General Telephone Company of the Northwest v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Brief Amicus Curiae
Public Court Documents
February 1, 1980
Cite this item
-
Brief Collection, LDF Court Filings. General Telephone Company of the Northwest v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Brief Amicus Curiae, 1980. 1b545516-b39a-ee11-be36-6045bdeb8873. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/02313a05-9b76-4df1-8b78-2bf3d93a959c/general-telephone-company-of-the-northwest-v-equal-employment-opportunity-commission-brief-amicus-curiae. Accessed June 01, 2025.
Copied!
In the
dlmtrt of tljp llnttTii States
October Term, 1979
No. 79-488
General T elephone Company of the
N orthwest, I nc ., et al.,
Petitioners,
E qual E mployment Opportunity Commission.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO TH E UNITED STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE N IN T H CIRCUIT
BRIEF OF THE N.A.A.C.P. LEGAL DEFENSE
AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC. AS
AMICUS CURIAE
H ans S mit
435 West 116th Street
New York, New York 10027
B arry L. Goldstein
806 15th Street, N.W.
Suite 940
Washington, D.C. 20005
J ack Greenberg
P atrick O. P atterson
•Judith R eed
Suite 2030
10 Columbus Circle
New York, New York 10019
Attorneys for Amicus Curiae
Index
T a b le o f A u t h o r i t i e s
I n t e r e s t o f Amicus . .
Q u e s t io n P r e s e n t e d . .
S t a t e m e n t o f t h e Case
Summary o f Argument .
i i i
1
2
4
6
Page
Argument
I . RULE 23, BY ITS CLEAR TERMS,
CANNOT BE APPLIED TO AN ACTION
BROUGHT BY THE EEOC UNDER
SECTION 706 OF TITLE VII
An A c t i o n Under S e c t i o n 706
Cannot Meet t h e B a s i c R e q u i r e
ments o f Rule 2 3 (a ) ............................... 9
The cEOC i s n o t a member o f t h e
c l a s s ..................................................... q
2. The EEOC's c l a i m i s no t t y p i c a l
o f t h e c l a i m s o f t h e c l a s s . . 11
3. The EEOC c a n n o t f a i r l y and
a d e q u a t e l y p r o t e c t the
i n t e r e s t s o f t h e c l a s s ............ 14
An A c t i o n Under S e c t i o n 706
W i l l , i n Many I n s t a n c e s , Not Be
Able To Meet A d d i t i o n a l R e q u i r e
ments Imposed by Rule 2 3 .................... i s
1
page
a c t i o n 706 A c t io n s
o Ru e 23 R e q u i re m e n t s Would
EEOr' Y " ? U n f a i r ^ Add to the EEOC s Burdens and Would
S u b s t a n t i a l l y Weaken E n f o r c e
ment o f T i t l e VII
20
I I . SECTION 706 OF TITLE VII DOES NOT
~ to complyDOw?thOT
D0ES NOT AMEND RULE
23 SO AS TO MAKE IT APPLICARI jr
TO ACTIONS BROUGHT BY THE EEOC
The P l a i n Text o f S e c t i o n 706
Gives t h e EEOC t h e R ig h t To
Br ing t h i s A c t i o n W i thou t Com
p l y i n g w i t h Ru le 23
706 £ ! “ U t i « o t S e c t i o n
, Conf irms Tha t t h e L e g i s
l a t u r e I n t e n d e d To Give t h e Com-
T o l Sl ° n - th e Right To Brin§ Section TO^Actions Without Complying with
H I . THE EEOC ACTION AUTHORIZED BY
ECTION 706 IS SUI GENERIS
Conclusion ..
23
23
26
34
45
i i -
i
T a b le o f A u t h o r i t i e s
Cases
A lb e m a r le Paper Co. v . Moody,
422 U.S. 405 (1975) ............................................ 2
In r e A n t h r a c i t e Coa l A n t i t r u s t
L i t i g a t i o n , 78 F .R .D. 709 (M.D.
Pa. 1978) .................................................................... 12
Ex p a r t e C o l l e t t , 337 U.S. 55 (1949) ............... 24
Coopers & Lybrand v . L i v e s a y , 437
U.S. 463 (1978) ...................................................... 42
Cox v . A l l i e d Chemica l C o r p . , 538
F .2d 1094 ( 5 t h C i r . 1976) , c e r t .
d e n i e d , 434 U.S. 1051 ( 1 9 7 8 T T T ..................... 37
Page
Doninger v . P a c i f i c N or th w e s t B e l l , I n c . ,
564 F . 2d 1304 ( 9 t h C i r . 1977) .................... 37
E a s t Texas Motor F r e i g h t Sys tem , I n c .
v. R o d r i g u e z , 431 U.S. 395 (1977) .......... 12
EEOC v . Akron N a t ' l Bank & T r u s t C o . ,
78 F.R .D. 684 (N.D. Ohio 1978) ................. 4 ,2 2
EEOC v . Avco New I d e a D i v . , 18 FEP
Cases 311 (N.D. Ohio 1978) ........................... 3
EEOC v . CTS o f A s h e v i l l e , I n c . , 13 FEP
Cases 852 (W.D.N.C. 1976) ............................. 3
EEOC v . C o n t i n e n t a l O i l C o . , 13 FEP
Cases 785 (D. Colo . 1975) , a f f ' d
on o t h e r g r o u n d s , 584 F .2d 884
( 1 0 th C i r . 1977) ............
- i i i -
4
Page
i
iI;
EEOC v . De laware T r u s t C o . , 81 F.R .D.
448 (D. Del . 1979) ....................
EEOC v . D. H. Holmes Co. ,
787 ( 5 t h C i r . 1977) ,
436 U.S. 962 (1978)
556 F .2d
c e r t , d e n i e d
EEOC v . F e d e r a l R ese rve Bank, 21 FEP
Cases 742 (S.D.N.Y 1979) .............
EEOC v . I n t e r n a t i o n a l T e l . and T e l . ,
C iv . No. 77-790 ( D .N . J . Mar.
16, 1978) ...................................................
EEOC v . L u t h e r a n H o s p i t a l , 10 FEP
Cases 1177 (E.D. Mo. 1974)
EEOC v . M id - C i ty Care C e n t e r , 20 EPD
1 30 ,275 (W.D. Tenn. 1979) ............
EEOC v . Mobil O i l C o r p . , 6 FEP
Cases 727 (W.D. Mo. 1973) ...............
EEOC v . O c c i d e n t a l L i f e I n s u r a n c e C o . ,
535 F .2d 533 ( 9 t h C i r . 1976) ,
aff j_d, 432 U.S. 355 ( 1977) ............
EEOC v . Page E n g i n e e r i n g C o . , 17 EPD
1 8603 (N.D. 111. 1978) ...................
EEOC v . P i n k e r t o n ' s I n c . , 14 FEP Cases
1431 (W.D. Pa. 1977) ...........................
EEOC v . Raymond Meta l P r o d s . C o . , 17
FEP Cases 206 (D. Md. 1978) ..........
EEOC v . Rexene Po lymers C o . , 10 FEP
Cases 61 (W.D. Tex. 1975) ................
4
3 , 1 0 , 1 1 ,
1 6 ,2 0 ,2 1 ,
22, 27, 36
3
3
3
3
3
16
4
3
3
3
- l v -
EEOC v . S c h l u e t e r Mfg. C o . , 17 FEP
Cases 53 (E.D, Mo. 1978) .................................. 3
EEOC v . S i n g e r C o n t r o l s C o . , 80 F .R .D.
76 (N.D. Ohio 1978) ............................................ 3
EEOC v . S t r o h Brewery , 19 EPD t 9226 (E.D.
Mich. 1979) ............................................................... 3
EEOC v . W es t inghouse E l e c . Corp. , N uc le a r
T u r b in e P l a n t , 81 F .R .D . 528
(M.D.N.C. 1979) ............................................ 3 , 6 , 1 3 , 1 9
EEOC v . W h i r lp o o l C o r p . , Loca l 808, 80
F.R .D. 10 (N.D. In d . 1978) ............................. 3 ,19
EEOC v . V i n n e l l - D r a v o - L o c k h e e d - M a n n ix ,
417 F. Supp. 575 (E.D. Wash.
1976) ............................................................................. 3
Fra n k s v . Bowman T r a n s p o r t a t i o n C o . ,
424 U.S. 747 (1976) ............................................ 2
G riggs v . Duke Power C o . , 401 U.S.
