AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |
Back to Blog
Timekeeper cabarrus county8/5/2023 The same applied when there were no qualified bidders.Ĩ. As between qualified employees, the job was awarded to the bidder with the most seniority. Qualifications and seniority were the two criteria established by the decree for selecting a successful bidder. Price was then to review the bids with the employees in the Special Projects Office and the job was awarded to the bidder entitled to the position under the rules established by the consent decree.ħ. After the bids were closed, the timekeeper would assemble the bids, attach each employee's service record to the bid, and transmit them to Ms. Employees interested in filling the position would bid for a job by completing a bid form and giving it to the timekeeper in their department. The notices were prepared by timekeepers upon the instructions of their department managers. Price was responsible for posting job vacancy notices in the designated place within the Wet Finishing Facility. Under the decree, notices of all non-supervisory job vacancies were to be posted on a bulletin board in the facility in which the vacancy occurred.Ħ. February 21, 1971), which was approved by this court. That system was established pursuant to a Consent Decree entered in United States v. Price's primary job responsibility in the Wet Finishing Facility to administer Cannon's job posting system. This court, thus, has jurisdiction of this case, and venue is proper in this district.ĥ. She filed this action within the ninety days prescribed by Title VII. On April 24, 1982, the plaintiff received a notice of right to sue from the EEOC based on her charge of discriminatory discharge. The EEOC charge of January 1981 in which plaintiff and others alleged systemic class-wide sex discrimination against Cannon was still pending with the EEOC at the time of trial.Ĥ. As a result of the settlement of plaintiff's 1979 EEOC charge, she was promoted to a supervisory position with Cannon. When plaintiff's August 1977 EEOC charge was settled, plaintiff and three other women received a raise in addition to a lump sum payment of $2,000 each. As of April 30, 1981, when the plaintiff was terminated, the charges of August 1977 and March 1979 had been settled. The plaintiff filed charges of sex discrimination against Cannon with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (hereinafter EEOC) on August 20, 1977, March 16, 1979, January 28, 1981, and May 4, 1981. It is her discharge that is the subject of this action.ģ. She was employed in that position until she was involuntarily discharged on or about April 30, 1981. On or about September 1, 1979, she was promoted to the job of administrative foreman in the Wet Finishing Office. On or about May 26, 1977, plaintiff was promoted to the position of chemical reports and records. On that date, plaintiff became a timekeeper in the same department. On or about March 25, 1971, she was transferred to the position of preference styles in the Bleachery Department until July 17, 1972. On or about January 1, 1968, plaintiff was employed as a gray room helper in *1148 the Bleachery Department. She voluntarily severed her employment with the company on Apand was reemployed on or about Septemas a shearing machine operator. On or about March 1, 1965, the plaintiff began work at Cannon as a learner hemmer. Cannon is in the business of producing textile products and is an employer as defined by 42 U.S.C. Defendant Cannon Mills Company (hereinafter Cannon) is a North Carolina corporation presently doing business in Cabarrus County and other counties in North Carolina. Plaintiff is a female citizen and resident of Rowan County, North Carolina. Defendant filed a reply brief on January 11, 1985, and plaintiff filed a response to the reply brief on January 30, 1985.ġ. Plaintiff filed her responses to the same on December 24, 1984. Defendant filed its post-trial brief, proposed findings of fact, and conclusions of law on November 27, 1984. The court entered an order on Octorequiring defendant to file post-trial documents on or before Novemand requiring plaintiff to respond on or before December 11, 1984. ![]() The transcript was filed on September 21, 1984. The court allowed the parties to file proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and trial briefs after they received copies of the trial transcript. The matter was tried before the court on April 18, 19, 24, 25, in Winston-Salem. Price filed this action on alleging that defendant Cannon Mills Company, in discharging her from her employment, discriminated against her because of her sex and in retaliation for her pursuing her rights under Title VII, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. Susan Hartzoge, Kannapolis, N.C., Wayne S. ![]() *1147 Jonathan Wallas, Charlotte, N.C., for plaintiff.
0 Comments
Read More
Leave a Reply. |