintiff and Intervenors also presented some evidence that a white employee, Gina Clark was scheduled for 26 hours of work regardless of her seniority standing within the store. (Marion King, T. 1405-07, 1462-63; Garrett, T. 1490-1501).
133. Employment Relations Manager Mauldin explained that part-time hours are scheduled within the store, by seniority and availability. The schedule is posted on Friday for the following week, and according to the union contract, the employees have 24 hours to protest the schedule. These scheduled hours are always posted on the basis of seniority and availability. (Maul-din, T. 4414; Def.Exh. 11, 12, 13).
134. Many part-time employees work non-scheduled hours in addition to the hours that they are scheduled. These hours are assigned in order of seniority and availability. If a more senior employee is not available at the time needed, then a less senior part-time employee who is scheduled for fewer hours may be called in to do the unscheduled work and consequently receive, for the full week, more hours than a more senior employee. When unscheduled hours become available, the Store Manager simply begins calling employees in order of seniority. If an employee does not answer the telephone, declines the hours, or is already scheduled to work, the employee is unavailable for work and the unscheduled work is offered to the next senior employee. (Mauldin, T. 4415-16).
135. In response to the identification of white employees with less seniority who got more hours than Intervenors Nowden or Doby, Safeway responded, through Employment Relations Manager Mauldin, that due to the problem with unscheduled hours and availability, it is quite possible that some less senior employees did indeed get more hours than Nowden or Doby. (Maul-din, T. 4416). However, Safeway produced uncontroverted evidence showing that Intervenor Nowden got more part-time hours than three senior food clerks while she was working at Store No. 168, and more part-time hours than four senior food clerks at Store No. 258. (Def.Exh. 42). Similarly, Safeway produced admissible evidence showing that Doby received more hours than four senior deli clerks at Store No. 258. (Def.Exh. 43).
136. With regard to the allegation that white employee Gina Clark was assigned to 26 hours, regardless of her seniority standing within the store, Employment Relations Manager Mauldin explained that Gina Clark had filed a sexual harassment claim against one of the managers in her store. The manager took and passed a lie detector test. Safeway, with the Union as a party, settled the charge of sexual harassment by transferring Clark to another store with a guarantee that she would be scheduled 26 hours of work, regardless of her seniority ranking in the new store. This was agreed to among Safeway, the Union, and Gina Clark. (Mauldin, T. 4417).
137. Safeway has no policy against hiring relatives and I find no evidence that there has been discrimination in this area. Both black and white relatives of Safeway employees have been hired.
138. With regard to the class allegations on discharging, the proof of Plaintiff and Intervenors focused on several individuals whose cases will be dealt with individually,
infra.
We have already discussed the statistical information on this issue.
*1029
139. The parties stipulated to the following class issue regarding the Store Management Training Program: “Black employees being subjected to discriminatory treatment with regard to the Safeway Store Management Training Program, specifically involving: (1) being denied entry into the program on the basis of race; (2) after entry into the program, being denied proper training and being subjected to adverse treatment on the basis of race; and (3) after entry into the program, being demoted or discharged from the program on the basis of race.” (Stipulated Order).
140. Plaintiff and Intervenors’ anecdotal evidence supporting their claim that blacks as a class are denied entry into the Store Management Training Program consisted of the testimony of Plaintiff Charlotte McDowell and class member witness Stephanie Adams and Don Jefferson, who all claim they were discriminatorily denied entry into the Store Management Training Program. However, neither Plaintiff McDowell nor class member witness Jefferson presented any evidence whatsoever concerning their qualifications to be put into the Store Management Training Program. Class member witness Adams did provide evidence of her qualifications to be placed into the Store Management Training Program. (McDowell, T. 1841; Adams, T. 340-41, 347-50, 369-72; Jefferson, T. 270).
141. Intervenor John Nimmer also made allegations on this issue. When hired by Safeway he was told by Dixie Employment Agency that Safeway was looking for blacks to go into their Store Management Training Program. Intervenor Nimmer further testified that he was placed into the Store Management Training Program shortly after asking white ■ District Manager Clyde Godwin if he (Nimmer) could be placed into the program. (Nimmer, T. 844, 849, 947-51).
142. Class member witnesses Ronald McCollum and Billy Wilson, along with non-class member witnesses Sam Bryant, Marion King, Jessie Smith, James Smith, and Miles Henderson, all testified that they were steered into the Store Management Training Program by their white superiors. (McCollum, T. 1049-51; Wilson, T. 1062-63, 1072; Bryant, T. 1958-61; King, T. 1387-90; Jessie Smith, T. 2001-05; James Smith, T. 1573-75, 1605; Henderson, T. 1015-16).
143. Class member witness Adams, in testifying as a rebuttal witness, conceded that she had been placed into the Store Management Training Program and was currently undergoing training. (Adams, T. 4877-81).
144. In support of the allegation that blacks as a class are not given proper training while in the Store Management Program and consequently not able to complete the Store Management Training Program, the Plaintiff and Intervenors presented the anecdotal testimony of Intervenor John Nimmer and class member witness Ronald McCollum who alleged that they were not given proper training while in the Store Management Training Program and subsequently were demoted out of the program. (Nimmer, T. 848-903, 966-1004; McCollum, T. 1056-59).