424 (1971) ................................................................. 2
H a n s b e r r y v . Lee, 311 U.S. 32 (1940) ___ 6 , 1 5 , 3 6
H u tc h in g s v . U n i t e d S t a t e s I n d u s t r i e s ,
I n c . , 428 F .2d 303 ( 5 t h C i r .
1970) ............................................................................. 16
I l l i n o i s ex r e l . Bowman v . Home F e d e r a l
Sav ings & Loan A s s o c i a t i o n , 521
F .2d 704 ( 7 t h C i r . 1975) ................................ 12
- v -
Page
Loca l 194, R e t a i l , W h o le s a le , and D e p a r t
ment S t o r e Union v. S t a n d a r d B rands ,
I n c . , C iv . No. 74-587 (N.D.
111. Dec. 6 , 1979) ............................................
O c c i d e n t a l L i f e I n s u r a n c e Co. v . EEOC
432 U.S. 355 (1977) ........................... ’ ...........
Packard Motor Car Co. v . NLRB, 330 U.S. 485
(1947) ..................................
3
16
24
P a r k l a n e H o s i e r y Co. v . Sho re , 439 U.S
322 (1979) ......................................................
S i l v e r v . New York S tock Exchange , 373
U.S. 341 (1963) ................................
38 ,44
25
Smith v . Board o f E d u c a t i o n , 365 F .2d
770 ( 8t h C i r . 1966) ...........................................
TVA v . H i l l , 437 U.S . 153 (1978) ........................
U n d e r g ra d u a t e S t u d e n t A s s o c i a t i o n v.
P e l t a s o n , 359 F. Supp. 320 (N.D.
111. 1973) ..............................................................
Uni ted S t a t e s v . A1 legheny-Lud lu m
I n d u s t r i e s , I n c . , 517 F .2d 826
( 5 t h C i r . 1975) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 425 U.S.
944 (1976) ............ 7 7 7 7 . .77. ' . ' .................
U n i t ed S t a t e s v . G e o r g ia Power C o . ,
474 F .2d 906 ( 5 t h C i r . 1973) ......................
U n i t ed S t a t e s v . Masonry C o n t r a c t o r s
A s s o c i a t i o n , 497 F . 2d 871 ( 6t h
C i r . 1974) ................................
- v i -
Page
U n i t ed S t a t e s v . Welden, 377 U.S. 95
(1964) ........................................................................... 25
W atk ins v . S c o t t Pape r C o . , 530 F .2d
1159 ( 5 t h C i r . ) , c e r t , d e n i e d ,
429 U.S . 861 (197*61 T......................................... 37
W i n f i e l d v . S t . Joe Paper C o . , 20 FEP
Cases 1103 (N.D. F l a . 1979) ........................ 17
S t a t u t e s and Rules
28 U .S .C . § 1292 (1976) .............................................. 5 ,42
N a t i o n a l Labor R e l a t i o n s A c t ,
29 U.S .C . §§ 159-160 (1976) ............ 3 9 ,4 0 ,4 1
F a i r Labor S t a n d a r d s A c t ,
29 U.S .C . § 216 (1976) .................................. 40 ,41
T i t l e VII o f t h e C i v i l R i g h t s Act
o f 1964, as amended by t h e Equa l
Employment O p p o r t u n i t y Act o f
1972, 42 U .S .C . § 2000e e t s e q .
(1976) ...................................................................... pa s s im
Rule 1, Fed. R. C iv . P ...................................................... 33
Rule 23, Fed . R. C iv . P ........................................... p a s s im
Rule 81, Fed . R. C iv . P ........................................... 39 ,41
- v i i -
Page
Ocher A u C h o r i t i e s
A d v i s o ry Commit tee Notes r e Proposed
Amendments t o Ru le s o f C i v i l P r o c e d u r e
39 F .R .D. 69 (1965) ............................................ 43
Bumpass, The A p p l i c a t i o n o f Rule 23 o f
t h e F e d e r a l Rules o f C i v i l P r o c e
d u r e t o A c t io n s Brought by t h e
Equa l Employment O p p o r t u n i t y ' Com
m i s s i o n , 29 Case West . Res. L.
Rev. 343 (1979) ..................................................... 4
Comment, C e r t i f i c a t i o n o f EEOC C l a s s S u i t s
Under Rule 23, 46 Univ . Ch i . L.
RevY T9 O' U'979) ................................................. 4
118 Cong. Rec. (1972) ......................................... 2 6 , 2 7 , 2 9 ,
30 ,31
James & H aza rd , C i v i l P r o c e d u r e
(2d ed . 1 9 7 / j ................. ' ....................................... 29
R e i t e r , The A p p l i c a t i o n o f Rule 23 to
EEOC S u i t s : An E x a m in a t io n o f
EEOC v . D.H. Holmes C o . , 28
Syr . L. Rev. 741 (1977) .................................. 4 , 3 0
S e n a te Comm, on Labor and P u b l i c
W e l f a r e , 92d C ong . , 2d S e s s . ,
L e g i s l a t i v e H i s t o r y o f t h e Equal
Employment O p p o r t u n i t y Act o f
1972 (1972) ................................................... 2 6 , 2 7 , 2 9 ,
30, 31
- v m -
IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
O c to b e r Term, 1979
No. 79-488
==================
GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY OF THE
NORTHWEST, INC., e t a l . ,
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION.
Pe t i t i o n e r s ,
v .
N in th C i r c u i t
AS AMICUS CURIAE
I n t e r e s t o f Amicus
The N.A.A.C.P .•P. Lega l Defense and E d u c a t i o n a l
a n o n - p r o f i t c o r p o r a t i o n e s t a b -
1 laws o f che S t a t e o f New York.
Fund, I n c . , i s a
l i s h e d u n d e r the 1
2
I t was founded to a s s i s t b l a c k p e r s o n s t o s e c u r e
t h e i r c o n s t i t u t i o n a l and s t a t u t o r y r i g h t s by
t h e p r o s e c u t i o n o f l a w s u i t s . I t s c h a r t e r d e c l a r e s
t h a t i t s p u r p o s e s i n c l u d e r e n d e r i n g l e g a l s e r v i c e s
g r a t u i t o u s l y t o b l a c k p e r s o n s s u f f e r i n g i n j u s t i c e
by r e a s o n o f r a c i a l d i s c r i m i n a t i o n . F o r many
y e a r s a t t o r n e y s of t h e L e ga l D e fe nse Fund have
r e p r e s e n t e d p a r t i e s i n l i t i g a t i o n b e f o r e t h i s
C ou r t and t h e low e r c o u r t s i n v o l v i n g a v a r i e t y o f
r a c e d i s c r i m i n a t i o n i s s u e s r e g a r d i n g employment .
See, e . g . , G r ig g s v. Duke Power Co. , 401 U.S. 424
( 1 9 7 1 ) ; A lb e m a r le Pa pe r Co. v . Moody, 422 U.S . 405
( 1 9 7 5 ) ; F ra n k s v . Bowman T r a n s p o r t a t i o n Co. , 424
U.S . 747 ( 1 9 7 6 ) . The Lega l D efense Fund b e l i e v e s
t h a t i t s e x p e r i e n c e i n such l i t i g a t i o n and th e
r e s e a r c h i t h a s p e r f o r m e d w i l l a s s i s t t h e Cour t i n
t h i s c a s e . The p a r t i e s h a v e c o n s e n t e d t o t h e
f i l i n g o f t h i s b r i e f and l e t t e r s o f c o n s e n t have
been f i l e d w i t h t h e C l e r k .
Q u e s t io n P r e s e n t e d
Whether S e c t i o n 7 0 6 ( f ) ( 1 ) and (g ) o f T i t l e
VII o f t h e C i v i l R i g h t s Act o f 1964, 42 U.S .C.
§ 2 0 0 0 e - 5 ( f ) ( 1 ) and (g) ( 1 9 7 6 ) , by p r o v i d i n g t h a t
t h e Equal Employment O p p o r t u n i t y Commission "may
b r i n g a c i v i l a c t i o n " s e e k i n g a d e c r e e o r d e r i n g
3
-'such a f f i r m a t i v e a c t i o n as may be a p p r o p r i a t e ,
. ^ l n c l u d e * - ' ^ c k p a y , " r e q u i r e s com -
P l a n c e w i t h t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f Rule 23, Fed. R.
