Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit Rule 12(6)(b) Civil Action No. 74-1083
Van Dusen, Hunter and Garth, Circuit Judges.
Opinion ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Petitions for certiorari were filed by appellee Jersey Central, 44 U.S.L.W. 3253 (U.S. September 24, 1975), and by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), 44 U.S.L.W. 3111 (U.S. August 1, 1975) from the decision of this Court in Jersey Central Power & Light Co. v. Local 327, I.B.E.W., 508 F.2d 687 (3d Cir. 1975).
Jersey Central's petition was denied, 425 U.S. 998, 96 S. Ct. 2215, 48 L. Ed. 2d 823 (1976), but the Supreme Court granted certiorari on the EEOC's petition, and by summary disposition it vacated our judgment and remanded to this Court "for further consideration in light of Franks v. Bowman Transportation Co., Inc., 424 U.S. 747, 47 L. Ed. 2d 444, 96 S. Ct. 1251 (1976)." 425 U.S. 987, 96 S. Ct. 2196, 48 L. Ed. 2d 812 (1976). The order vacating judgment was received by this Court on June 24, 1976.
Thereafter, in July 1976, we ordered that all parties submit briefs "discussing the effect, if any, of Franks v. Bowman Transportation Co., Inc. on the issues and procedures presented in this proceeding, including the possible remand of this case by this Court to the District Court in light of Franks, supra." We have considered the following briefs subsequently filed with this Court:*fn1
(1) Brief for Appellant Unions;
(2) Brief for Defendants Office of Federal Contract Compliance and General Services Administration;
(3) Brief for Appellee EEOC on Remand;
(4) Brief of Jersey Central Power & Light Co., Appellee;
(5) Reply Brief for Appellant Unions;
(6) Reply Brief for Appellee EEOC on Remand; and
(7) Answering Brief of Jersey Central Power & Light Co., Appellee.
Having considered the Supreme Court order, its opinion in Franks v. Bowman, supra, the above briefs and the record, we conclude that parts I - III-A of our 1975 opinion are not inconsistent with the Franks decision.*fn2 Portions of the balance of our opinion, however, are not in full accord with Franks, which requires that those identifiable individuals who were deprived of job tenure because of Title VII proscribed discrimination must be afforded such "make-whole" relief as the District Court in its discretion deems necessary. In Franks, this mandated their being granted the seniority that would ...