145. Class member witness Billy Wilson testified that he successfully completed the Store Management Training Program under store manager Don Goens in one year with no problems. Non-class member witnesses Miles Henderson, Marion King, Sam Bryant, James Smith and Jessie Smith all conceded that they were trained in the Store Management Training Program and successfully completed their training program. In addition, evidence was introduced that class members Ferryl Barnes, Michael Metcalf and Lonnie Mays also successfully completed their training in the Store Management Training Program. (Wilson, T. 1064-65, 1073-74; Henderson, T. 1016; King, T. 1400-02; Bryant, T. 1928-33, 1973; Jessie Smith, T. 2001-05, 2038-39; James Smith, T. 1573-82, 1605; Nowden, T. 1142-43).
146. As to class member witness Adams’ allegation that she was denied entry into the Store Management Training Program, Employment Relations Manager Mauldin did not understand Adams’ request for a promotion to include a request
*1030
for placement in the Store Management Training Program. After hearing Adams’ testimony, Mauldin started the mechanisms which subsequently led to her entry into the Store Management Training Program. (Mauldin, T. 4374-76).
147. With regard to Intervenor Nimmer’s allegation that he was denied proper training while in the Store Management Training Program, Safeway produced Nimmer’s personnel file (Def.Exh. 4) and the testimony of District Manager Clyde God-win, former Store Manager Eloise Mahaffey, former Store Manager Gerald Martin, Store Manager Harold Trimble, former Store Manager Don Goens, and Store Manager Charles Fisher. The Court credits this testimony based upon having observed all the witnesses and evidence. The composite of this testimony was to the effect that Nimmer had the mental ability to succeed in the Store Management Training Program, but that he never applied himself to learning and properly performing the physical operations of a store section — the most important aspect of the Store Management Training Program. Despite numerous and extraordinary efforts on the part of Safeway to provide Nimmer with circumstances in which he could prove his ability, Nimmer continually fell below the expectations of a Store Management trainee and was finally removed from the program. (Godwin, T. 3663-78; Mahaffey, T. 3182-90; Martin, T. 3283-3304, 3401-03; Trimble, T. 3409-19; Goens, T. 552-70, 4044-45; Fisher, T. 1697-1713, 1725-31, 1756).
148. Nimmer attempted to prove the reasons for his removal from the Store Management Training Program to be pretextual by alleging and introducing evidence that his (Nimmer’s) work while in the Store Management Training Program was equivalent to the work of other night Stockers who were not in the Store Management Training Program. (Nimmer, T. 961, 964; Nowden, T. 207-11; Garrett, T. 1487-89, 1498).
149. Class member witness McCollum alleged that he was not properly trained in the Store Management Training Program. Even if it were true that McCollum did not receive the proper training, there is no evidence in the record to suggest that Safeway intentionally denied McCollum proper training because of his race. The evidence falls far short of proving that Safeway discriminates against blacks in training blacks in the SMTP.
150. The parties stipulated to the following class issue concerning racial harassment: “Blacks subjected to discriminatory working conditions which can be remedied only through injunctive and declaratory relief including, ... (2) being subjected to racial harassment, racial epithets, and racial jokes.” (Stipulated Order).
151. In support of its allegation that blacks as a class are subjected to racial harassment, the Plaintiff and Intervenors presented evidence of sporadic and isolated incidents of the use of racial epithets and the telling of racial jokes.
152. Employment Relations Manager Mauldin testified that he was unaware of any racial harassment in Pulaski County. Mauldin stated that no employee had reported any racial harassment to him. Mauldin also stated that racial harassment was prohibited by Safeway and that Safeway would take appropriate action concerning any racial harassment. (Mauldin, T. 4435-36).
153. Most of Plaintiff and Intervenors’ own witnesses either did not testify on this issue or said they knew of no such activity. The record is almost completely barren of racial terms when their use is limited to management officials. Based on the insignificant amount of such terms in this case it is readily apparent that Safeway has done a good job in providing a non-hostile and racially neutral work environment. Finally, the Union contract prohibits race discrimination and there was no evidence of any grievance being filed on this issue. After a careful review of the entire transcript of the trial testimony and during such review recalling the demeanor of the witnesses, the Court is left with the clear impression that no racial harassment of
*1031
employees by Safeway officials and managers took place nor did Safeway permit a racially hostile environment to exist.
Individual Claims of Plaintiff and Intervenor
A.
Charlotte McDowell
154. The parties stipulated that Plaintiff, Charlotte McDowell, a black female, was hired by Safeway on August 8,1975 as a part-time Food Clerk in Store # 167 (4110 West 12th). She transferred to. the following stores:
Date Store/Position
January 9,1977 Store 172, (8001 Geyer Springs)
August 14,1977 Store 179, (1919 West 12th)
March 19,1978 Store 212, (7511 Baseline)
McDowell was discharged on or about September 12, 1979. (Jt.Exh. 1, Stip. 29).
155. McDowell alleged that she was discharged on September 9, 1979 for her involvement in an altercation with two customers and that this discharge was racially motivated because whites who have been involved in similar incidents have not been discharged.
156. Ms. McDowell’s version of the incident is that she was attacked without provocation by two male customers after they had called her a “black bitch” and harassed and intimidated her. Only after they had physically assaulted her did she grab one by the hair and pull out some of his hair. After they left the store she pursued them in her automobile in order to obtain their automobile’s license number since the store manager did not obtain their identities. In support of her version of the incident, McDowell presented her own testimony and that of a witness, Toyce May, who allegedly was a customer in the store at the time of the altercation. May admitted she did not know McDowell at the time she witnessed the incident and that her next contact with McDowell was two weeks pri- or to her testimony (well over three years after seeing McDowell for the first time in her life) when she recognized McDowell at church and asked if she was the lady involved in the Safeway incident. May admitted that she had been convicted of theft. (May, T. 456-63).
