Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

HAGANS v. BUDD CO.

September 29, 1984

CECIL M. HAGANS
v.
THE BUDD COMPANY



The opinion of the court was delivered by: SHAPIRO

 NORMA L. SHAPIRO, J.

 FINDINGS OF FACT

 1. Plaintiff, Cecil M. Hagans ("Plaintiff") is a black male citizen of the United States and is a resident of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania.

 2. Defendant, The Budd Company ("Budd") is a corporation doing business in Pennsylvania.

 3. Plaintiff was employed at Budd's Hunting Park facility from November 30, 1964, until his discharge on March 23, 1981.

 4. Plaintiff was a member of the bargaining unit represented by defendant, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, Local No. 813 ("Union") at all times material hereto.

 5. On March 23, 1981, as a result of plaintiff's bid for the position, he began working as a General Rigger under the direction of Supervisor Gary Mulqueeney ("Mulqueeney").

 6. Although plaintiff had worked as a rigger on previous occasions, he was unfamiliar with the rigger's job in the R-Building to which he was assigned.

 7. After bidding for the General Rigger position, Hagans successfully passed the required test involving the use of a twenty ton lift truck.

 8. After plaintiff successfully completed the test, Mulqueeney told plaintiff to meet him in the office.

 9. In the office, Mulqueeney gave plaintiff documents and instructed him to look at the runs on the board, and told plaintiff that he was going to the bathroom and would be right back.

 10. Plaintiff attempted to look at the runs in Mulqueeney's absence, but was unable to understand how to perform the job because he never had done so before.

 11. Plaintiff left the office during Mulqueeney's absence to look at the coded numbers on the board.

 12. Mulqueeney returned from the bathroom, found plaintiff out of the office, and asked him what he was doing. Plaintiff stated that he was not familiar with his assignment, and was not able to perform it.

 13. Plaintiff and Mulqueeney then began shouting at each other. At some point, plaintiff was told to "shut up" by Mulqueeney.

 14. Plaintiff then struck Mulqueeney in then face at least twice. Mulqueeney grabbed plaintiff between the waist and legs to avoid getting punched in the face. Mulqueeney grabbed plaintiff's shirt but never struck plaintiff.

 15. Plaintiff stopped striking Mulqueeney when he heard someone say, "He's got enough." Mulqueeney then slid to the floor.

 16. As a result of the blows inflicted by plaintiff, Mulqueeney was injured. He was bleeding from both nostrils, there was tenderness of the nose, abrasions, contusions and hematoma of the periorbital regions of both eyes. Mulqueeney also suffered a fracture of the orbit flow with herniation of the tissues into the orbit. There was also a tenderness of the forehead and both orbits. Mulqueeney received medical attention from Budd's physician, a local hospital, and an ophthalmic surgeon.

 17. Portions of the altercation were witnessed by an employee, James Werts ("Werts") who was operating machinery at the time. Werts continued performing his job during the altercation involving plaintiff and Mulqueeney.

 18. Plaintiff was recommended for discharge by Supervisor Mulqueeney for violating Budd Company Rules 5 and 14.

 19. Rule 5 provides that an employee who fights or commits any acts of violence on company property is subject to immediate discharge.

 20. Rule 14 provides that an employee who threatens, intimidates or interferes with fellow employees or supervisors is subject to progressive discipline, up to and including discharge.

 21. Representatives of the Union promptly investigated the incident between plaintiff and his supervisor.

 22. On the night of the altercation, a departmental mini-hearing was conducted pursuant to standard practices at Budd's Hunting Park facility. Plaintiff was represented by shop steward Crowley. Plaintiff did not raise the issue of race discrimination at the mini-hearing.

 23. On March 17, 1981, a Disciplinary Control Board ("DCB") hearing was held to consider the recommended discharge. Hagans was present and was represented by union officials; Supervisor Mulqueeney was also present. Both plaintiff and Mulqueeney testified concerning the incident.

 24. At the DCB hearing, Mulqueeney admitted shouting at plaintiff and telling him to shut up.

 25. At the DCB hearing, the Union stated that it had witnesses but did not ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.