$2.75 Million Ordered Paid to Minorities in Dockworker Case

A federal judge has approved a consent decree that requires shipping companies and the local longshore union to pay $2.75 million in damages and hire hundreds of minorities who failed an employment test deemed discriminatory.

In a 27-page decision released Friday, U.S. District Judge Dickran Tevrizian ruled in favor of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which has sought to end the use of a basic education test for people seeking apprentice dock work in the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach.

The exam has been administered by the International Longshore and Warehouse Union and the Pacific Maritime Assn., which represents about 100 shipping lines, stevedore companies and operators of cargo terminals on the West Coast.

Under the decree, as many as 2,200 minority applicants who failed the test since 1997 will get to reapply for apprentice, or so-called casual, longshore positions.

“Casuals” form a pool of part-time stevedores who take any overflow work from the union hiring hall. The entry-level position is the critical first step toward union membership and the chance to earn $100,000 a year or more.

“One of our goals is to remove obstacles for minority access to jobs, particularly when those obstacles are tests that don’t relate to the skills required,” said Dana Johnson, an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission trial attorney in Los Angeles. “We are very pleased with the decision.”

Government officials contend that the exam, which tests reading comprehension, grammar and basic math skills, is irrelevant to most longshore work. They also said a disproportionate number of Latinos, Asians and African Americans flunked the test, compared with whites.

The consent decree, signed by the union and maritime association, discontinues the groups’ use of the Test of Adult Basic Education, a standard exam given by many employers and government agencies around the country.

Minorities who failed the exam can reapply for the apprentice program in coming months. But they must complete their training and pass the remaining battery of written, driving and physical agility tests to be eligible for a share of the $2.75 million in damages, as well as credit for seniority toward entry into the union.

“This will provide a level playing field for all persons to go forward with the selection process,” said Dennis Gladwell, an attorney for the Pacific Maritime Assn. “There was a great dispute among the parties about the value, efficacy and legality of the test. The ILWU and PMA felt it was a good test and used it in good faith.”

Neither the union nor the maritime association admitted any wrongdoing in the consent decree.

The investigation into the basic education test began two years ago when Johnnie Howard, an African American applicant, filed a complaint.

The subsequent inquiry has angered many of the harbor’s apprentice dockworkers, including minorities, who passed the exam but now stand to lose their place in line toward union membership. Under the decree, some of the minority applicants may get more seniority than many casuals who have been on the docks for years.

“It’s bizarre. The government has tried to make us look like a white casual hall,” said Mike Patterson, 40, an apprentice dockworker from Long Beach. “It is not a white casual hall. Many casuals are Hispanic. There are blacks. Everyone down here knows the test was fair.”

There are about 3,500 casual dockworkers in the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, but only about 2,100 steadily appear at the hiring hall for work. Their advancement into the union, which can take years, is based on the number of hours they have on the job.

As the case unfolded late last year, many apprentices refused to work Dec. 20, paralyzing cargo operations in the harbor for almost a day. Hundreds of them drove to downtown Los Angeles to protest outside the agency’s offices.

“It’s a real problem and no solution has been given,” said Stanley R. Raskin, a Torrance attorney who is representing a group of current casuals. “I think a lot of people are going to be hit in the bread basket. As many as 1,000 people may never get into the union.”

Raskin filed motions asking Tevrizian to oppose the consent decree because it is unfair to hundreds of casuals who were left out of the negotiations.

In his ruling, Tevrizian said it appeared the commission was lowering requirements in favor of diversity. “On its face, this practice can be dangerous as it can be considered a quota system,” he wrote.

Nevertheless, Tevrizian concluded that the consent decree was reasonable and would not result in any “unusual adverse impact” on casual dockworkers.