157. Safeway witnesses presented a different version of the incident. They claimed that McDowell was the aggressor; that she threw her shoe at the customers (Cullins, T. 3838) as they attempted to leave, according to a former Safeway employee, now a college student:
I saw Charlotte run after him. She jumped on his back. She was like a crazy woman. She jumped on him like a horse almost. She — she embraced her legs around his abdomen and she just started kicking and scratching and he was trying to hold her off.
The other gentleman started in from the “out” door and was trying to pull her off of him, and I ran out of the booth and I tried to pull her hand out of his hair, and she' had started grabbing his hair and was just pulling it, and he was trying to shake her off of him.
And she hit the bascarts from him trying to shake her off of him, and I could not release her hand from his hair. It was just impossible.
And Mr. McDonald and Mr. Fisher ran out of the booth, and they tried to separate them, and they had a little more success than I did, but it — and Scott Simpson, which was a courtesy clerk at the time, he helped them. So it took all four of us just to get her off of him.
(Lavender, T. 3790-91). The above version is corroborated by Safeway employees Cullins (T. 3838-55); McDonald (T. 3747-51); Mahan (T. 3865-69) and Fisher (T. 1640-57), the store manager.
158. Although no one employee saw the entire incident, none saw either of the men hit McDowell and all testified that McDowell was the aggressor. During the fight, McDowell was heard to say “I can beat you two white guys up” and “a little woman can whup two men any day.” (Cullins, T. 3838; Mahan, T. 3867; Simpson, T. 3897; Lavender, T. 3789; Fisher, T. 1650-54).
159. After Fisher and other store personnel succeeded in convincing McDowell to let go of the customer’s hair, Fisher told
*1032
the customer to leave and check with him later and told McDowell to go into the store office. Instead of going to the store office, McDowell pursued the customers outside, got into her car and chased them east on Baseline Road. The Customers returned and informed Fisher that they thought McDowell had a gun. McDowell then reentered the store behind them. (Fisher, T. 1655-65; McDonald, T. 3750).
160. Fisher told Assistant Manager McDonald to take the two customers to the back of the store and hide them, and the Sheriff, Safeway’s Security Department, and the Union were called. (McDonald, T. 3750; Fisher, T. 1666, 1670-71).
161. The sheriff’s deputies arrived and interviewed the customers and McDowell. (Lavender, T. 3793-94).
162. Clyde Godwin, the District Manager, Jerry Grissen, Head of Safeway Security, and Cecil Casey and Marvin Robertson, Union Representatives, arrived at the store and talked to McDowell, the customers and all witnesses. (Lavender, T. 3793-94).
163. Pursuant to Safeway’s discharge procedures, McDowell’s case was reviewed by Employment Relations Manager Gerald Mauldin, District Manager Clyde Godwin, Retail Operations Manager George Unti, Division Manager Donald Phillips and Store Manager, Charles Fisher. After reviewing all the facts available, it was unanimously decided that Charlotte McDowell should be discharged because of her incivility and aggressiveness in pursuing a fight with a Safeway customer. (Mauldin, T. 4420; Fisher, T. 1681-84).
164. Mauldin and Union Representative Cecil Casey informed McDowell of Safeway’s decision to discharge her. McDowell was formally discharged on September 12, 1979. The Union refused to file a grievance over McDowell's discharge. (McDowell, T. 1851-52).
165. On September 27, 1978, McDowell applied for unemployment compensation with the Arkansas Employment Security Division. Safeway responded, on September 29, 1978, that McDowell had been discharged for incivility and fighting with a customer. (Def.Exh. 3, p. 7).
166. On October 23, 1978, the Arkansas Employment Security Division disqualified McDowell from receiving unemployment compensation because she had been discharged from her job for fighting with a customer on company property, and that this act violated rules and was willful.
167. McDowell appealed the ESD’s decision to an appeals referee. A hearing was held and McDowell was given the opportunity to present testimony and to cross-examine the testimony presented by Safeway. The Appeals Referee affirmed McDowell’s denial of benefits finding that McDowell was “discharged from her job with [Safeway] because of engaging in a fight with a customer on Company property” and held that McDowell’s actions “were against the interests of the employer and constitutes misconduct in connection with the work.” (Def.Exh. 3, p. 10).
168. McDowell was notified of her right to file an appeal of the Decision of the Appeals Referee and given specific instructions on how to perfect her appeal to the Arkansas Board of Review. (Def.Exh. 3, p. 11).
169. McDowell did not file an appeal of the Decision of the Appeals Referee to the Board of Review.
170. A claimant under the Arkansas Employment Security Act has a right to appeal an adverse decision of the Arkansas Board of Review to the Arkansas Court of Appeals, a constitutional court of the State of Arkansas.
171. Plaintiff McDowell’s version is contradicted by all the witnesses except Toyce May, who came forward three years after the incident. Although the customers certainly share some of the blame for this unfortunate incident, I must agree with Safeway that Ms. McDowell is at least equally blameworthy and perhaps even more to blame. I cannot fault the Company for her discharge and I find that under all the circumstances it was justified. Significantly the Union, whose representatives
*1033
were on the scene immediately after the incident, declined to process a grievance on her behalf (McDowell, T. 1851-52). After a hearing before an appeals referee, she was disqualified for unemployment compensation benefits because of misconduct (DX 3, p. 10). In arriving at the decision with regard to the discharge of Ms. McDowell, I have taken into consideration her prior work record with the Company as set out,
infra.
