## Facts

- William E. Bing, a Black city driver for Roadway Express in Atlanta, sought a transfer to an over-the-road driver position.
- Roadway maintained a “no-transfer” policy between city and road bargaining units requiring an employee to resign and reapply, forfeiting accrued employment rights and receiving no assurance of being rehired.
- Roadway had previously hired only white employees for road-driver positions; the no-transfer rule discouraged transfers and perpetuated the effects of that prior exclusion.
- After Bing filed a 1967 EEOC charge, an earlier appellate decision held Roadway’s no-transfer rule unlawful under Title VII and remanded for remedial relief.
- On remand, the district court enjoined future discrimination, required notice for affected employees to submit claims, ordered hiring of five Black employees as road drivers with seniority dating from first application, and denied back pay to all affected employees, including Bing.
- Bing appealed the remedial decree, chiefly challenging the categorical denial of back pay.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court’s remedial decree appropriately provided class-wide relief for employees harmed by the discriminatory effects of the no-transfer policy.
2. Whether the district court erred by denying back pay categorically, and if so, when Bing’s back-pay period should begin.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit affirmed the decree’s prospective and structural relief, including injunctive relief and mechanisms to identify and hire affected employees with appropriate seniority.
- The court modified the decree by rejecting the blanket denial of back pay as applied to Bing.
- The court held Bing was entitled to back pay and remanded for recalculation from the date his legal right to be free from the discriminatory barrier accrued under Title VII.
- The court identified July 2, 1965 (Title VII’s effective date) as the start of Bing’s continuing legal injury, given that he was qualified for road driving before that date.

## Legal Principles

- A facially neutral employment rule violates Title VII when it perpetuates the effects of prior racial exclusion and continues to disadvantage affected employees.
- Title VII remedies are equitable and may include injunctions, notice procedures, hiring relief, and retroactive seniority designed to eliminate continuing effects of discrimination.
- Back pay is a key make-whole remedy under Title VII and should not be denied categorically where an unlawful practice caused economic harm.
- For ongoing discriminatory barriers, back-pay liability may run from the point when the employee both was qualified and had a legally enforceable Title VII right, treating the harm as continuing from that accrual date.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit largely upheld the district court’s remedial framework addressing the discriminatory effects of Roadway’s no-transfer policy, but ruled that a blanket denial of back pay was improper as to Bing and remanded to determine his back pay beginning on Title VII’s effective date, July 2, 1965.


Bing v. Roadway Express, Inc., 485 F.2d 441 (5th Cir. 1973)