TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Charity Harrison v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company

Charity HARRISON Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. GOODYEAR TIRE AND RUBBER COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee

Charity Harrison v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 508 F.2d 678 (5th Cir. 1975)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
February 20, 1975
Docket
No. 74-1728
Judges
Dyer, Morgan, Gee
Citations
508 F.2d 67811 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 10331975 U.S. App. LEXIS 16000

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM:

This employment discrimination case was initially brought by two black women who unsuccessfully sought employment in the production department of Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company’s Gadsden, Alabama plant.

On June 19, 1967, appellants Charity Harrison and Gussie Hardwick filed charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, alleging employment discrimination against black females — a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (1974)). After the EEOC authorized appellants to file suit, they initiated the present proceeding as a Fed.R.Civ.P. class action on their own behalf and the behalf of all others simi *679 larly situated. After an extensive trial, the district court made findings of fact and entered judgment in Goodyear’s favor.

Plaintiffs renew their arguments • on appeal. Of course, findings of fact in Title VII cases are reviewed in the same manner as any other trial court findings: this court will not set the findings aside unless it is able to conclude that such findings are clearly erroneous.' See, Smith v. Delta Airlines, 486 F.2d 512, 514 (5th Cir. 1973); Terrell v. Feldstein Co., 468 F.2d 910, 911 (5th Cir. 1972); Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a).

We have examined the record thoroughly and we find sufficient evidence to support the district court’s decision that Goodyear did not discriminate in the employment of black females. Therefore, since the lower court’s decision is not clearly erroneous, the judgment is Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1980: 219802026peak 1980 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Swint v. Pullman-Standard624 F.2d 525 (5th Cir. 1980)
  2. 23 Fair empl.prac.cas. 748, 23 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 31,186624 F.2d 525 (5th Cir. 1980)

Most recent

  1. 23 Fair empl.prac.cas. 748, 23 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 31,186624 F.2d 525 (5th Cir. 1980)
  2. Swint v. Pullman-Standard624 F.2d 525 (5th Cir. 1980)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Golie Leroy TERRELL v. the FELDSTEIN COMPANY, INC., 468 F.2d 910 (5th Cir. 1972) 34
Smith v. Delta AIR Lines, Inc., 486 F.2d 512 (5th Cir. 1973) 22

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list