172. McDowell was hired at Safeway on August 8, 1975 at the recommendation of Gerald Mauldin. McDowell’s sister, Shirley Jackson, was Mauldin’s secretary and had referred McDowell to Mauldin. McDowell was assigned as a part-time food clerk to Store No. 167. On September 13, 1976 McDowell was given a written warning for allowing someone else to punch her time card on the time clock. (Def.Exh. 3, p. 65). On December 27,1976 McDowell was given a warning letter for failure to report to work as scheduled. (Def.Exh. 3, p. 69).
173. McDowell was transferred to Store No. 172 (8001 Geyer Springs) on January 9, 1977 as a part-time food clerk. James Smith, a black store manager at No. 172 at the time, testified that McDowell was sent to him because nobody could do anything with her. He stated that he had no problem with McDowell as long as he let her know what side of the bread had butter on it. (J. Smith, T. 1581).
174. On August 14, 1977 McDowell was transferred to Store No. 179 (1919 West 12th). The manager at Store No. 179 was Wayne Ward; the assistant manager was Larry Hill; and the booth cashier was Margaret Wiggs. McDowell’s performance at Store No. 179 was very erratic. She was very moody and at times was a very fast checker and other times very slow. McDowell also had problems getting along with other employees. (L. Hill, T. 3480-81).
175. Shortly after transferring to Store No. 179, McDowell got into a verbal argument with a customer over whether she (McDowell) had given the proper amount of change. Hill sent McDowell out of the-check stand and placated the customer. No reprimand was issued since Hill was unable to determine who was at fault, but McDowell was instructed that she was not to try to handle a situation with an irate customer but instead to call for management. Hill testified that situations where customers make abusive remarks to checkers are expected to occur and employees are told to smile, limit their conversation to very few words, and if the customer doesn’t calm down to call management. (L. Hill, T. 3481-82).
176. As booth cashier at Store No. 179, Margaret Wiggs had the duty to assign the checkers to the check stands, handle the customers, make pulls (collect money) from the cash registers, administer checkers’ tests, and provide assistance to the checkers. Wiggs had problems with McDowell, who drank cokes, ate candy and chewed gum in the check stand and who did not like to take assignments from Wiggs. McDowell received a warning letter on October 7, 1977 for refusing to obey an order from Wiggs to move from checklane # 1 to checklane #4 (the express lane). (Def. Exh. 3, 57; Wiggs, T. 3666-68).
177. On November 23, 1977, McDowell was issued a written warning for failure to charge a customer for toys purchased. (Def.Exh. 3, 54-55). McDowell was given this warning letter in the presence of Ward, Hill, Wiggs and Union steward Eddie Yancey, a black male. After reading the warning letter, McDowell slapped Wiggs in the face with the letter, cursed and directed racial epithets at Wiggs, and threatened to kill Wiggs if Wiggs caused her to lose her job. McDowell also threatened to sue Wiggs, Ward, and Safeway. Ward tried to explain the warning letter to McDowell and then told McDowell to return to work. When McDowell stated that she did not feel like working, Ward sent her home. Ward, Wiggs, Hill and Yancey sent a joint letter to the District Manager Clyde Godwin and Gerald Mauldin which recommended that McDowell be either transferred or discharged. (Def.Exh. 3, page 58-59; L. Hill, T. 3484-89; Wiggs, T. 3673-75).
*1034
178. Safeway periodically gives all food clerks a checker’s test to insure for accuracy. A food clerk is required to ring up a basket of designated items and the register tape is then double checked against the actual cost of the items.
179. On December 30, 1977 McDowell received a written warning from Assistant Manager Larry Hill for poor performance on a checker’s test which had been given to McDowell and other food clerks (Def.Exh. 3, page 47). McDowell had made seven errors out of twelve rings. Upon receiving the warning letter, McDowell became defensive, cursed Hill and threatened to sue Hill and Safeway, to harm Hill, his wife and his child, to harm Hill’s car, and to tell a story in court with witnesses so believable that even Hill would believe it. Hill immediately called Godwin who told him to document McDowell’s threat “word for word”. (Def.Exh. 3, pp. 48-51; Hill, T. 3489-94).
180. Shortly after the December 30, 1977 warning incident, McDowell asked for permission to leave work early, because a relative of hers had been in a car wreck and was in jail. Because of other events which had occurred that evening, Hill was suspicious of the reason for McDowell’s departure. After checking with the Little Rock police and finding that no one had been arrested in an incident related to a car wreck and after ascertaining that McDowell did not go to the police station as she had stated, the decision was made by Hill and Ward to discharge McDowell for lying to get off work. (Hill, T. 3494-99). Pursuant to Safeway’s' discharge procedures, McDowell’s termination was reviewed by District Manager Clyde Godwin and Employment Relations Manager Gerald Maul-din. The decision was made not to discharge McDowell but instead to transfer her to Store No. 212 (7500 Baseline Road) and McDowell was made whole for any lost monies.
181. McDowell worked at Store No. 212 from March 19, 1978 until her discharge on September 12, 1978. On May 29, 1978, Store Manager Charles Fisher issued a warning letter to McDowell for McDowell’s failure to report to work on numerous occasions and for her tardiness. (Def.Exh. 3, pp. 41-42). On May 30, 1978 McDowell again failed to report to work and received a four-day suspension. (Def.Exh. 3, pp. 43-44). Fisher issued this disciplinary suspension after discussing the matter with his district manager.