ClV*. ^ 3111611413 t h i s so as t o make i t s
p r o v i s i o n s , t o t h e e x t e n t p o s s i b l e , a p p l i c a b l e to
such an a c t i o n . —
i . / The v iew t h a t p r e v a i l s in
a n e g a t i v e a n s w e r t o t h i s h COUrts S l v e s
F e d e r a l Rese rve Bant a i r ” ! u e s t l ° n - EEOC v .
T T T T T ,tEUd v . Hid’-CiJ./r! CaneS 742 (S-D-».Y.
’ 2°.275~ 0 . U a T iVA"- EEOC 20 EP°-
19 EPD. 1 9226 fE n , , EE0C v- Scroll B r e w e r y .
Nev Id e a Div v . Avoo
p g Z C o n t r o l s Co “ JOhio Fy/aj • EEOC v— tTT~ ’ • F,R*D- 76 Cn .d .
c i v - “ »• " 77 T T O I T J t l |n a l T~'
r m m : m r i . ’J F! p Cases 206 To t s t .
1A FEP Cases l i i , e r t l l n ,<
o f A s h e v i l l e Tn, M ; c P a * i y ">> tiEOC v . CTS
T T / b ) ; eeo c v V - , , Cases 85^ F O T f r r r
4 1 7 f * ~ r r ^ r ° L T Dr r Lo.e k h e e d ' M a n n i y -
Rexene Po lymers Co . , in v™ 3 * ‘ ‘ 1 * ,' .*>} EE0C v .
1 7 7 5 r ----r ’ FEP Cases 61 (W.TT. T e x
1177 ’ (F~ ~ Ho. x °, FEP ClS“
6 FEP Cases 727 (W.D. Mo~~['y / 3 ) ^ C° F F 1
C i r c u i t and a f ew d i s t r i c t - ^ che F i f t h
c i r c u i t s have g i v e n an a f f i <' o u r C s f rom o t h e r
^ D.H. Holmes Co. 556 F 2 d w l s t T ? * * ' 4 ! ° C
H L r ^ T F d 7 - T 3 6 U . S . 962 ( 1978 f " * , 19 7 7 7 7R e t a i i r W h o T e ^ i e . ( 1 9 7 8 ) ; L o c a l 1 9 4 .
s t a n d a r d "Brands 7777-----tt*— p a r t m e n t S t o r e Union v.
9 ^ r l ^ ; es t L ^ h f ^ 7^ 7^ ----— we s t m g h o u s e E l e c . Corn. ,
- 4 -
S t a t e m e n t o f t h e Case
The Equa l Employment O p p o r t u n i t y Commission
(EEOC) b r o u g h t t h i s a c t i o n u n d e r S e c t i o n 7 0 6 ( f ) ( 1 )
and (g ) o f T i t l e VII o f t h e C i v i l R i g h t s Act o f
1964, 42 U .S .C . § 2 0 0 0 e - 5 ( f ) (1) and (g) (1976 ) .
A l l e g i n g t h a t d e f e n d a n t s d i s c r i m i n a t e d a g a i n s t
women employees w i t h r e s p e c t t o a c c e s s t o c r a f t
j o b s , p r o m o t i o n t o m a n a g e r i a l p o s i t i o n s , a n d
m a t e r n i t y l e a v e , t h e EEOC's c o m p l a i n t p r a y s f o r
i n j u n c t i v e r e l i e f a n d b a c k pny f o r t h e i n d i
\J c o n t ' d .
81 F .R .D. 528 (M.D.N.C. 1979); EEOC v . Delaware
T r u s t Co. , 81 F .R .D . 448 (D. Del . 1979) ; EEOC v .
Page E n g i n e e r i n g C o . , 17 EPD 1 8603 (N.D. I l l *
1978) ; EEOC v. Akron N a t 11 Bank & T r u s t Co. , 78
F .R .D. 684 H O T Ohio 19 78); EEOC v. C o n t i n e n t a l
O i l C o . , 13 FEP Cases 785 (D. Co lo . 1975) , a f f ' d
on o t h e r g r o u n d s , 584 F • 2d 884 ( 1 0 t h C i r . 1977) .
The comm enta to rs a p p e a r d i v i d e d . Compare R e i t e r ,
T h e A p p l i c a t i o n o f R u l e 23 t o EEOC S u i t s : An
E x a m in a t io n of? EEOC v. D.H. Holmes Co. , Syr! !*•
r^T! 7Tl (19775 ( n e g a t i v e d w i t h Comment, C e r t -
i f i c a t i o n o f EEOC C l a s s S u i t s Under Rule 2 3 , 46
TJHTv!— C E T n Rev"! 6 90 U T 7 T T ; S E m p a s s , The
A p p l i c a t i o n o f R u l e 23 o f t h e F e d e r a l R u le s o f
C i v i l P r o c e d u r e t o A c t i o n s B r o u g h t by t h e Equal
Employment O p p o r t u n i t y Commiss ion , 29 Case West .
Res. L. Rev. 343 (1979) ( a f f i r m a t i v e ) .
- 5 -
v i d u a l s a f f e c t e d by t h e c h a l l e n g e d d i s c r i m i n a
t o r y p r a c t i c e s . These forms o f r e l i e f a r e s p e
c i f i c a l l y a u t h o r i z e d by S e c t i o n 706(g) o f T i t l e
VII .
The d i s t r i c t c o u r t r e f e r r e d th e a c t i o n to a
m a g i s t r a t e f o r t r i a l . On t h e same day , d e f e n d a n t s
moved " t o d i s m i s s t h e c l a s s a c t i o n a s p e c t s o f
p l a i n t i f f ' s c o m p l a i n t " on t h e g r o u n d t h a t t h e
Commission had f a i l e d t o move f o r c e r t i f i c a t i o n
a s a c l a s s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e p u r s u a n t t o R u le
23 w i t h i n t h e t i m e l i m i t s e t by a l o c a l r u l e
o f t h e W e s t e r n D i s t r i c t o f W a s h i n g t o n . The
m a g i s t r a t e found t h a t Rule 23 d id no t a p p ly t o the
a c t i o n b r o u g h t by t h e Commission and recommended
Chat t h e m o t io n be d e n i e d . The d i s t r i c t c o u r t
a d o p te d t h i s recom menda t ion .
An i n t e r l o c u t o r y a p p e a l from t h i s r u l i n g was
c e r t i f i e d i n a c c o r d a n c e w i th 28 U.S .C. § 1292(b)
( 1 9 7 6 ) . The c o u r t o f a p p e a l s a f f i r m e d . I t h e l d
Chat Rule 23, on i t s f a c e , c a n n o t be a p p l i e d t o an
a c t i o n b r o u g h t by t h e Commission and r u l e d t h a t
S e c t i o n 706 o f T i t l e VII does no t r e q u i r e p e r
formance o f t h e i m p o s s i b l e t a s k o f a p p l y i n g Rule
23 to an a c t i o n f o r which i t c l e a r l y had n o t been
- 6 -
w r i t t e n . The c o u r t o f a p p e a l s s t r e s s e d t h a t i t s
r u L in g would have t h e d e s i r a b l e c o n s e q u e n c e o f
a v o i d i n g " t h e i n e v i t a b l e c h a l l e n g e t o t h e EEOC as
a c l a s s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e " an d a " c e r t i f i c a t i o n
p r o c e s s [ t h a t ] would be t im e consuming and c o s t l y ,
and would s e r v e no u s e f u l p u r p o s e . . . . " EEOC v .
G e n e r a l T e lephone Co. , 599 F .2 d 322, 334 ( 9 t h C i r .
1979) .
Summary o f Argument
I
Rule 23, on i t s f a c e , c a n n o t b e a p p l i e d t o an
a c t i o n b r o u g h t by t h e EEOC u n d e r S e c t i o n 706 o f
T i t l e V I I . The EEOC can n e v e r meet t h e r e q u i r e
ments o f Rule 2 3 ( a ) ( 3 ) and ( 4 ) , s i n c e i t i s no t a
member of t h e c l a s s i t r e p r e s e n t s , s i n c e i t s c l a i m
i s no t t y p i c a l o f t h e c l a i m s o f t h e c l a s s , and
s i n c e i t c a n n o t so a d e q u a t e l y and f a i r l y r e p r e s e n t
t h e c l a s s as t o j u s t i f y b i n d i n g i t s members by
judgm e n t . H a n s b e r r y v. L e e , 311 U.S . 32 ( 1 9 4 0 ) .
