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.

ROSEN v. PUBLIC SERV. ELEC. & GAS CO.

August 25, 1970

Leo Rosen et al., Plaintiffs
v.
Public Service Electric And Gas Company, Defendant. Morgan Sweeney et al., Plaintiffs v. Same, Defendant


Wortendyke, D. J.


The opinion of the court was delivered by: WORTENDYKE

Both of the captioned cases were instituted under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 241, § 703(a)(1), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). Both cases require a determination of whether or not a non-contributory pension fund, which treats males and females differently, violates the provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2. In the first of these actions (C. 245-66) this Court, on March 19, 1968, entered an Order for summary judgment, from which the plaintiffs in that cause appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The judgment appealed from was vacated and the cause remanded to this Court for further proceedings consistent with the Opinion of the Appellate Court. Its decision of April 1, 1969 is reported in 409 F.2d commencing at page 775. The Appellate Court directed that this Court

 
"* * * insofar as the original complaint is concerned, determine * * * whether any of the named appellants and any other male members of the union, may have retired between the date of the initial 1965 charges before the EEOC and the May 1, 1967 change, and thus may have been harmed by the alleged discrimination in the pension benefit formula;"

 and stated that

 
"Such a finding * * * would require the court to rule on whether the original pension plan, prior to its modification, violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964."

 The same Opinion concludes that

 
"* * * if no male employee was harmed by the pre-May 1967 pension plan, that should dispose of the original complaint and injunctive relief is unnecessary."

 Pending the decision of the Court of Appeals in Civil 245-66, Morgan Sweeney and Utility Co-Workers Association, as plaintiffs, instituted an action in this Court (Civil 955-68) against the same defendant in the case then on appeal. That action came to issue upon the answer of the defendant, filed October 29, 1968, and the Court of Appeals took notice of the pendency of that more recent action. At page 782 of its Opinion the Court of Appeals stated that

 
"* * * we have already noted that a second suit has been filed duplicating the charge that the modified pension plan violates Title VII. Because this second suit has not yet been disposed of, and because it deals with precisely the same substantive issues as the amendment to the original complaint, we deem it unnecessary to determine whether the grant of summary judgment as to that portion of the first complaint was in error. *fn1" It was suggested at oral argument that consolidation of the two actions, i.e., the original complaint as amended and the second complaint, would be sought if this court directed a remand. We believe that this would be the proper procedure to follow and that upon such consolidation the issues involved in the initial complaint, the amendment thereto, and the second complaint, can be sifted out and disposition made of them. *fn2" , *fn3"

 Pursuant to the mutual undertakings of counsel at the joint conference on October 20, 1969, in both cases, a stipulation of facts and agreement of the parties was filed in the consolidated actions on June 17, 1970. By the terms thereof the parties "agree to submit the above matters on the foregoing Stipulation and the Briefs of the attorneys for the respective parties, without oral argument." In that Stipulation the following facts appear:

 Defendant is a public utility corporation existing under the laws of the State of New Jersey, engaged in the manufacture, sale and distribution of gas and electric energy, with its principal place of business in the City of Newark, New Jersey.

 Plaintiff Utility Co-Workers Association (Union) is an independent union having its office in the same City and duly certified by the National Labor Relations Board as the collective bargaining representative for certain employees in all of defendant's commercial offices on January 10, 1949.

 On January 10, 1911 defendant instituted a welfare plan for all of its employees. That plan included a retirement or pension plan, non-contributory in character, i.e., involving no contribution thereto by employees. Attached to the Stipulation and marked joint exhibit No. 1, is a copy of the negotiated collective bargaining agreement between the parties, dated June 21, 1965, effective May 1, 1965, which includes the negotiated supplementary agreements respectively effective May 1, 1967 and May 1, 1969. There is also attached to this Stipulation, and bearing exhibit No. 2, a copy of the pension plan in effect prior to May 1, 1967 as well as a copy of the pension plan as modified or revised effective from May 1, 1967, marked joint exhibit No. 3.

 Between July 1, 1965 and May 1, 1967 there were early retirements on pension by some male employees, members of the plaintiff Union, as well as during the period from ...


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.