- 8 -
that title VII is the basis for the underlying claim. The nature
of petitioner's claim is the same as that articulated in the
complaint filed by the Kraszewski class representatives, which
alleged that State Farm had engaged in statewide discrimination
in the recruiting, hiring, and training of women for sales agent
trainee positions in violation of title VII. The plaintiffs
sought backpay and injunctive and declaratory relief. In
Kraszewski v. State Farm Gen. Ins. Co., 38 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas.
(BNA) 197 (N.D. Cal. 1985), the District Court ruled that State
Farm was liable under title VII to all members of the class who
had been discriminated against and ordered individual hearings.
Our decision is controlled by the Supreme Court's holding in
United States v. Burke, supra. In Burke, the Court considered
whether amounts received in settlement of a claim under title VII
of the CRA of 1964 were excludable under section 104(a)(2). The
Court analyzed title VII and concluded that it did not provide
for remedies to recompense claimants for tort type personal
injuries. Instead, as the Court noted, title VII limited the
available remedies to backpay, injunctions, and other equitable
relief.7 Id. at 238. As a result, the Court concluded that
7The Supreme Court also observed that some courts have
permitted tit. VII claimants under certain circumstances to
recover front pay or future lost earnings. United States v.
Burke, 504 U.S. 229, 239 n.9 (1992); see also Shore v. Federal
Express Corp., 777 F.2d 1155, 1158-1160 (6th Cir. 1985).
Petitioner's settlement proceeds in the instant case included a
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011