I n a d d i t i o n , t h e EEOC w i l l i n many c a s e s not be
a b l e t o meet o t h e r r e q u i r e m e n t s o f Rule 23. See
EEOC v . W e s t i n g h o u s e E l e c t r i c C o r p . , N u c l e a r
T u r b i n e P l a n t , 81 F .R .D . 528 (M.D. N.C. 1979)(EEOC
h e l d t o f a i l t o meet commonal i ty and t y p i c a l i t y
r e q u i r e m e n t s ) .
7
I I
N e i t h e r t h e c l e a r , •c l e a r and p l a i n s t a t u t o r y l a n -
n W U $ i S U C i V e “ « ” *
t0 S e C t l ° " 706 ' h * - o p r o v i s i o n s t h a t a r e
7 0 6 d s dc C° ” a k a RUU ” S e c t i o n
f ^ d» P * ™ i t i n t e r p o l a t i o n
o r 3 P r o v i s i o n i n t o S e c t i o n 7nfi *. • •
EEOC nn , • r e q u i r i n g t h a t t h eC0„ p l y w i t h R u U 23j and t h e y do a o t ^
t e r p o l a n o n o f t h e amendment t o Rule 23 t h a t
he needed t o mahe i t a p p l i c a b l e t o S e o t i o ;
a c t i o n s . D i s t o r t i o n o f t h e p l a i n meaning and
l e g i s l a t i v e h i s t o r y o f S e c t i o n 70S t o r e a c h L s e
" s u i t s WOul< f r u s t r a t e t h e c l e a r l e g i s l a t i v e
Pu rpose o f g i v i n g t h e EEOC t h e r i g h t to s e e , c l a s s
r e i e m a c t i o n s which a r e d i f f e r e n t f rom, and
e o r e need not comply w i t h t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s
f o r , Rule 23 c l a s s a c t i o n s .
I l l
t h a t e C t l ° n 706 S r a n tS thS EE0C 3 r i§hC ° f a c t i ° n
706 t h 37 3n acCion - n d e r S e c t i o n
and * i t h e i n t e r e s t
‘ c e r t a i n m ea s u ra , t h e i n t e r e s t s o f t h e
v i c t i m s o f t h e d i s c r i m i n a t i o n a l l e g e d . While , i n
- 8 -
s e e k i n g t o o b t a i n a p p r o p r i a t e r e l i e f f o r t h e
v i c t i m s o f d i s c r i m i n a t i o n , t h e Commission a c t s as
t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f a c l a s s o f v i c t i m s , t h e
C om m iss ion 's a c t i o n i s no t a c l a s s a c t i o n i n t h e
s e n s e o f Rule 23. For t h e judgment r e n d e r e d i n
such an a c t i o n i s b i n d i n g o n l y upon t h o s e members
o f t h e c l a s s who i n t e r v e n e d i n t h e a c t i o n o r who
a c c e p t e d c o m p e n s a t i o n u n d e r t h e j u d g m e n t an d
k n o w i n g l y w a i v e d t h e i r i n d i v i d u a l r i g h t s o f
a c t i o n .
The a t t e m p t t o s u p e r i m p o s e , t o t h e e x t e n t
p o s s i b l e , t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f Rule 23 on an a c t i o n
u n d e r S e c t i o n 706 i s i n s p i r e d by t h e d e s i r e to
l i m i t s u b s t a n t i a l l y t h e a v a i l a b i l i t y o f such an
a c t i o n . I m p o s i t i o n o f such a l i m i t a t i o n would
f r u s t r a t e t h e l e g i s l a t i v e i n t e n t o f b r o a d e n i n g t h e
a v a i l a b i l i t y o f r e l i e f f r o m d i s c r i m i n a t i o n by
g i v i n g t h e EEOC i t s own r i g h t o f a c t i o n , i n
a d d i t i o n t o a l r e a d y a v a i l a b l e c l a s s a c t i o n s
u n d e r Rule 23 by p r i v a t e l i t i g a n t s .
j
i
jj
!
ji
\
9
Argument
I
RULE 23 gv tT<!
a p p l i e d TO AS a c t io Ls AU ERMS- ca n » ° t be
UNDER SECTION l 706COTFI ( > 3 Y THE EEOC
A.
« t i o . ^ : t ; . i aa 3 ° r t o q u a i i f y a s a —
s p e c i f i e d i a Rule ^ ^ ^ e m e n t s
u n d e r Se c t i o n 706 ^ ^ * « " ^EOC
re t3« i rem en ts c h i . ° f ^
3 p a r a g r a p h imposes .
F l r s c > t h e C o m m is s io n it r 7 i o n c a n n o t q u a l i f y
t o 1 - o r m ore members , f , , 7 “
sue o r be sued as r . ' (w h o J "lay
o f a l l " w i t h i n m P a r t i e s on b e h a l f
r . he w a n i n g o f Rule 23(a) ~
Commission has not been t h e • • ( * ^
d i s c r i m i n a t i o n and t h e r e f o r e ^ ^ a U e g e d
a c l a s s composed o f v i c t i m s ^ a member ° f
Of c o u r s e , S e c t i o n 706 g i v e s t h e C
l a n d i n g t o sue „ „ ren d er5 '
i n t e r e s t . But i t a 1 P a r t y i n
Commission a member H ^ U s ^ f ^
a member. i s no t
10
The F i f t h C i r c u i t i n EEOC v . D.H. Holmes Co. ,
556 F .2d 787 ( 1 9 7 7 ) , c e r t , d e n i e d , 436 U.S . 962
( 1 9 7 8 ) , d i s r e g a r d e d t h e c l e a r and u n a m b i g u o u s
la n g u a g e o f Rule 2 3 ( a ) by s t r e s s i n g t h a t Congress
c l e a r l y i n t e n d e d to g i v e t h e Commission t h e r i g h t
to r e c o v e r back pay f o r members o f t h e c l a s s and
t h e r e f o r e m us t h a v e i n t e n d e d t o a u t h o r i z e t h e
C o m m i s s i o n t o b r i n g a c l a s s a c t i o n u n d e r R u le
2 / The non s e q u i t u r i n the c o u r t ' s r e a s o n i n g
i s o b v i o u s : The c i r c u m s t a n c e t h a t C ong res s gave
t h e C o m m is s io n t h e r i g h t t o s u e o n b e h a l f o f
i n d i v i d u a l v i c t i m s o f d i s c r i m i n a t i o n by no means
w a r r a n t s t h e c o n c l u s i o n t h a t C ongress wished to
s u b j e c t t h e Commission to t h e c l a s s a c t i o n reg im en
o f Rule 23. On t h e c o n t r a r y , s i n c e t h e f a c i a l
i n a p p l i c a b i l i t y o f Rule 23 t o a S e c t i o n 706 a c t i o n
i s so o b v i o u s , t h e o n ly c o n c l u s i o n w a r r a n t e d i s
t h a t C ongress i n t e n d e d t o g iv e t h e Commission the
r i g h t to b r i n g an a c t i o n t h a t i s n o t a Rule 23
c l a s s a c t i o n , b u t a s t a t u t o r y a c t i o n s u i g e n e r i s .
2J The F i f t h C i r c u i t pu t i t t h u s :
The c r u x o f t h e m a t t e r i s t h i s : Having been
s e t up by l aw t o b r i n g c i v i l a c t i o n s on
b e h a l f o f p e r s o n s a l l e g e d l y d i s c r i m i n a t e d
a g a i n s t , EEOC h a s s t a n d i n g t o s u e , i s a r e a l
p a r t y i n i n t e r e s t , and , we h o l d , f o r p u rp o se s
o f R u l e 2 3 , i s a member o f t h e c l a s s . 556
F .2d a t 797.
11
The p r e c i s e n a t u r e o f t h i s a c t i o n and i t s a p t
accommodat ion o f t h e C o m m iss ion ' s p u b l i c i n t e r e s t
in c om ba t ing d i s c r i m i n a t i o n t o t h e i n t e r e s t s o f
t h e i n d i v i d u a l v i c t i m s o f d i s c r i m i n a t i o n w i l l be
d i s c u s s e d be low . I t s u f f i c e s t o s t r e s s h e r e t h a t
r e j e c t i o n o f t h e a p p l i c a b i l i t y o f R u l e 23 t o
S e c t i o n 706 a c t i o n s i s w h o l l y c o m p a t i b l e w i t h
r e c o g n i t i o n o f t h e C om m iss ion ' s r i g h t to b r i n g a
q u i t e d i f f e r e n t fo rm o f a c t i o n on b e h a l f o f a
g roup o f a f f e c t e d p e r s o n s .
