## Facts

- Four Black women worked in the bonding and coating department of an industrial plant operated by Glenn C. Havens (doing business as Havens Industries).
- On January 31, 1968, the four plaintiffs and a white co-worker performed the same general production work in the department.
- The supervisor informed the employees that production would stop the next day so the department could undergo heavy cleanup (washing high walls and windows, cleaning fixtures, scraping resin-caked floors).
- Plaintiffs objected that the heavy cleaning was dangerous and outside their usual duties, which included only light cleanup in immediate work areas.
- On February 1, 1968, the white co-worker was excused from the cleanup assignment, and one plaintiff was called back so that the four Black employees would perform the heavy cleaning.
- When plaintiffs questioned why the white co-worker was excused, the supervisor responded with overtly race-based remarks, including that “colored people should stay in their places” and that “colored people are hired to clean.”
- Plaintiffs refused to perform the assignment under those conditions and were discharged and given their final paychecks.
- The district court found that, during the relevant period in 1968, Havens Industries employed at least the statutory minimum number of employees for Title VII coverage.
- After the events, the business was reorganized into a related/successor entity (Havens International) and later sold to another company; injunctive relief was not pursued against an ongoing operating defendant.

## Issues

1. Whether the employer met Title VII’s coverage requirements for an “employer” during the relevant period.
2. Whether a defendant is entitled to a jury trial in a Title VII action seeking back pay for discriminatory discharge.
3. Whether a related or successor entity (not existing at the time of discrimination and not named in the administrative charge) may be held liable under Title VII.
4. Whether the evidence supported the finding that plaintiffs were discharged because of race rather than for refusing a legitimate work assignment.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the judgment for plaintiffs, as modified in certain technical respects.
- The court held the employer was covered by Title VII based on the district court’s supported findings regarding employee numbers and timing.
- The court held there was no right to a jury trial because back pay under Title VII was treated as equitable relief for the court.
- The court upheld liability against the related/successor entity based on continuity and identity of interests, despite the entity not being named in the administrative charge.
- The court held the record supported discriminatory discharge, relying on unequal assignment of heavy cleaning (Black employees required; white co-worker excused) and the supervisor’s explicit race-based statements tied to the assignment and termination.

## Legal Principles

- Disparate treatment may be proven by direct evidence, including explicit race-based statements by a decisionmaker closely connected to the challenged job assignment and discharge.
- Assigning undesirable work to employees based on race, while excusing similarly situated employees of another race, supports an inference that a subsequent discharge for refusing the assignment is discriminatory.
- Title VII back pay (as then administered) is an equitable remedy determined by the court; defendants have no Seventh Amendment jury right where the relief sought is equitable in character.
- A related or successor business entity may be held liable under Title VII where there is substantial continuity and identity of interests, and the purposes of the administrative process (notice and opportunity to resolve the dispute) are not defeated by formal differences in naming.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit sustained Title VII liability for a discriminatory job assignment and discharge where Black employees were singled out for heavy cleaning and the supervisor gave overtly race-based reasons, confirmed that back pay was an equitable remedy not requiring a jury, and permitted liability to extend to a related/successor entity based on continuity and identity of interests.


Slack v. Havens, 522 F.2d 1091 (9th Cir. 1975)