IN RE: Ironworkers Union Employment Practices Litigation

! ” Case MDL No. 257 Document 2 Filed 05/04/15 Page 1 of 7
MEE rary gy
°o BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL /-FE fay
© MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION DE 10 1975
IN RE IRONWORKERS UNION EMPLOYMENT AE moexET NO. 257
PRACTICES LITIGATION IE
OPINION AND ORDER
BEFORE JOHN MINOR WISDOM*, CHAIRMAN, AND EDWARD WEINFELD,
EDWIN A. ROBSON, WILLIAM H. BECKER, JOSEPH S. LORD, III,
STANLEY A. WEIGEL, AND ANDREW A. CAFFREY, JUDGES OF THE
PANEL
PER CURIAM
This litigation consists of four actions filed in
three federal districts: two in the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania; one in the District of New Jersey; and one in
the District of Delaware. One of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
® actions (King) was commenced by seven black ironworkers, pursuant to
Rule 23(b) (2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf
of a class of all blacks living in the work jurisdiction of
the Philadelphia area local of the International Association
of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Ironworkers
who have been, are, have sought to become, or will seek to become
apprentices, journeymen or permit holders of that local. The
remaining three actions were instituted by the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The International Union is a
defendant in all four actions. A different local of this
union is a defendant in each action, except that the
*/Although Judge Wisdom was not present at the Panel hearing,
[ he has, with the consent of all parties, participated in	this decision.

’ Case MDL No. 257 Documeny 2_ Filed 05/04/15 Page 2 of 7
two Eastern District of Pennsylvania actions name the same
® Philadelphia area local. The Ironworkers Joint Apprentice-
ship Committee is a defendant in all but the Delaware action.
A different contractors' association is a defendant in each of
the two Eastern District of Pennsylvania actions and in the |
New Jersey action. In the King action the business agent
for the Philadelphia local is included as a defendant. In
the complaints in the three EEOC actions, the EEOC states
that every defendant other than the union local has been
named pursuant to Rule 19(a) (2) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure because they have an interest in the outcome of the
action.
A detailed complaint in the King action charges that
® defendants individually and through a conspiracy have
violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by engaging in many
racially discriminatory employment practices and policies
3 regarding apprenticeship training, union membership,
hiring, career advancement, job referrals and disciplinary
proceedings. Plaintiffs in the King action also allege that
defendants have violated their duty of fair representation
under the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, and that
defendants are guilty of discrimination with respect to a job
site for the construction of the Salem Nuclear Power Generating
Plant in Salem, New Jersey.
In each of the EEOC actions, in a manner much less
® specific than in King, the EEOC claims that the particular

: Case MDL No. 257 Document 2 Filed 05/04/15 Page	3 of 7
C local named as a defendant violated the Civil Rights Act of
1969 by maintaining apprenticeship and job referral policies
and practices which operate to exclude blacks from job
opportunities, including those at the Salem job site. In
the Delaware and New Jersey actions the EEOC also alleges
that the defendant local engaged in discriminatory membership
policies and practices. Included in the relief sought in all
three EEOC actions is a prayer fora permanent injunction against
the defendant local and all persons acting in concert with it.
Plaintiff EEOC moves the Panel for an order trans-
ferring the actions pending in the Districts of Delaware
and New Jersey to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings
® pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407 with the two actions pending
there. The locals in the Delaware and New Jersey actions,
the Joint Apprenticeship Committee and the three contractors
associations oppose the transfer of these actions.
We find that these actions involve common questions
of fact and that their transfer to the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania under Section 1407 will best serve the convenience
of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and
efficient conduct of this litigation.
Although the defendant locals opposing transfer con-
ceded during oral argument before the Panel that the actions
. involve some common issues, the defendants opposing transfer,
o generally, argue that transfer is inappropriate because these