2 ‘ The EEOC’s c l a i m i s no t t y p i c a l o f t h e c l a ims
o f t h e c l a s s . - . ,
Second, t h e Com m iss ion ' s c l a i m i s n o t " t y p i
c a l " o f t h e c l a i m s o f t h e c l a s s w i t h i n t h e
meaning o f Rule 2 3 ( a ) ( 3 ) . S in c e t h e Commission
has no c l a i m o f d i s c r i m i n a t i o n o f i t s own, i t s
c l a i m c a n n o t b e t y p i c a l o f t h e c l a i m s o f t h e
v i c t i m s o f d i s c r i m i n a t i o n . The F i f t h C i r c u i t , i n
EEOC v. D.H. Holmes C o . , s u p r a , c o m p l e t e l y d i s r e
g a rd e d t h i s r e q u i r e m e n t . I t i s c l e a r , how ever ,
t h a t i f Rule 23 i s t o be a p p l i e d t o a S e c t i o n 706
a c t i o n , t h i s r e q u i r e m e n t would have to be m et .
And s i n c e i t c a n n o t be m et , Rule 23 c o u ld be a p
p l i e d t o a S e c t i o n 706 a c t i o n o n l y i f S e c t i o n 706
c o u ld somehow be c o n s t r u e d as amending Rule 23.
12
The re i s no b a s i s f o r c o n c l u d i n g t h a t Rule 23
h a s b e e n amended sub s i l e n t i o so as t o make i t s
t y p i c a l i t y r e q u i r e m e n t i n a p p l i c a b l e t o EEOC
a c t i o n s under S e c t i o n 706. The f a c t i s t h a t t h e
C om m iss ion 's c l a i m i s n o t t y p i c a l o f t h e c l a i m s o f
i n d i v i d u a l members o f a c l a s s . And t h e Commis
s i o n s i n a b i l i t y t o m e e t t h e r e q u i r e m e n t o f
t y p i c a l i t y makes i t i m p o s s i b l e f o r t h e Commission
t o q u a l i f y as a member o f a c l a s s who can b ind
o t h e r members o f t h e c l a s s . As t h i s Cour t has
s t r e s s e d , t h e r e q u i r e m e n t o f t y p i c a l i t y i s imposed
i n o r d e r t o e n s u r e t h a t c l a s s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s
" p o s s e s s t h e same i n t e r e s t and s u f f e r t h e same
i n j u r y " as t h e c l a s s members . E a s t Texas Motor
F r e i g h t Sys tem, I n c , v . R o d r i g u e z , 431 U.S. 395,
403 (1 9 7 7 ) . Only i f t h a t r e q u i r e m e n t i s met , can
t h e r e be a r e a s o n a b l e a s s u r a n c e t h a t t h e r e p r e s e n
t a t i v e w i l l so a d e q u a t e l y r e p r e s e n t t h e c l a s s t h a t
i t c an p r o p e r l y b i n d i t s members .
The c o u r t s have t h e r e f o r e p r o p e r l y i n s i s t e d
on c o m p l ia n c e w i t h t h i s r e q u i r e m e n t i n a l l c a s e s
i n which a government agency ha s b r o u g h t a Rule
23 c l a s s a c t i o n . S e e , e . g . , I l l i n o i s e x r e l .
Bowman v . Home F e d e r a l Sa v in g s & Loan A s s o c i a t i o n ,
521 F . 2d 704 ( 7 t h C i r . 1975) ; In r e A n t h r a c i t e
- 13
Coal A n t i t r u s t L i t i g a t i o n . 78 F .R .D. 709, 717-18
(M.D. Pa. 1 9 7 8 ) I f EEOC a c t i o n s unde r S e c t i o n
706 w e r e t o b e b r o u g h t o n l y a s R u l e 23 c l a s s
a c t i o n s , t h e Commission would t h e r e f o r e have to
comply w i th the r e q u i r e m e n t o f t y p i c a l i t y . At
l e a s t one c o u r t h a s a l r e a d y r e a c h e d t h i s c o n c l u
s i o n and r e f u s e d to c e r t i f y a S e c t i o n 706 a c t i o n
a s a c l a s s a c t i o n due i n p a r t t o t h e C om m iss ion ' s
f a i l u r e t o meet t h e t y p i c a l i t y r e q u i r e m e n t . EEOC
v._ W e s t i n g h o u s e E l e c . C o r p . , N u c l e a r T u r b i n e
3 / The Commission i s t h e r e f o r e i n a p o s i t i o n
c h a t i s q u i t e d i f f e r e n t f rom t h a t o f t h e a s s o c i a
t i o n s t h a t were h e l d p r o p e r c l a s s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s
365 dFC?H107n7n SU7C7h7 %% -Smit_h v- Board E d u c a t i o n . 365 F . 2d 770, 777-78 TStK c i r . l % b ) , and Under
g r a d u a t e S t u d e n t A s s o c i a t i o n v . P e l t a s o n . 359 p
Supp. J 20, 323" IN. a. 111. 1 9 /31 . I h e a s s o c i a t i o n s
m t h o s e c a s e s h a d b e e n f o r m e d by i n d i v i d u a l
m em bers o f t h e c l a s s t o p r o m o t e t h e i n t e r e s t s
s ough t to be v i n d i c a t e d i n t h o s e c l a s s a c t i o n s .
In t h o s e c a s e s , i n d i v i d u a l members o f t h e c l a s s
a p p e a r e d as i n d i v i d u a l p a r t i e s p l a i n t i f f a l o n e
w i th t h e a s s o c i a t i o n . In a d d i t i o n , t h e c o n s e -
quence o f t h e r u l i n g was t o p e r m i t b r o a d e n e d c l a s s
r e l i e r t h a t would o t h e r w i s e n o t have been a v a i l
a b l e . The Commission i s , o f c o u r s e , n o t a v o l u n
t a r y a s s o c i a t i o n formed by members o f t h e c l a s s .
And i t needs no e x p a n s i v e r e a d i n g o f Rule 23 i n
o r d e r t o be a b l e t o b r i n g an a c t i o n on b e h a l f o f
Che v i c e im s o f d i s c r i n i i n s t i o n .
14
P l a n t , 81 F . R . D . 528 ( M .D .N .C . 1 9 7 9 ) . The
C om m iss ion 's i n a b i l i t y t o meet t h i s r e q u i r e m e n t
p r o v i d e s a d d i t i o n a l e v i d e n c e t h a t an EEOC a c t i o n
u n d e r S e c t i o n 706 i s n o t a Rule 23 c l a s s a c t i o n ,
b u t a d i f f e r e n t f o r m o f a c t i o n w h i c h d o e s n o t
r e s u l t in a judgment t h a t i s p r e c l u s i v e a g a i n s t
n o n - p a r t i c i p a t i n g members o f t h e c l a s s .
3 . The EEOC c a n n o t f a i r l y and a d e q u a t e l y p r o t e c t
t h e i n t e r e s t s o f t h e c l a s s .
T h i r d , t h e C o m m i s s i o n c a n n o t m e e t t h e r e
q u i r e m e n t o f Rule 2 3 ( a ) ( 4 ) t h a t i t " f a i r l y and
a d e q u a t e l y p r o t e c t t h e i n t e r e s t s o f t h e c l a s s . "
The i n s t a n t c a s e i s h i g h l y u n u s u a l . For i t i s t h e
Commission i t s e l f t h a t i s a s s e r t i n g t h a t i t c a n n o t
so f a i r l y and a d e q u a t e l y r e p r e s e n t t h e i n t e r e s t s
o f t h e c l a s s members as t o j u s t i f y t h e r e n d i t i o n
o f a judgment unde r Rule 23 t h a t would b i n d a l l
members o f t h e c l a s s . One may w e l l a sk why the
d e f e n d a n t s c a s t t h e m s e lv e s i n t o t h e u n u s u a l r o l e
o f a r g u i n g t h a t t h e c l a s s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e , who
d e n i e s t h a t i t can f a i r l y r e p r e s e n t t h e c l a s s , can
do s o . A f t e r a l l , i t i s n o r m a l ly t h e d e f e n d a n t
who c o n t e s t s t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f can b r i n g a c l a s s
a c t i o n . No d o u b t , d e f e n d a n t s e x p e c t t h a t , i f o n ly
15
i t can be e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t S e c t i o n 706 a c t i o n s
must meet t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f Rule 23, i t w i l l
become much e a s i e r t o d e f e a t s u c h a c t i o n s ,
by a r g u i n g i n i n d i v i d u a l c a s e s t h a t t h e Commis
s i o n h a s n o t met them.