182. Prior to the incident culminating in McDowell’s termination, customers had complained that McDowell was rude and unfriendly. When confronted with these complaints, McDowell lost her temper. (Fisher, T. 1747-49; Lavender, T. 3831).
183. McDowell broke three Sweeda cash registers while at Store No. 212 by pulling them off the check stand. This was the only time in Fisher’s entire career with Safeway that he had ever heard of a cash register being pulled off onto the floor. McDowell was not disciplined for these incidents, but they were considered a reflection of her temper. (Fisher, T. 1749-50).
B.
Intervenor John Nimmer
184. Intervenor John Nimmer, black male, was hired by Safeway on January 23, 1975 as a part-time food clerk at Store 229 in Benton, Arkansas. He received the following transfers and changes in position:
DATE STORE/POSITION
March 2,1975 Store #152 (5501 Kavanaugh) - Part-time food clerk
November 16,1975 Store # 152 - Full-time
April 18,1976 Store #152 - Store manager trainee
August 7,1977 Store # 182 (165 Rodney Parham) - Store management trainee
March 19,1978 Store # 168 (7507 Cantrel) - Store Management trainee
June 18,1978 Store # 168 - Food clerk
January 14,1979 Store # 220 (10901 Rodney Par-ham) - Food clerk
January 11,1981 Store #220 - Head clerk
(Jt.Exh. 1, Stip. 30).
185. Nimmer was hired through Dixie Employment Company, who told him that Safeway was trying to find blacks to go into management positions. (Nimmer, T. 947-50).
186. On March 2, 1975 Nimmer was transferred to Store No. 152 (5501 Kava
*1035
naugh) in Little Rock, Arkansas as a part-time food clerk under store manager Artis McDonald. On November 16, 1975 Nimmer was reclassified to a full-time food clerk. (Nimmer, T. 952-57).
187. On February 23, 1976 Nimmer received a written warning notice from store manager Artis McDonald for his failure to properly stock the reserve section for which Nimmer was responsible. (Def.Exh. 4, p. 56).
188. Shortly after his warning letter, Store No. 152 came under the jurisdiction of District Manager Clyde Godwin. Nimmer met with Godwin and requested that he be placed in the Store Management Training Program. Godwin checked with other officials at Safeway and determined that Nimmer had been promised that he would be placed into the Store Management Training Program and placed Nimmer into the program on April 18, 1976. (Godwin, T. 3064-66).
189. Nimmer’s chief complaint is that he has not been made a store manager because of discriminatory obstacles placed in his path while he has been in the Store Managers Training Program. The problem is that Nimmer has received a negative rating from every supervisor under whom he has worked. The Manager of Store No. 152, Artis McDonald, testified that he recommended that Nimmer not be placed in the Store Management Training Program (T. 4856). District Manager Clyde Godwin commented as follows on his work at Store No. 152:
Q. How would you compare Mr. Nimmer’s work with the work of the other stockers that you reviewed?
A. With the other stockers at that store?
Q. Yeah, at that store.
A. Mr. Nimmer’s work didn’t get completed. He never did polish off his section. He had trouble in price marking. He had trouble in housekeeping and he had trouble stocking to our standard.
(T. 3067).
190. Eloise Mahaffey later became manager of Store No. 152. On or about May 31, 1977, Mahaffey completed a Store Manager’s communication to District Manager Cable in which she evaluated Nimmer’s overall performance for the month of May, 1977, as being unacceptable. Mahaffey cited Nimmer for excessive back stock, repeated calls from creditors about unpaid bills, leaving his section undone and sloppy, and eating, a can of soup without a sales slip in violation of company policy. (Def. Exh. 4, p. 54). During the period of time that Nimmer worked for Mahaffey, Mahaffey rated Nimmer’s performance as compared with other stockers as poor. She rated Nimmer’s performance as compared to what would be expected for a store management trainee as extremely poor. (Mahaffey, T. 3183-86, Def.Exh. 4, p. 54).
191. Nimmer was then transferred to Store No. 182 whose Manager was Gerald Martin. Martin testified that Nimmer was “substantially below what I would perceive to be the level of a good manager trainee” (T. 3303). Martin was later transferred to Memphis (1-1-78) and Tommy Numier became Manager of Store No. 182.
192. In February, 1978 Nimmer contacted Retail Operations Manager Unti and requested a meeting to discuss his belief that he was not receiving the training in the Store Management Training Program that he should. A meeting was held on February 16, 1978 with Nimmer, Retail Operations Manager Unti, District Manager Cable, and Employee Relations Manager Mauldin. After listening to Nimmer’s complaints about his training, Unti informed Nimmer that his performance in the store management training program had been less than satisfactory but that he would agree to give Nimmer one final opportunity to progress in the program. Therefore, it was agreed that Nimmer would be transferred to a higher volume store where he could concentrate more on stocking one store area. It was agreed that he would be transferred to Store No. 168 (7507 Cantrell), because it was a high volume store and also because Store Manager Harold Trimble was one of the most respected and most able store managers in the Little
*1036
Rock Division. It was further agreed that Nimmer would be assigned as the sole person responsible for the frozen food section at Store No. 168, so that the operation of that section could be attributable solely to him. To insure a fair opportunity, an experienced employee at Store No. 168 was assigned to assist Nimmer for two weeks in cleaning and restocking the frozen food section so that it would be in complete compliance with Safeway’s stocking standards when Nimmer assumed sole responsibility for maintaining that section. (Def. Exh. 4, pp. 21-23).
