User

Background

From October $24,1960$ to January $1967,$ the plaintiff, Guerra, a Mexican citizen lawfully residing in Houston, Texas as a registered alien, worked for Manchester Terminal Corporation $($Terminal$).$ During this whole time Guerra maintained his family in Mexico. Although Guerra was transferred from his initial position in the Cotton Compress and Warehouse Department to a job on the Dock, he had always performed satisfactorily.

The employees of the Dock were represented by Local $1581,$ International Longshoreman's Association. The Dock workers were paid more than the employees of the Compress. Local $1581$ limited its membership to United States citizens and to those who had declared their intention to become citizens. Guerra was not a member of Local $1581$ although most of the members were Mexican$-$Americans or Mexican Nationals. As a result of contract negotiations during $1965,$ Terminal agreed to hire its employees through the union hiring hall and to give preference to United States citizens. In addition, the bargaining agreement extended hospitalization benefits to both the worker and his family for those employed on the Dock, but limited the benefits to the worker alone for those in Compress. The union membership then voted to establish a hiring hall referral system under which the more desirable jobs in Dock went first to United States citizens, then to Mexican citizens with families residing in the United States. Any job open thereafter would go to Mexican citizens who, like Guerra, kept their families in Mexico. In October $1966,$ Terminal transferred Guerra from Dock back to Compress.

The Company's Position

The company claims that this action was taken because of union insistence. In accordance with a mutually agreed contract clause Guerra was told that he could not have permanent employment in Dock until he either became a United States citizen or moved his family to the United States, and his place on the Dock had been taken by a Mexican$-$American with more seniority$.$ Furthermore, when he refused to follow the company and union demand he was bumped by a Mexican citizen with family living in the United States. Guerra continued to work in Compress until he voluntarily left Terminal's employ in $1967.$ This the company claims is a sign that this arrangement was satisfactory with Guerra.

Guerra's Position

Guerra alleged that his transfer back to the Compress because of his refusal to move his family to the United States discriminated against him and other Mexican Nationals on the basis of national origin in violation of rights secured by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of $1964$ and by the Civil Rights Act of $1866.$ Specifically, Guerra points out that he was forced to move to a job where the pay and benefits were less simply because of his national origin.

$1.$ Can these differences in benefits be established along job duties? Would your answer be the same if only members of one segment of a protective group were allowed to hold this job? Explain any difference you see.

$2.$ Was the company forced to move Guerra back to his original job?

$3.$ Did Guerra establish implied agreement when he accepted the transfer back to the Compress Department?

$4.$ Decide this case. Explain.