Whatever t h e d e f e n d a n t s ' m o t i v a t i o n , i t i s
c l e a r t h a t a j u d i c i a l d e c i s i o n h o l d i n g , o v e r
t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s o b j e c t i o n , t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f so
a d e q u a t e l y r e p r e s e n t s t h e c l a s s t h a t i t can r e n d e r
a judgment b i n d i n g upon th e c l a s s , would r a i s e
s e r i o u s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l p r o b le m s . T h i s Cour t has
long h e l d t h a t members o f a c l a s s can be bound by
a judgment o n ly i f t h e i r r e p r e s e n t a t i v e r e p r e s e n t s
them f a i r l y and a d e q u a t e l y . H a n s b e r r y v. L e e , 311
U.S. 32 (1 9 4 0 ) . I t would be anomalous , i n d e e d , i f
t h i s C our t were to h o l d t h a t t h e c l a s s members a r e
bound, even though t h e i r r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s t r o n g l y
c o n t e s t s t h a t i t c a n so a d e q u a t e l y and f a i r l y
r e p r e s e n t them as to make i t c o m p a t i b l e w i t h due
p r o c e s s to b in d them.
F o r t u n a t e l y , t h e C our t need n o t a d d r e s s t h i s
q u e s t i o n . The Commission h a s i t s e l f r e c o g n i z e d
t h a t i t s " i n t e r e s t s t r a n s c e n d t h o s e o f t h e com
p l a i n a n t and may d i f f e r i n s i g n i f i c a n t w a y s . "
F o r a W r i t o f C e r t i o r a r i t o t h e U n i t ed
16
— C“ C o u r t o f A p p e a l s f o r e h . F i f t h c < r „ , <r in
H 2£ v - a Holmfls T nc . , O c tob e r ^
Supreme C our t o f t h e U n i t ed s t a t e , a t 10 . Se l
— V - ° - H - g s l a s i ^ c o . , - E l i , 556 F . 2d a t
AS h e ‘ d “ M ° C >• O c c i d e n t a l M f . -----------
Cf ’535 F ' M ” 3 ’ ’ « C9th C i r . 1976) , a f f d , 432
" : S - 355 ° 977>' “ OC i . c h a r g e d w i t h t h e
v i n d i c a t i o n o f p u b l i c p o l i c y , n o t m ere ly w i t h t h e
e n fo r c e m e n t o f p r i v a t e r i g h t s . "
In i t , e f f o r t , t o promote t h e p u b l i c p o l i c y
° e l l n l n a t l ” S d i s c r i m i n a t i o n , Che EEOC may w e l l
be 1 e s s t h a n i n s i s t e n t t h a t t h e employer g r a n t to
i n d i v i d u a l employees a l l b e n e f i t s t h a t t h e y l o s t
“ Che tSSUU ° £ d £ s c r i m i n a c i o n . A f t e r a l l , t h e
p r im a ry r o l e „ f t h e EEOC i s t o s e ek e l i m i n a t i o n
Of u n l a w fu l employment p r a c t i c e s , " H u tc h in g s v .
_ n i.t e d S t a t e s I n d u s t r i e , . Inc 428 F .2 d 303, 309
<5th C i r . 1970) , and the EEOC „ , y be p r e p a r e d to
a c t e f o r l e s s back pay chan may l e g a l l y be due
in exchange f o r a b ro ad p r o h i b i t i o n o f a l l e g e d
i s c r i m i n a t o r y p r a c t i c e s . In a d d i t i o n , t h e
Commission, a s t h i s C ou r t h a s n o t e d in O c c i d e n t a l
U f e I n s u r a n c e Co. „ r r o o Su p r a , 4 3 2 ~ U . S . a t
362, has a " b u r g e o n i n g w o r k l o a d , accompanied by
17
i n s u f f i c i e n t funds and a s h o r t a g e o f s t a f f , " and
may f i n d t h a t i t s l i m i t e d r e s o u r c e s a r e b e t t e r
a p p l i e d towards o b t a i n i n g c o m p re h e n s iv e p r o h i b i
t i o n s o f d i s c r i m i n a t o r y p r a c t i c e s t h a n t o v i g o r o u s
p u r s u i t o f i n d i v i u a l s ' c l a i m s f o r b a c k p a y .
The o p i n i o n i n W i n f i e l d v. S t . Joe Paper Co. ,
20 FEP Cases 1103 (N.D. F l a . 1979) , p r o v i d e s an
^ p t i l l u s t r a t i o n o f t h e C om m iss ion ' s p r a c t i c a l
p r e d i c a m e n t i n s e r v i n g t h e p u b l i c i n t e r e s t o f
e l i m i n a t i n g d i s c r i m i n a t o r y employment p r a c t i c e s
and p u r s u i n g a t t h e same t im e c l a i m s f o r back pay
o f i n d i v i d u a l e m p l o y e e s . I n t h a t c a s e , t h e
Commission n e g o t i a t e d a c o n c i l i a t i o n ag reement
p r o v i d i n g f o r c e r t a i n t y p e s o f a f f i r m a t i v e r e l i e f
f o r a g r o u p o f b l a c k e m p l o y e e s f o r p a y m e n t o f
s p e c i f i e d amounts o f back pay . An a gen t o f t h e
C o m m is s io n p e r s u a d e d t h e c o v e r e d e m p l o y e e s
t o a c c e p t t h e a g r e e m e n t a n d s i g n r e l e a s e s by
making such s t a t e m e n t s a s , "a b i r d i n t h e hand i s
wor th two i n t h e bush" and " t a k e i t o r l e a v e i t ,
[and] g e t your own l a w y e r . " 20 FEP Cases a t 1110.
The c o u r t h e l d t h a t t h e employees who s ig n e d t h e
r e l e a s e s had n o t knowing ly wa ived t h e i r r i g h t s to
t h e a d d i t i o n a l back pay to which th e y m igh t be
l e g a l l y e n t i t l e d .
18
. * EE0C' S > = *sa o f d i s c r i m i n a -
n an - P l o y m a n t „ i u n a c e s s a c i l y ^
a j i / d , l n d l ; i d “ a l * « « t u Pon g a t t i n g
dua . P ro p a r r e c o g n i t i o n o f c h a t J i f f e r e n c e
t h ! . c ° n c i “ , i M ^ c o ™ i s S i o „
c a n n o t c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y be . p r o p e r
c a t a v a an an a c t i o n t h a t „ o „ l d r e s u l t i n a .
» a n t b a n d in g upon i n d i v i d u a l em ployees .
B.