193. In March, 1978 Nimmer was formally transferred to Store No. 168 and assumed responsibility for maintaining the frozen food section (Def.Exh. 4, p. 20).
194. On April 27, 1978 District Manager Cable and Store Manager Trimble inspected the frozen food section with Nimmer to evaluate Nimmer's progress and found numerous violations of Safeway’s stocking standards, including poor rotation and damaged merchandise. Nimmer was informed of the deficiencies and told to correct them. (Def.Exh. 4, pp. 17-19).
195. On May 18, 1978 Cable and Trimble again inspected the frozen food section with Nimmer and again found numerous deficiencies, some of which were repetitions of deficiencies found in the April 27, 1978 inspection and evaluation, such as poor rotation and damaged merchandise (Def.Exh. 4, p. 16).
196. As a result of these evaluations, District Manager Cable and Store Manager Trimble recommended that Nimmer be removed from the store management training program (Def.Exh. 4, p. 15). Nimmer was so removed on June 18, 1978.
197. Sometime after Nimmer was removed from the Store Management Training Program Clyde Godwin became the District Manager responsible for Store No. 168. Nimmer complained to Godwin that he had not been treated fairly in the Store Management Training Program, and God-win told Nimmer that he would give him another chance to get into the program. Godwin told Nimmer that he would be transferred to another store and that if he did an outstanding job there, he would be reconsidered for the Store Management Training Program. (Godwin, T. 3069-71).
198. On January 14, 1979 Nimmer was transferred to Store No. 220 (10901 Rodney Parham). District Manager Godwin met with Nimmer and Store Manager Don Goens to discuss Nimmer’s role at Store No. 220. Godwin explained Nimmer’s past problems to Goens and told Nimmer that if he did an outstanding job at Store No. 220, he would reconsider him for reentry into the SMTP. Store Manager Goens then told Nimmer exactly what he expected of Nimmer as far as work habits and walked Nimmer through the section that Nimmer would be responsible for and showed Nimmer how he wanted the section worked. (Godwin, T. 3069-71).
199. On February 5, 1979 Nimmer was given a warning notice and suspended for one day because of his failure to report for work. (Def.Exh. 4, p. 13).
200. Nimmer’s work performance and stocking habits continued to be below average. Goens monitored Nimmer’s section, and after documenting Nimmer’s sloppy stocking practices by taking pictures of Nimmer’s section, Goens prepared a lengthy warning notice concerning Nimmer’s poor performance. Goens called a meeting with Nimmer, District Manager Godwin, and Union Representative Hatcher to discuss the warning notice. (Godwin, T. 3071-76); Goens, T. 552-70, 629-31, 4044-53; Def.Exh. 22).
201. The warning notice contained a highly detailed description of Nimmer’s poor performance with regard to pricing, stock rotation, out of stock items, sloppy work, and unworked items. Goens also cited Nimmer for failing to perform at the level of an average stocker, noting that the stocker before Nimmer had successfully completed the assignment in the allotted time. Goens also warned Nimmer for failing to help with the cleanup, causing a morale problem among the other stockers. (Def.Exh. 4, pp. 4-11).
*1037
202. District Manager Godwin went over the warning letter item by item with Nimmer. Nimmer only disagreed with one item on the warning, which Godwin then deleted. Godwin then signed the warning letter himself to impress upon Nimmer the seriousness of the situation. Godwin told Nimmer that his performance was unacceptable and that he would be discharged if he did not improve his work habits. (God-win, T. 3076-77).
203. Store Manager Charles Fisher then became the store manager at Store No. 220 in August, 1979 (Nimmer, T. 1004).
204. The head clerk on the stocking crew at Store No. 220 resigned in January, 1981. Store Manager Fisher and District Manager Godwin discussed the vacancy; though neither manager was very happy with Nimmer’s leadership abilities, they agreed to give Nimmer the head clerk job based upon his seniority. (Fisher, T. 1553, 1698-1700, 1701-02; Godwin, T. 3077).
205. As a head clerk over the stock crew, Nimmer’s work performance, again while not being outstanding, has been acceptable. (Fisher, T. 1703; Godwin, T. 3077).
206. Based upon the testimony and exhibits in this case, I find that Nimmer did not perform satisfactorily in the Store Manager Training Program and that Safeway’s failure to retain him was based on job performance and not race.
C.
Intervenor Carmen Smith
207. Four of the Intervenors, Carmen Smith, Linda Nowden, Gwendolyn Doby and Cheryl Russ, were employed at Store #258 (9800 Geyer Springs Road). Don Goens was store manager of Store #258 from September, 1979 until November, 1982. Janie Hanle was assistant manager from August, 1980 to August, 1981 and again from November, 1981 until November, 1982.
208. When Store #258 opened in September, 1979, it was the second largest Safeway Store in the entire company. With 57,000 square feet, this super store was twice the size of a conventional store. It had nine departments compared to the three departments which the conventional stores had at the time. It had one of the first bakery-delis in the metropolitan area and was the first store with a flower shop, pharmacy, a photo-gift department and a variety department. Store #258 was a model for retail and management personnel within the division as well as for personnel from other Safeway divisions, and Goens was expected to keep the store in “grand opening” shape every day. (Goens, T. 3982-84).
