14 Fair empl.prac.cas. 1571, 13 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 11,593, 1 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 889 Virginia Cedeck v. Hamiltonian Federal Savings and Loan Association14 Fair empl.prac.cas. 1571, 13 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 11,593, 1 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 889 Virginia Cedeck v. Hamiltonian Federal Savings and Loan Association
Plaintiff-appellant Virginia Cedeck brought this action below against Hamiltonian Federal Savings and Loan Association (Hamiltonian), alleging sex discrimination in her failure to be promoted and in her discharge, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
Appellant Cedeck began her еmployment with Hamiltonian on September 8, 1969, as a teller at the Bissell Hills branch office. In the summer of 1971 Jack Murphy, the manager of the Bissell Hills branch office, was transferred to Hamiltonian‘s Ladue office. Donald Sextro was hired to replace Murphy and assumed the position as manager of the Bissell Hills branch office in September 1971. The following year, on November 8, 1972, Cedeck was discharged from her position with Hamiltonian.
Upon her discharge, Cedeck filed charges of sex discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on November 13, 1972. A right to sue letter was issued on August 8, 1975. Suit was then filed by Cedeck in district court on November 3, 1975.
The initial issue raised by appellant concerns the district court‘s holding that Cedeck‘s charge of sex discrimination in her failure to be promоted was not timely filed and therefore the court lacked jurisdiction. Section 2000e-5(e) of Title VII provides that a charge shall be filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission within 180 days after the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred.
In our view, however, Cedeck was challenging more than her failure to be prоmoted to a particular job at a particular time. She also alleged that defendant had failed to consider her for promotion and in this connection she testified that some time after Sextro was hired as the branch manager, she made an inquiry to him about the possibility of being named assistant manager. He replied that he would check into it but nothing else was said. In September of 1972, Hamiltonian hired at least one assistant branch manager. Thus, it would аppear that Cedeck was concerned not only with her failure to be promoted to the manager‘s position but also with her overall upwаrd mobility in the Hamiltonian organization. In this light, the alleged unlawful employment practice was a continuing one which did not terminate until at least September of 1972. See generally Olson v. Rembrandt Printing Co., 511 F.2d 1228, 1233-34 (8th Cir. 1975); Macklin v. Spector Freight Systems, Inc., 156 U.S.App.D.C. 69, 478 F.2d 979, 986-88 (1973); Richard v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 469 F.2d 1249, 1252-53 (8th Cir. 1972); Cox v. United States Gypsum Co., 409 F.2d 289, 290-91 (7th Cir. 1969). But see Gates v. Georgia-Pacific Corp., 492 F.2d 292, 294-95 (9th Cir. 1974); Moore v. Sunbeam Corp., 459 F.2d 811, 827-28 (7th Cir. 1972). It follows that the charge was timely filed and the court had jurisdiction.
The district court stated that “Assuming arguendo that jurisdiction exists over defendant‘s failure to promote plaintiff, the Court concludes that the failure to promote was not the result, in whole or in part, оf discrimination on the basis of sex.” Cedeck v. Hamiltonian Federal Savings and Loan Ass‘n, supra, 414 F.Supp. at 498. The court further found that “Title VII has not been violated as termination was not the result of sex discrimination.” Cedeck v. Hamiltonian Federal Savings and Loan Ass‘n, supra, 414 F.Supp. at 499. We cannot say these findings are clearly erroneous. The record reveals that not one of the existing employees (30 females and 15 males) was considered qualified for the prоmotion to manager of the Bissell Hills branch office. Further evidence was introduced by Hamiltonian concerning Cedeck‘s difficulties with the bank‘s computеr system, her fellow employees and her fair number of questionable absences. It is difficult, in view of this evidence, to conclude that the trial court‘s failure to find a violation of Title VII was clearly erroneous and we refuse to do so.
Finally, Cedeck argues that the district court erred in refusing to admit as evidence a certain statement made by branch manager Jack Murphy to Cedeck. While testifying on direct examination, Cedeck stated that she told Murphy she was interested in the job of branch manager. Murphy replied he would present Cedeck‘s request for promotion to those in charge. Cedeck‘s counsel then asked her what Murphy told her about the request for promotion several weeks later. Hamiltonian‘s counsel objected at this point on the grounds that whatever Murphy told Cedeck was hearsay and, in addition, Murphy was now deceased and unavailable for cross-examination. The distriсt court took the objection with the case and allowed Cedeck to reply to her counsel‘s question. Cedeck testified that Murphy told her, “Ginnie, I‘m sоrry, I was told that, ‘Yes, we know she‘s qualified but unless she‘s flat-chested and wears pants, there‘s no way.‘” In its memorandum the district court held that the statement was hearsay and inadmissible under
Appellant argues that Murphy‘s statement was admissible as an admission by party-opponent under
Hearsay included within hearsay is not excluded under the hearsay rule if eaсh part of the combined statements conforms with an exception to the hearsay rule provided in these rules.
We are satisfied from our review of the record that the trial court‘s finding and conclusion that Hamiltonian did not engage in sex discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (
Affirmed.