unde V ° ” 17 a " a C t i ° ” b r ° USht “ >• EEOC
UIlder Se“ “ " 706 « « « - « Cha t h r e e r e p u i r e -
“ “ S R“ l e (3 ) , „ d ( 4 ) . s „ch a „
caaon would , i n . , „ y i n s t a n c e s , no t be a b l e t o
23 a d d i t i o n a l r e q u i r e m e n t s im p o s e d by R u l e
a r e ^ t h e ViCtimS ° f th£ a l l e Sed d i s c r i m i n a t i o n
no t so numerous t h a t t h e i r j o i n d e r would be
i m p r a c t i c a b l e , t h e r e q u i r e m e n t o f Rule 2 3 ( a ) ( 1 )
- I d n o t b e m e t . M i s s a l o f a S e c t i o n 706
° n Che S r ° und t h a c che number o f employees
a f f e c t e d by t h e d i s c r i m i n a t i o n i s r e l a t i v e l y s m a l l
would be p a r t i c u l a r l y a nom alous . For i t WQuld
19
p e r m t t h e Commission t0 b r i n g o n ly
c a s e s i n which th e number o f employees a f f e c t e d i s
v e r y l a r g e and t h e l i t i g a t i o n h a r d e n o n t h e
Commission c o r r e s p o n d i n g l y h e a v y , w h i l e p r e c l u d i n g
t h e Commission from o b t a i n i n g i n j u n c t i v e r e l i e f
and b a c k p a y f o r a r e l a t i v e l y s m a l l n u m b e r o f
em p loyees . C l e a r l y , a r e s u l t so o b v i o u s l y a t odds
» i t h t h e l e g i s l a t i v e i n t e n t condemns i t s e l f As
t h e c o u r t s t a t e d i n EEOC v . W h i r lp o o l C o r n . . , . o o „
S0£, 80 F .R .D. 10, 19 (N.D. I n d . 1978):
l o l l e d 6 R“ U 23 rmmo r e q u i r e m e n t were
w h e r e e t h e t ° c l f " m i f S i ° ' ' a C t i o ” s ' i - c a s e s Che c l a s s o f a g g r i e v e d e m p l o y e e s i s
, s , ; l i f o r t h a t r e q u i r e m e n t t o b e “ e t
t h o s e d i s c r i m l n a t e e s w o u l d a s a p r a c t i c a l
m a t t e r o f t e n be l e f t w i t h o u t l e g a l ' r e c o u r s e -
A p p l i c a t i o n o f Rule 23 t o S e c t i o n 706 a c t i o n s
would a l s o p r e c l u d e such a c t i o n s i f t h e e m p l o y e r ' s
d i s c r i m i n a t o r y p r a c t i c e s d i f f e r e d in r e g a r d t0
i n d i v i d u a l employees and t h e i r r e s u l t i n g i n j u r i e s
d i f f e r e d c o r r e s p o n d i n g l y . po r i n such c a s e s , t h e
c o u r t migh t be u n a b l e t o f i n d t h a t Che employer
had a c t e d "on g rounds g e n e r a l l y a p p l i c a b l e t o the
c l a s s " w i t h i n t h e meaning o f Rule 2 3 ( b ) ( 2 ) . Here
a g a i n , t h e d e c i s i o n i n EEOC v , W e s t i n y h o , , . .
- 20
E l e c . C o r p . , N u c l e a r T u r b i n e P l a n t . s u p r a ,
i s m o s t i n s t r u c t i v e . In t h i s c a s e , t h e c o u r t
f i r s t r e j e c t e d , on t h e a u t h o r i t y o f Holmes , t h e
EEOC's c o n t e n t i o n t h a t i t s S e c t i o n 706 a c t i o n was
n o t s u b j e c t t o Rule 23, and t h e c o u r t t h e n r e f u s e d
to c e r t i f y t h e a c t i o n as a c l a s s a c t i o n u n d e r Rule
23 i n p a r t b e c a u s e o f t h e EEOC's f a i l u r e t o meet
t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f Rule 2 3 ( b ) ( 2 ) . The d e c i s i o n
p r o v i d e s a g r a p h i c i l l u s t r a t i o n o f t h e u n d u e
b e n e f i t s em p loye rs w i l l s e e k to draw from a p p l i c a
t i o n o f Rule 23 t o S e c t i o n 706 a c t i o n s .
C . S u b j e c t i ng S e c t i o n 706 A c t i o n s r ,
R u l e 23 R e q u i r e m e n t s Would Grea t l y an~
U n f a i r l y Add t o t h e EhUC 1 s Bur d~ens ~ T ^
rr'ildi.iSu°v!!antialIy Weaken Enforceme ~̂
As d e m o n s t r a t e d , t h e p l a i n language o f Rul,
23 makes c l e a r i t s i n a p p l i c a b i l i t y t o EEOC a c t io n *
u n d e r S e c t i o n 706 . M o r e o v e r , any a t t e m p t tc
d i s t o r t and e v i s c e r a t e Rule 23 so as t o r e n d e r i t
a p p l i c a b l e to S e c t i o n 706 a c t i o n s would burden
such a c t i o n s w i th p r o c e d u r a l r e q u i r e m e n t s t h a t
make no s e n s e . V i r t u a l l y a l l t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f
Rule 23 t h a t a S e c t i o n 706 a c t i o n c o u ld n e v e r , o r
i n f r e q u e n t l y , meet a r e b a s e d on t h e n o t i o n t h a t
21
a d e q u a t e , a l t h o u g h o f t e n m o s t b u r d e n s o m e ,
p r o c e d u r a l r e q u i r e m e n t s m u s t b e met b e f o r e an
a c t i o n can be p e r m i t t e d to go fo rw ard t h a t i s to
r e s u l t i n a j u d g m e n t b i n d i n g u p o n t h e p e r s o n s
r e p r e s e n t e d . But s i n c e a S e c t i o n 706 a c t i o n w i l l
n o t r e s u l t m such a ju d g m e n t , t h e r e i s no need to
impose t h e s e r e q u i r e m e n t s . These would m ere ly
r e n d e r S e c t i o n 706 a c t i o n s more complex, t i m e - c o n
suming, and e x p e n s i v e w i t h o u t p r o d u c i n g a judgment
b i n d i n g on t h e c l a s s .
The i n a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s o f t r y i n g to a p p ly Rule
23 t o EEOC a c t i o n s unde r S e c t i o n 706 i s h i g h l i g h t
ed by t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e t h a t t h e q u i t e s i m i l a r
p a t t e r n o r p r a c t i c e a c t i o n u n d e r S e c t i o n 707 has
n e v e r b e e n r u l e d s u b j e c t to Rule 23 r e q u i r e m e n t s .
Even t h e F i f t h C i r c u i t , i n Holmes , h e l d t h a t Rule
23 d id no t a p p ly t o S e c t i o n 707 a c t i o n s . 556 F .2d
a t 792, n . 8 . However, i f , as t h e c o u r t s have u n
a n im ous ly r u l e d , a S e c t i o n 707 a c t i o n i s no t s u b
j e c t t o Rule 23, an a c t i o n u nde r S e c t i o n 706 s h o u ld
e q u a l l y n o t b e s u b j e c t t o t h a t R u l e . I n b o t h
t y p e s o f a c t i o n s , t h e Commission s u e s on b e h a l f o f
employees who a r e v i c t i m s o f d i s c r i m i n a t i o n and,
i n bo th t y p e s o f a c t i o n s , t h e Commission may s e e k
b a c k pay and o t h e r r e l i e f on b e h a l f o f s u c h
- 22
e m p l o y e e s . S e c t i o n s 7 0 6 ( g ) an d 7 0 7 ( e ) ( l a s t
s e n t e n c e ) o f T i t l e VII, 42 U .S .C . §§ 2 0 0 0 e - 5 ( g ) ,
2 0 0 0 e - 6 ( e ) (1 9 7 6 ) .
No c o u r t t h a t has h e l d Rule 23 a p p l i c a b l e tc
S e c t i o n 706 a c t i o n s h a s s a t i s f a c t o r i l y e x p l a i n e c
how such a r u l i n g can be r e c o n c i l e d w i th t h e o f t e r
s i m u l t a n e o u s l y e x p r e s s e d and i n d u b i t a b l y c o r r e c t
view t h a t Rule 23 does n o t a p p ly Co S e c t i o n 707
a c t i o n s . The i n c o n g r u i t y o f t h e v iew t h a t Rule 23
does a p p ly t o S e c t i o n 706 a c t i o n s i s d r a m a t i c a l l y
i l l u s t r a t e d by EEOC v. Akron N a t . Bank & T r , „ r
C o . , 78 F .R .D. 684 (N.D. Ohio 1978) . I n t h i s c a s e ,
Che c o u r t f e l t c o m p e l l e d t o f o l l o w t h e F i f t h
C i r c u i t ' s r u l i n g i n Holmes t h a t Rule 23 a p p l i e d t o
a S e c t i o n 706 a c t i o n , b u t a l s o f e l t co m p e l l e d t o
h o l d , on s u b s t a n t i a l l y t h e g ro u n d s advanced h e r e ,
Chat t h e Commission c o u l d n e v e r meet t h e r e q u i r e
m e n t s o f R u l e 23 . S e e k i n g t o e s c a p e f r o m so
i n c o n g r u o u s a r e s u l t , t h e c o u r t t h e n p e r m i t t e d t h e
C o m m is s io n t o amend i t s c o m p l a i n t t o a l l e g e a
c l a i m u nde r S e c t i o n 707, i n which the Commission
c o u ld s e e k e x a c t l y t h e same r e l i e f , i n c l u d i n g back
P a y , w h i c h i t h a d s o u g h t i n t h e S e c t i o n 706
a c t i o n .