209. Store #258 opened with over 160 employees as compared to 38 employees at the store which Goens had previously managed. These employees transferred in from two other stores in the area which were being closed; in addition a number of new courtesy clerks and food clerks were hired for the opening. This store also was the first Safeway store in the metropolitan area to utilize scanner registers (computerized registers which pick up the price from a code stamped on the bottom of the product). (Goens, T. 3982-84).
210. The parties stipulated that Intervenor Carmen V. Smith was hired by Safeway as a part-time food clerk at Store # 258 on August 29, 1979; that Smith began working for Safeway as a trainee for Store #258 (8900 Geyer Springs), which was scheduled to open on September 23, 1979; and that Smith was discharged on September 12, 1979. (Jt.Stip. 32).
211. Smith was hired as a food clerk for Store #258 which was scheduled to open on September 23, 1979. Since Store # 258 was the first “scanner” store in Pulaski County, all new employees, as well as all current employees, had to be trained on how to use the scanners before Store # 258 opened. These training classes were conducted in Store # 258, prior to opening, by training instructors Mike Marcussen and Sara Hill. Employees were trained in groups according to their classification and their primary job function. Smith, who was classified as a primary checker, was scheduled to receive 32 hours of training in eight 4-hour sessions and eight hours of
*1038
on-the-job training at a scanner store in Conway. The groups received instruction from either Hill or Marcussen, with each group receiving the same instructions as set out in a training outline which had been prepared by Marcussen and Hill. This outline was based on Safeway division policy and the IBM training manual for the scanner equipment. The training covered Safeway procedure and rules, use of the time clock, and common situations encountered by checkers, customer complaints and customer accidents. The training also covered register procedure on food stamps, tax, coupons and refunds. Trainees were instructed on the proper technique in using the scanner equipment. In order to operate the scanner, the trainees were required to memorize price lookup (PLU) codes for items such as produce which could not be scanned. Employees were scheduled for one and one-half to two and one-half hours register practice during each session. During this register practice time the instructors observed, evaluated and counseled with the trainees. (Hill, T. 4247-53).
212. Smith received her training from Hill who evaluated Smith’s performance as poor. Beginning with the second session, trainees were assigned 20 PLU codes to memorize and were tested on a different group of 20 codes each session. Smith ranked in the bottom of her group on these tests. Smith and another employee who also performed poorly on this test were counseled by Hill; the other employee improved but Smith did not. Smith’s scanning technique was also poor. (Hill, T. 4255, 4285-86; 4288-90).
213. Smith stood on the fringe of the group, or sat on the register and was inattentive in class. This inattentiveness resulted in an inability to answer questions concerning information which had been presented as well as the inability to perform procedures which had been discussed. (Hill, T. 4255, 4277-78).
214. Smith was also tardy on several occasions. (Hill, T. 4255-56). Smith admitted that she was late on at least two occasions, but contended that there were also one or two white employees who were also tardy. (Smith T. 315, 323). Hill confirmed that other employees were tardy, but that these were current employees who were scheduled to work at another store while they were training and were not able to clock out to be to their training session on time. (Hill, T. 4256).
215. Hill counseled with Smith on the fourth training session about Smith’s problems with PLU codes, memorization, her performance in problem solving and scanning technique. Smith seemed unimpressed by this counseling and did not show any desire to improve. (T. 4257).
216. Store Manager Don Goens discussed the trainees’ performance with Hill and reviewed the scores on the PLU tests. Smith was one of the trainees who was having difficulties. Hill had a second conversation with Goens at which time he asked if there had been any improvement in Smith’s performance. Hill informed Goens that she did not see an improvement and stated that in her opinion Smith would not be a productive employee. (Hill, T. 4258-59).
217. Due to Smith’s lack of interest in her job, her failure to respond to the PLU codes and her tardiness, Goens saw no future in continuing her training. Goens had observed the training classes from the catwalk above the check stands and had also discussed Smith’s performance with Marcussen and Hill, upon whom he relied for an evaluation of the trainees. He also counseled Smith about the problems which she was having with the PLU codes and her tardiness. Based on his observation of Smith, Marcussen and Hill’s evaluation and Smith’s failure to improve after counsel-ling, Goens terminated Smith on September 12, 1979. (Goens, T. 4025-28).
218. When Goens informed Smith he was discharging her, he offered to allow her to finish the day cleaning. (Smith, T. 308). Persons in all job classifications at Safeway are expected to perform cleaning duties, and this was particularly true during the opening of Store No. 258. (Goens, T. 3985). The Court finds that Goens’ offer
*1039
to Smith was not discriminatorily motivated.
219. Smith alleged she did not receive the same attention or training as the white employees. Betty Amos, a black probationary employee in the same training group with Smith, testified that she was not neglected by Hill in the training which she received. (Amos, T. 114). Any neglect with respect to the training Smith received, either real or imagined, cannot be said to have been on the basis of race.
220. The Court finds that credible evidence supports Safeway’s position that' Smith was terminated after a couple of weeks for failing to satisfy her probationary period. In light of the fact that the new store was opening and many new employees were being trained, Safeway was justified in not retaining Smith for the full probationary period.
221. Safeway did not discriminate, intentionally or otherwise, against Smith because of her race in any of its employment policies.
D.
