Eldredge v. Carpenters 46 Northern California Counties Joint Apprenticeship and Training Committee
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
662 F.2d 534 (1981), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 917 (1982)
- Written by Salina Kennedy, JD
Facts
The parties to the master collective-bargaining agreements for the construction industry in Northern California maintained and contributed to a trust fund. The Carpenters 46 Northern California Counties Joint Apprenticeship and Training Committee (JATC) (defendant), comprised of both labor and management representatives, served as board of trustees for the trust fund. JATC established and maintained educational and training programs for construction-industry apprentices and journeymen. The trust fund agreement authorized JATC to structure its training programs in any way it saw fit and to select the candidates for its programs. JATC chose to implement the “unrestricted hunting license” system, under which beginning apprentices were admitted to the training program only after they had been hired by an employer. Two women, Linda Eldredge and Christine Mazur (plaintiffs) sued, alleging that this system resulted in illegal sex discrimination. The district court ordered the joinder of the 4,500 employers and 60 union locals who were parties to the master collective-bargaining agreements, concluding that they were indispensable to the litigation. When joinder proved impossible, the district court dismissed the case. Eldredge and Mazur appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Fletcher, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 820,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 989 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