N ! Case MDL No. 257 Document	2, Filed 05/04/15 Page	4 of 7
actions share few or no common factual questions. They
9 maintain that each action focuses upon a particular local's
unique membership, apprentice and job referral policies
andpractices. Defendants stress that each of the locals,
which are the primary defendants in this litigation, is a -
defendant in only one jurisdiction and that this factor
demonstrates the differences among the actions. As an
alternative to transfer, defendants assert that voluntary
cooperation in discovery among the parties is sufficient
for efficient pretrial of those few, if any, common factual
issues.
The EEOC, on the other hand, contends that transfer is
necessary to avoid duplication of discovery concerning substantial
® common questions of fact among these actions. In support of
this contention the EEOC points out that this litigation arose
from grievances filed by sixteen individuals, eight of whom
charged each of the three locals with discrimination in
connection with the Salem job site, inter alia, and also
charged that a particular contractor acted in concert with
the three locals. As a result, the EEOC maintains that it
conducted a joint investigation of ironworker employment
practices in the Delaware Valley and that this investigation
revealed a common conspiracy among defendants to discriminate
against blacks.” 1m detail the EEOC states that defendants,
acting together, committed certain illegal employment
® 1/2 lengthy exhibit entitled "Field Director's Findings of
Fact" is among the papers submitted to the Panel by the
EEOC in support of its contention.

: ’ Case MDL No. 257 Document2 Filed 05/04/15 Page	5 of 7
- 5 =
C ) practices, including the use of subjective criteria in
screening applicants for apprenticeship programs and
union membership, nepotism, the use of educational and
testing requirements unrelated to the jobs, and the
giving of false information to blacks who sought equal
employment opportunities. In addition, the EEOC asserts
that transfer will eliminate the need for three courts to
consider the same discovery motions, such as those con-
cerning the EEOC's claim of privilege in regard to its
settlement endeavors.
After carefully examining the entire record before us,
we are persuaded by the EEOC's arguments that these actions
¢ share common questions of fact and that transfer is justified.our study of the four complaints and the "Field Director's :
Findings of Fact" reveals that the three locals allegedly
engage in many of the same or similar employment practices,
and that the EEOC as well as the King plaintiffs are challenging
those practices, particularly regarding	the Salem job site. Thus
transfer is necessary to prevent duplication of discovery
and eliminate the possibility of inconsistent pretrial
rulings, including those related to the EEOC's claim of
privilege. Any discovery concerning issues not common to
the actions	can be scheduled by the transferee court to
proceed concurrently with the common discovery, so that
'}

’ Case MDL No. 257 Documen®2 -Filed 05/04/15 Page	6 of 7
the litigation will proceed expeditiously in all areas.
® See In re Republic National-Realty Equities Securities
Litigation, 382 F. Supp. 1403, 1405-06 (J.P.M.L. 1974).
While we commend defendants' desire voluntarily to
coordinate discovery on common issues, we note that the
EEOC asserts that defendants to date have acted to the
contrary. There is no evidence that voluntary coordination
would be effective. In any event, placing all these actions
under the control of a single judge will ensure that re-
petition will be avoided.
The Eastern District of Pennsylvania is the most
appropriate transferee forum for this litigation. Two of
the four actions are already pending there. And we are
® advised that the EEOC's records of its joint investigation
concerning this matter are located in Philadelphia at the
EEOC's regional office. :
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§1407, the actions in the Districts of New Jersey and Delaware
listed on the following Schedule A be, and the same hereby
are, transferred to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the
Honorable John B. Hannum for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings with the actions pending in that
district and listed on Schedule A.
@

* oo Case MDL No. 257 Document2 Filed 05/04/15 Page 7 of7
SCHEDULE A
Docket No. 257 -- In re Ironworkers Union Employment
Practices Litigation
EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
David King, et al. v. The International Civil Action
Association of Bridge, Structural, No. 75-3542
Ornamental and Reinforcing Ironworkers,
et al.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Civil Action
v. Local 405, International Association No. 76-810
of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and
Reinforcing Ironworkers, et al.
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Civil Action
v. Local 399, International Association No. 76-0551
of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and
® Reinforcing Ironworkers, et al.
" DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Civil Action
v. Local 451, International Association No. 76-119
of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and
Reinforcing Ironworkers, et al.