Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

MASSEY v. ILLINOIS RANGE COMPANY

May 17, 1973

WALTER C. MASSEY, PLAINTIFF,
v.
ILLINOIS RANGE COMPANY, AN ILLINOIS CORPORATION, AND SHEET METAL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION, LOCAL 115, DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Bauer, District Judge.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

This cause comes on the motion of defendant Sheet Metal Workers International Association, Local Union No. 115 ("Union") to dismiss the complaint.

This is an action to redress an alleged deprivation of the plaintiff's civil rights to equal employment opportunities pursuant to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and 1870, 42 U.S.C. § 1981. This Court is alleged to have jurisdiction over the instant action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1343(4), 2201 and 2202 and 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f).

The plaintiff, Walter C. Massey, is an American Indian, a United States citizen and a resident of Chicago, Illinois. The defendant Illinois Range Company ("Employer") employed the plaintiff at the time of the alleged discrimination and is an employer within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b). The defendant Union is a labor organization within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(d) and (e).

The plaintiff in his complaint alleges inter alia the following facts:

  1.  On October 28, 1963, plaintiff was hired by
      the defendant company. At various times
      during the course of his employment,
      plaintiff was harassed, intimidated and
      ridiculed by certain co-workers.
  2.  On or about November 28, 1968 plaintiff filed
      a racial discrimination charge against
      defendant company, based on the
      abovementioned actions of his co-workers.
      This charge was subsequently withdrawn by the
      plaintiff after supervisors of defendant
      company assured plaintiff that the harassment
      by his co-workers would be stopped.
  4.  The plaintiff telephoned Mr. Grayson on June
      25, 1970 and was informed that the strike had
      been settled and that the employees had
      rturned to work on June 24, 1970. On June 26,
      1970 plaintiff telephoned defendant company
      and was informed by the plant superintendent
      that his employment had been terminated. The
      termination of the plaintiff's employment was
      based solely on plaintiff's being an American
      Indian and plaintiff's previous filing of a
      discrimination charge against the defendant
      Employer. The defendant Union acquiesced and
      joined with the defendant Employer in the
      unlawful and discriminatory acts in that,
      contrary to its duty and obligations to
      plaintiff as a member of the Union and though
      requested by the plaintiff, the Union failed
      to aid plaintiff and discouraged plaintiff
      from filing a grievance against defendant
      Employer and refused to provide plaintiff
      with the representation to which he was
      entitled pursuant to the Civil Rights Act of
      1964.
  5.  On July 6, 1970 and within ninety days of the
      alleged discriminatory acts, the plaintiff
      filed written charges under oath with the
      Equal Opportunity Commission, alleging denial
      by the defendants of his rights under Title
      VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. On or
      about October 13, 1971 plaintiff was notified
      by the EEOC that he was entitled to institute
      a civil action in the U.S. District Court
      against the defendant. The plaintiff
      instituted the instant action within 30 days
      after the receipt of such notice.

The plaintiff seeks to restrain the defendants from discriminating against him and to recover compensatory and punitive damages, appropriate payment of back wages, and the cost of maintaining this action.

The defendant Union in support of its motion to dismiss contends:

  1.  Plaintiff has failed to allege a violation of
      42 U.S.C. § 2000(e)-2(c) [§ 2000e-2(c)].
  2.  Plaintiff has failed to allege a violation of
      Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations
      ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.