University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name Barefield v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. EE-CA-0341
Docket / Court 3:86-cv-02427-TEH ( N.D. Cal. )
State/Territory California
Case Type(s) Equal Employment
Case Summary
Several Black and Hispanic employees filed this class action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against their employer, Chevron U.S.A., Inc. They brought this action on behalf of Black and Hispanic workers at the oil and gas production facilities in California's San ... read more >
Several Black and Hispanic employees filed this class action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against their employer, Chevron U.S.A., Inc. They brought this action on behalf of Black and Hispanic workers at the oil and gas production facilities in California's San Joaquin Valley. The complaint alleged that Chevron discriminated against the plaintiff class based on race and national origin with respect to compensation, training, job assignments, and promotion, in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA"), California Gov't Code § 12940 et seq.

On September 9, 1987, the District Court (Judge Thelton E. Henderson) certified the class. Barefield v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc., C 86-2427 TEH, 1987 WL 65054 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 1987). The Court also discussed the type of relief available to the class. Barefield v. Chevron, U.S.A., Inc., 12 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 1232 (N.D. Cal. 1988). The parties eventually reached a settlement agreement, and the Court approved a consent decree on June 24, 1991. The agreement, in which Chevron did not admit any liability, required the defendant to set promotion goals in good faith for various job categories to address work force imbalances.

In order to compensate the plaintiff class members, the consent decree asked Chevron to establish a fund in order to settle emotional distress claims for alleged loss of promotion opportunities or alleged hostile work environment harassment based on race or national origin. A Master would take those claims and hold hearings to determine each claimant's share of the fund. Additionally, the decree provided an opt-out option for individual class members to pursue individual claims against Chevron for incidents that occurred after May 21, 1983.

Three named plaintiffs subsequently opted-out as individual plaintiffs and filed their claims against Chevron. The case went to trial on August 8 - August 17, 1995, and April 23 - May 7, 1996. The parties filed their post-trial briefs on July 12, 1996. Judge Henderson filed a court opinion on January 2, 1997, and subsequently made the judgment with regard to those individual claims. The Court ruled in favor of two of the named plaintiffs on their claims and awarded them $192,000 and $176,000 respectively. Barefield v. Chevron U.S., Inc., C86-2427 TEH, 1997 WL 9888 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 2, 1997). The Court ruled in favor of the defendant Chevron on the other plaintiff's claim. That plaintiff appealed this ruling to the 9th Circuit Court, and the Circuit Court affirmed the lower court's ruling on August 12, 1998. Barefield v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 156 F.3d 1235 (9th Cir. 1998). This ended the case.

Emma Bao - 07/19/2013

compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Content of Injunction
Discrimination Prohibition
Utilize objective hiring/promotion criteria
Harassment / Hostile Work Environment
Other Conditions of Employment (including assignment, transfer, hours, working conditions, etc)
Pay / Benefits
National origin discrimination
Race discrimination
Disparate Impact
Disparate Treatment
National Origin/Ethnicity
Plaintiff Type
Private Plaintiff
Causes of Action 42 U.S.C. § 1981
State law
Title VII (including PDA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e
Defendant(s) Chevron U.S.A. Inc.
Plaintiff Description Black and Hispanic workers employed at Chevron U.S.A., Inc. oil production facilities in California's San Joaquin Valley alleging national origin and race discrimination of their employer.
Class action status sought Yes
Class action status outcome Granted
Filed Pro Se No
Prevailing Party Plaintiff
Public Int. Lawyer No
Nature of Relief Attorneys fees
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief Litigation
Form of Settlement Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Order Duration 1991 - n/a
Filed 05/12/1986
Case Ongoing No
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
  See this case at (May provide additional documents and, for active cases, real-time alerts)
Court Docket(s)
N.D. Cal.
EE-CA-0341-9000.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
N.D. Cal.
Opinion (1987 WL 65054)
EE-CA-0341-0001.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Source: Westlaw
N.D. Cal.
Order & Opinion (1988 WL 188433)
EE-CA-0341-0003.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Source: Westlaw
N.D. Cal.
Opinion [ECF# 505] (1997 WL 9888)
EE-CA-0341-0004.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Source: Westlaw
U.S. Court of Appeals
Opinion (156 F.3d 1235)
EE-CA-0341-0002.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Source: Westlaw
show all people docs
Judges Choy, Herbert Young Cho (Ninth Circuit) show/hide docs
Hamilton, Phyllis Jean (N.D. Cal.) show/hide docs
Henderson, Thelton Eugene (N.D. Cal.) show/hide docs
EE-CA-0341-0001 | EE-CA-0341-0003 | EE-CA-0341-0004 | EE-CA-0341-9000
Reinhardt, Stephen Roy (Ninth Circuit) show/hide docs
Thompson, David R. (Ninth Circuit) show/hide docs
Plaintiff's Lawyers Alcala, Carlos M. (California) show/hide docs
Nelson, Warren H. Jr. (California) show/hide docs
Defendant's Lawyers Alberti, William G (California) show/hide docs

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -