As we have noted, the district court dismissed all race discrimination claims without prejudice after appellants' attempt to consolidate those claims with the pending Mosley case failed. However, appellants' race discrimination claims based on 42 U.S.C.Go toĬonsolidation is permitted as a matter of convenience and economy in administration, but does not merge the suits into a single cause, or change the rights of the parties, or make those who are parties in one suit parties in another. Plaintiffs seek to represent a class consisting of all black women who are the victims of GM's alleged discrimination. Louis) (GM) and the United Automobile Workers (the international union and its Local 25) charging, among other things, that the seniority system and "last hired-first fired" layoff policy mandated by GM's collective bargaining agreement with the Union perpetuates the effect of GM's past race and sex discrimination, in violation of federal law proscribing discrimination in employment - Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Five black women have brought this action against their former employer, General Motors Corporation (designated in the complaint as General Motors Assembly Division, St.United Methodist Community Center, 335 F. on other grounds, 538 F.2d 164 (7th Cir.) ( en banc), cert. The district court correctly observed that sex discrimination in employment is not cognizable under § 1981. The appropriate limitations period for these claims is the five-year period established in Mo.Ann.Stat.See International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. However, after the submission of this case, the Supreme Court issued two opinions which make clear that we must sustain the district court's judgment on the appellants' Title VII claims, because those claims, dealing with discrimination in hiring and its effect on seniority and layoff, are either barred by limitations or fail to state a violation of Title VII. We do not subscribe entirely to the district court's reasoning in rejecting appellants' claims of race and sex discrimination under Title VII.We affirm in part, for reasons not addressed by the district court, and reverse and remand in part. The plaintiffs, Emma DeGraffenreid and others, bring this timely appeal. In response to cross-motions for summary judgment the court dismissed on the merits the sex discrimination claims, and dismissed without prejudice the claim charging racial discrimination, ruling that a complaint such as this one under Title VII might state a "cause of action for race discrimination, sex discrimination, or alternatively either, but not a combination of both." DeGraffenreid v.1973) In re Massachusetts Helicopter Airlines, Inc., 469 F.2d 439, 441 (1st Cir.
0 kommentar(er)
