## Facts

- Forty-six women employed at Libbey-Owens-Ford Company’s Ottawa, Illinois plants filed a Title VII sex-discrimination class action seeking injunctive relief and back pay.
- Their EEOC charge alleged that the employer and Local 19 used collective-bargaining arrangements that limited women to certain jobs/departments and denied women the same layoff and recall protections given to men.
- The International Union negotiated a company-wide master agreement addressing general employment terms and seniority security, while permitting plant-level bargaining on seniority-related arrangements.
- At the Ottawa plant, the employer and Local 19 negotiated a local seniority-security agreement providing enhanced layoff/recall protections to male employees, while women remained subject to less-protective master-agreement rules.
- The EEOC charge did not name the International Union, and the International did not participate in the administrative process.
- In district court, plaintiffs sued the employer, the International Union, and Local 19; the International was dismissed.
- The district court then dismissed the entire action against the employer and Local 19 on the ground that the International was an indispensable party under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19.

## Issues

1. Whether a Title VII defendant may be sued in federal court when it was not named as a respondent in the EEOC charge.
2. Whether the International Union, after being dismissed, was an indispensable party under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19 requiring dismissal of the claims against the employer and Local 19.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed dismissal of the International Union because it was not named in the EEOC charge.
- The court reversed dismissal of the action against the employer and Local 19 and remanded, holding the International was not an indispensable party under Rule 19.
- The court concluded complete relief could be granted between plaintiffs, the employer, and Local 19 by addressing local job and seniority/layoff practices and awarding back pay, without rewriting the master agreement.
- The court found any claimed prejudice to the absent International speculative and reducible by tailoring relief to local practices.
- The court emphasized that dismissal would substantially prejudice plaintiffs by causing delay and risking loss of effective relief.

## Legal Principles

- Under Title VII, a civil action ordinarily may proceed only against a party named as a respondent in the EEOC charge, because naming provides notice and an opportunity for administrative conciliation.
- Rule 19 requires a practical, equitable assessment; dismissal for nonjoinder is a drastic remedy reserved for cases where, “in equity and good conscience,” the action cannot proceed without the absent party.
- An international union that negotiated a master agreement is not automatically indispensable where the challenged discrimination arises from plant-level arrangements and effective monetary and injunctive relief can be ordered against the employer and local union alone.
- In applying Rule 19(b), courts consider prejudice to absent and existing parties, the ability to shape relief to lessen prejudice, the adequacy of a judgment among existing parties, and whether dismissal would leave plaintiffs without an adequate remedy.

## Conclusion

The court held that the International Union could not be sued under Title VII because it was not named in the EEOC charge, but its absence did not require dismissal of the case against the employer and Local 19 because complete and equitable relief could be granted by targeting the local practices at issue.


Le Beau v. Libbey-Owens-Ford Co., 484 F.2d 798 (7th Cir. 1973)