Intervenor Cheryl Buss
222. The parties jointly stipulated that Intervenor Cheryl Russ, Black female, was hired by Safeway as a part-time courtesy clerk (bagger) at Store # 258 (8900 Geyer Springs) on September 26, 1979, and that Russ’ employment history at Safeway was as follows:
DATE STORE/POSITION
October 11,1980 Military Leave of Absence
March 21,1981 Return to Store 258 - Part-
time Courtesy Clerk
Russ’ employment was terminated on April 18, 1981. (Jt.Stip. 31).
223. Russ alleged in her Petition for Intervention that she was denied a promotion from courtesy clerk to cashier (variety clerk) while white employees with less seniority received such promotions. She further alleged that white employees who received these promotions have relatives who work for Safeway. Russ did not testify on her own behalf, nor was any evidence presented in support of these allegations.
224. During Russ’ period of employment at Safeway Store # 258, seven employees in Russ’ classification (courtesy clerk) received promotions to variety clerk, food clerk or deli clerk. Five of these employees were white and two were black; each of the employees receiving the promotion had more seniority than Russ. (Maul-din, T. 4380; Def.Exh. 32).
225. None of these courtesy clerks who received promotions from part-time courtesy clerk to part-time variety clerk, food clerk or deli clerk have relatives that work for Safeway. (Cf. Def.Exh. 32 with Def. Exh. 48 and Plf.Exh. 83).
226. Russ voluntarily terminated her employment at Safeway on April 18, 1981. (Def.Exh. 9, p. 1).
227. Safeway did not discriminate, intentionally or otherwise, against Russ because of her race in any of its employment policies.
E.
Intervenor Linda Nowden
228. The parties stipulated that Intervenor Linda Nowden, black female, was hired by Safeway on August 6, 1975 at Store # 168 (7507 Cantrell) as a part-time food clerk. Nowden’s subsequent employment history at Safeway is as follows:
DATE STORE/POSITION
September 23 1979 Store 258 (7511 Baseline) - Part-Time Food Clerk
August 17,1980 Store 258 - Full-time Food Clerk
September 28,1980 Store 258 - Full-time Food Clerk
November 2,1980 Store 258 - Full-time Food Clerk
March 1,1981 Store 258 - Full-time Food Clerk
November 15,1981 Store 258 - Full-time Food Clerk
Nowden took leaves of absence on the following dates:
March 5, 1977 through July 16, 1977
February 4, 1979 through June 10, 1979
July 19, 1981 through October 13, 1981
229. Nowden applied at the Little Rock Division Office for a position and was scheduled for an interview on the same day. She was interviewed by Gene Eggman who sent her to two stores in the Heights area of Little Rock. She was hired at Store # 168 (7507 Cantrell) by Store Manager Harold Trimble, as a part-
*1040
time food clerk and began work the following Monday. (Nowden, T. 1120-24).
230. Nowden requested a transfer to the new Super Store # 258 and was granted the transfer. (Nowden, T. 122, 124-25). Simultaneously with the opening of Store # 258, two conventional Safeway Stores in the area, Store # 212 (7511 Baleline) and Store #172 (Geyer Springs and 1-30), were being closed. Nowden was one of the employees temporarily assigned to Store # 212 during this transition period which lasted for approximately three weeks. (Nowden, T. 1135,1225-27; Goens, T. 3982; Hanle, T. 3914-15).
231. Nowden alleged that during this transition period and while she was at Store No. 212 and later at No. 258, she received fewer hours than less senior whites because of race. I find that these allegations are not supported by the record in this case. She also claimed that she was denied assignments because of race and that she was assigned to midnight shifts because of race. I find that her allegations are contrary to the credible evidence in this ease.
232. Nowden alleged that white employees with less seniority than she had were made full-time. In support of this allegation Nowden introduced Plaintiffs Exhibit 10 which lists 21 white employees hired after Nowden who achieved full-time seniority prior to Nowden. Not included on this exhibit were the names of seven black employees hired after Nowden who also achieved full-time status prior to Nowden. (Defendant’s Exhibit 33). Defendant’s Exhibit 34 combines these two exhibits and articulates the reason that each of these 28 employees achieved full-time seniority. (Defendant’s Exhibit 34). Each of the reasons articulated is a valid exception to the seniority provisions governing full-time reclassification. The Union contract provides that if a vacancy occurs for a full-time job, the job must be filled by the most senior available part-time employees in the city (Little Rock, North Little Rock, and Jacksonville). There are exceptions to this provision: When an employee works 40 hours for four consecutive weeks, he is automatically reclassified by operation of the contract; by promotion to a classification which requires a full-time employee such as Head Clerk, Department Manager or Store Management Training Program; when there is no experienced part-time employee available to fill the position, such as when the super stores opened with new Bakeries/Delis and Flower Shops, experienced individuals from outside Safeway were hired into full-time positions; or when the most senior part-time employee is not willing to take the position as in the ease of night Stocker positions. (Mauldin, T. 4381-85). The Union contract also provides that full-time employees of one bargaining unit in the Little Rock Division transferring to another bargaining unit in the Little Rock Division retain full-time seniority. (T. 4385). Nowden failed to prove these allegations and Safeway showed by clear evidence that the reclassifications were not based on race.
233. Dena Cable, a white employee, was placed into the SMTP, given full-time classification, and retained her full-time classification after she was removed from the training program and reclassified as a Food Clerk. Nowden alleged that Cable’s entry into the SMTP was merely a subterfuge for attaining full-time seniority. Once an employee achieves full-time seniority through a promotion, he does not lose this seniority if he is subsequently demoted. (Mauldin, T. 4385). Ten emp

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1462505. Public record. Not legal advice.