Skip to main content

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Local 798 of the United Ass'n of Journeymen

N.D. Okla.September 5, 1986No. 84-C-730-CCited 1 time
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
H. Dale Cook
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
10th Circuit decision addressing EEOC challenge to apprenticeship program practices; case remanded or proceeded to remedial phase

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Outcome

EEOC challenged discriminatory apprenticeship practices by Local 798. The court found evidence of discrimination in the apprenticeship selection process but the case proceeded through remedial proceedings.

What This Ruling Means

This case involved a plumbers and pipefitters union, Local 798, accused of discriminating against workers when selecting people for apprenticeship programs. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) sued the union, claiming it unfairly excluded certain workers from apprenticeships based on their protected characteristics like race or gender. The court found evidence that the union had indeed discriminated in its apprenticeship selection process. However, rather than simply ruling against the union, the court allowed the case to move forward with remedial proceedings - meaning both sides would work together to fix the discriminatory practices and create fairer selection methods. This ruling matters for workers because it shows that unions can be held accountable for discrimination just like employers. Apprenticeship programs are crucial pathways to good-paying skilled trades jobs, so fair access is essential. The case demonstrates that the EEOC will investigate and challenge discriminatory practices in union-controlled training programs. For workers seeking apprenticeships, this ruling reinforces that selection processes must be fair and cannot exclude people based on race, gender, or other protected characteristics. It also shows that courts prefer corrective solutions over punishment when discrimination is found.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.