## Facts

- Julius B. Locke, a Black employee, worked for Kansas City Power & Light Co. (KCPL) as a temporary manual laborer at its Hawthorn power plant.
- Locke applied for a permanent “plant helper” position and met the stated application requirements.
- KCPL did not hire Locke into a permanent position and instead hired three white temporary employees as permanent plant helpers.
- Locke filed an EEOC charge alleging race discrimination, received a right-to-sue letter, and filed a Title VII action.
- The district court found that KCPL discriminated against Locke by failing to hire him as a permanent plant helper.
- By the time of judgment, the three white hires had been promoted from plant helper to “relief man.”
- To place Locke where he would have been absent discrimination, the district court ordered instatement into a relief-man position and awarded back pay, without finding whether Locke was qualified for relief man or whether promotion was automatic or otherwise likely.

## Issues

1. Whether, after finding Title VII discrimination in the denial of an entry-level position, a court may order instatement into a higher position the plaintiff never held without findings that the plaintiff was qualified and would likely have been promoted absent discrimination.
2. Whether back pay and related monetary relief may be based on an assumed promotion path without evidentiary findings supporting that assumption.

## Decision

- The Eighth Circuit affirmed the finding that KCPL violated Title VII by failing to hire Locke as a permanent plant helper because of race.
- The court vacated the portion of the remedial order placing Locke directly into a relief-man position.
- The court remanded for additional fact-finding on (i) Locke’s qualifications for relief man and (ii) whether, under KCPL’s practices, he likely would have been promoted to relief man absent discrimination.
- The court directed reconsideration of any monetary relief dependent on the relief-man assumption.

## Legal Principles

- Title VII remedies are intended to make the victim whole by restoring the employment position the plaintiff would likely have attained absent discrimination, not to provide a windfall.
- District courts have broad equitable discretion under Title VII, but remedial orders must be supported by findings that connect the discriminatory act to the awarded position and pay.
- Ordering placement into a higher position requires evidentiary support that the plaintiff was qualified for that position and that promotion to it was reasonably probable under the employer’s system.
- Back pay generally equals the difference between actual earnings and what would have been earned absent discrimination, accounting for mitigation and supported assumptions about job progression.

## Conclusion

The court upheld liability for discriminatory failure to hire but limited the remedy, requiring findings on qualification and likely promotion before awarding instatement (and pay) tied to a higher-level position.


Locke v. Kansas City Power & Light Co., 660 F.2d 359 (8th Cir. 1981)