CompFox AI Summary
Plaintiff Floyd E. Ward, a white male employee of Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., filed an action under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, alleging sex-based employment discrimination after his request for a job transfer was denied. Ward sought a 'light work' position, typically reserved for women or physically disabled men, which he claimed offered more money and alleviated back pain. The defendants, Firestone and two unions, argued that Ward would not receive the purported benefits and that reserving such jobs constituted a bona fide occupational qualification. The court found in favor of the defendants, concluding there was no factual basis for discrimination under the statutory provisions and that the job reservation fell under a specific exception in the Act. Consequently, the plaintiff was denied relief, but the defendants' application for attorneys' fees was also denied.
Ward v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. is a workers' compensation case decided in District Court, W.D. Tennessee. This case addresses legal issues related to compensation claims, benefits, and court rulings.
It is commonly referenced in legal research involving workers' compensation laws in District Court, W.D. Tennessee.
Full Decision Text1 Pages
Plaintiff Floyd E. Ward, a white male employee of Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., filed an action under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, alleging sex-based employment discrimination after his request for a job transfer was denied. Ward sought a 'light work' position, typically reserved for women or physically disabled men, which he claimed offered more money and alleviated back pain. The defendants, Firestone and two unions, argued that Ward would not receive the purported benefits and that reserving such jobs constituted a bona fide occupational qualification. The court found in favor of the defendants, concluding there was no factual basis for discrimination under the statutory provisions and that the job reservation fell under a specific exception in the Act. Consequently, the plaintiff was denied relief, but the defendants' application for attorneys' fees was also denied.
Read the full decision
Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.