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.

REAVES v. MARSH

April 9, 1987

Lillian W. Reaves, Plaintiff
v.
John O. Marsh, Jr., In His Official Capacity As The Secretary of the Department of the Army of the United States, Defendant



The opinion of the court was delivered by: HOWARD, JR.

 GEORGE HOWARD, JR., UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

 The plaintiff, Lillian W. Reaves, (Reaves) a white female, instituted this civil rights action on December 20, 1982, against the Secretary of The Department of the Army of The United States alleging that as an employee of The Department of the Army, Pine Bluff Arsenal, Pine Bluff, Arkansas (Arsenal), she was paid less wages for performing "work assignments substantially similar to work assignments performed by males and denied promotions or job reclassification to higher levels because of her sex."

 The jurisdictional grounds asserted are: 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3) and (4); 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-5(f)(g) et seq.; and 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202.

 The following relief is requested:

 1. Back pay from December 9, 1980, to January 23, 1983 - the difference in pay that she actually received as a GS-9 architectual technician and that pay she would have received had her job assignment been reclassified as GS-10 during this time frame.

 2. Retroactive promotion to a GS-11 commencing January 23, 1983, to February 5, 1984. Reaves argues that she should have been promoted to a GS-11 rather than a GS-10 Engineering Technician on January 23, 1983, but didn't get the GS-11 until February 5, 1984.

 The central question before the Court is whether Reaves, who alleges that she was doing the same work as men with higher grades, was discriminatorily denied a reclassification of her job assignment - Architectual Engineering Technician GS-9 - to GS-10 because of sex.

 I.

 BACKGROUND INFORMATION

 The Equal Employment Opportunity Plan of Action for the fiscal year 1979 for the Arsenal states the following in the forward:

 
During the past years Pine Bluff Arsenal has experienced both real and significant progress toward full equal employment opportunity for all. However, an analysis of our accomplishment, or lack thereof, reveals that there is much to be accomplished before equal employment opportunity for all is a day-by-day way of life for each member of the "Arsenal family." The average grade for minority and women employees is nearly two grades below the average grade for the Arsenal. This inequality can only be rectified by strong, affirmative action to select and promote minorities and women for higher level positions. The number of women, except in administrative positions, in the workforce is still below the percentage of working women in our local area. This can be overcome by eliminating the stereotyped images of which type of work a woman should, or should not, do. Likewise, some of our majority employees have not had an equal opportunity for training, promotions and job enhancement. (Emphasis added)

 The Arsenal's Equal Opportunity Plan for fiscal year 1980 provides, in relevant part:

 
Chart No. 5 shows the index of representation of the categories of employees in technical occupations at [the Arsenal]. [The Arsenal] has personnel at six grade levels in these occupations. White men are overrepresented in the three highest grades, and underrepresented at the lower grade levels; with one exception (black males at grade GS-5), minority males are underrepresented at all grade levels. White women are overrepresented at the three lowest grade levels and underrepresented at the higher grade levels; with two ...

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.