23
The c o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n t h a t b a c k pay was
r e c o v e r a b l e i n a S e c t i o n 707 a c t i o n i s s q u a r e l y
s u p p o r t e d by S e c t i o n 707(e) (which p r o v i d e s t h a t
such an a c t i o n s h a l l be c o n d u c te d as p r o v id e d in
S e c t i o n 706) , by t h e S i x t h C i r c u i t ' s d e c i s i o n in
U n i t e d S t a t e s v . Masonry C o n t r a c t o r s A s s o c i a t i o n ,
497 F . 2d 871 ( 6 t h C i r . 1974) , and by th e F i f t h
C i r c u i t ' s own d e c i s i o n in U n i t e d S t a t e s v . G e o r g ia
Power Co. , 474 F .2d 906 ( 5 t h C i r . 1973) . And th e
c o u r t ' s e v i d e n t r e l i e f t h a t i t c o u ld p e r m i t t h e
Commission t o s e ek t h e same re m e d ie s f o r a f f e c t e d
i n d i v i d u a l s u n d e r S e c t i o n 707 w i t h o u t b e i n g
h a m s t rung by Rule 23 t e s t i f i e s t o t h e i m p r o p r i e t y
o f i m p o s i n g t h e i n a p p r o p r i a t e and b u r d e n s o m e
r e q u i r e m e n t s o f R u l e 23 on EEOC a c t i o n s u n d e r
S e c t i o n 706.
I I
SECTION 706 OF TITLE V I I DOES NOT REQUIRE
THE EEOC TO COMPLY WITH RULE 23 AND DOES NOT
AMEND RULE 23 SO AS TO MAKE IT APPLICABLE TO
ACTIONS BROUGHT BY THE EEOC.
A’ The P l a i n T e x t o f S e c t i o n 706 G i v e s
j h e _ E E 0 C t h e R i g h t To B r i n g T h i s*
A c t i o n Without Complying With Rule 23 .
S e c t i o n 7 0 6 ' s l angua ge i s p l a i n and c l e a r .
I t g i v e s the Commission, i n e x p l i c i t and u n q u a l i
f i e d t e r m s , t h e r i g h t " t o b r i n g a c i v i l a c t i o n "
- 24
s e e k i n g an o r d e r d i r e c t i n g " s u c h a f f i r m a t i v e
a c t i o n a s may b e a p p r o p r i a t e , w h i c h may i n
c l u d e . . . . b a c k p a y . " S e c t i o n 7 0 6 ( f ) , (g) o f T i t l e
V I I , 42 U .S .C . § 2 0 0 0 e - 5 ( f ) , (g ) ( 1 9 7 6 ) . Defen
d a n t s s e e k t o r e l y on s t a t e m e n t s made by S e n a t o r s
J a v i t s and W i l l i a m s , i n an a t t e m p t t o p e r s u a d e t h i s
Cour t t o d i s r e g a r d S e c t i o n 7 0 6 ' s p l a i n l a n g u a g e .
Th i s e f f o r t c a n n o t s u c c e e d . As t h i s C our t n o t e d
i n TVA v . H i l l , 437 U.S . 153, 184 n . 2 9 (1 9 7 8 ) :
When c o n f r o n t e d w i t h a s t a t u t e which i s p l a i n
and unambiguous on i t s f a c e , we o r d i n a r i l y
do no t look t o l e g i s l a t i v e h i s t o r y a s a gu id e
t o i t s m ean ing . Ex p a r t e C o l l e t t , 337 U.S .
55, 61 (1 9 4 9 ) , and c a s e s c i t e d t h e r e i n . Here
i t i s no t n e c e s s a r y t o look beyond t h e words
o f t h e s t a t u t e . . . .
To th e same e f f e c t , s ee P a c k a rd Motor Car Co. v .
NLRB, 330 U.S. 485 , 492 (1947) ("We a r e i n v i t e d t o
make a l e n g t h y e x a m i n a t i o n of views e x p r e s s e d in
C o n g r e s s . . . .T h e re i s , ho w e v e r , no a m b i g u i t y i n
t h i s Act t o be c l a r i f i e d by r e s o r t t o l e g i s l a t i v e
h i s t o r y . . . . " ) .
M oreover , t h e l e g i s l a t i v e h i s t o r y o f S e c t i o n
706 i s w h o l l y c o m p a t i b l e w i t h t h i s s e c t i o n ' s
p l a i n m ean ing . D e f e n d a n t s s e e k t o pu t a c o n s t r u c
t i o n upon th e l e g i s l a t i v e h i s t o r y i n an e f f o r t t o
change t h e p l a i n and c l e a r l a n g u a g e o f S e c t i o n
706 i n two c r u c i a l r e s p e c t s : F i r s t , t h e y u rge
- 25
t h a t Che l e g i s l a t i v e h i s t o r y r e q u i r e s r e a d i n g i n t o
S e c t i o n 706 an amendm en t t o R u l e 23 t h a t c a n
nowhere be found i n t h e c l e a r s t a t u t o r y l a n g u a g e ;
and s e c o n d , t h e y u r g e t h a t t h e l e g i s l a t i v e h i s t o r y
r e q u i r e s r e a d i n g i n t o S e c t i o n 706 l i m i t a t i o n s
upon t h e u n q u a l i f i e d r i g h t o f a c t i o n g iv e n t o the
C o m m is s io n t h a t c a n n o t p o s s i b l y b e f o u n d i n
S e c t i o n 7 0 6 ' s c l e a r l a n g u a g e .
The l e g i s l a t i v e h i s t o r y c a n n o t a c c o m p l i s h
t h i s l e g e r d e m a i n . The a t t e m p t t o r e w r i t e t h e
c l e a r t e x t o f S e c t i o n 706 by r e l i a n c e upon l e g i s
l a t i v e h i s t o r y t h a t , a t b e s t , i s h i g h l y ambiguous ,
and , i f p r o p e r l y r e a d , s u p p o r t s t h e p l a i n meaning
o f S e c t i o n 7 0 6 , s h o u l d be r e j e c t e d . Such an
a t t e m p t s e e k s t o c u r t a i l d r a s t i c a l l y t h e powers o f
t h e EEOC t o v i n d i c a t e t h e p u b l i c i n t e r e s t i n
e r a d i c a t i n g d i s c r i m i n a t i o n . T h e s e p o w e r s t h e
l e g i s l a t u r e c l e a r l y s o u g h t t o e n l a r g e , n o t t o
c u r t a i l .
As d e f e n d a n t s have t h e m s e lv e s s t r e s s e d ( P e t i
t i o n e r s ’ B r i e f , p. 8 ) , "amendments by i m p l i c a t i o n
a r e not f a v o r e d . U n i t e d S t a t e s v . w„ id»n 377
U.S. 95, 84 S . C t . 1082, 12 L.Ed . 2d 152 ( 1 9 6 4 ) ;
Si l v e r v . New York S tock Ex c h a n g e . 373 U.S. 341,
83 S . C t . 1246, 10 L.Ed . 2d 389 ( 1 9 6 3 ) . " Defen
- 26
d a n t s seek, t o p e r s u a d e t h i s C ou r t t o r u l e n o t o n ly
t h a t S e c t i o n 706 amends by i m p l i c a t i o n Rule 23,
b u t a l s o t h a t t h e l e g i s l a t i v e h i s t o r y amends by
i m p l i c a t i o n S e c t i o n 706 i t s e l f . As t h e y them
s e l v e s r e c o g n i z e , t h i s a t t e m p t a t dou b le amendment
by i m p l i c a t i o n i s n o t " f a v o r e d . " I n d e e d , i t
m a n i f e s t l y v i o l a t e s t h e c l e a r l e g i s l a t i v e i n t e n t .
B. The L e g i s l a t i v e H i s t o r y o f S e c t i o n 706
Confi rms Tha t t h e L e g i s l a t u r e I n t e n d e d
To G iv e t h e C o m m is s i o n t h e R i g h t To
B r ing S e c t i o n 706 A c t io n s W ithou t Com
p l y i n g w i th Rule 23 .
Defendants have argued that statements made
by Senator Javits during the Senate debates on the
1972 amendments to Title VII support their view
that the legislature intended Section 706 actions
to be subject to Rule 23. The statements to which
they refer appear in 118 Cong. 4 0 8 1 - 8 2
(1 9 7 2 ) , reprinted in Senate Comm,, on Labor and
Public Welfare, 92d Cong., 2d Sess., Legislative
History of the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of
1972, p. 1589-90 (1 9 7 2 ) .
These statements do not refer to Section 706
actions at all. On the contrary, Senator Javits
made these statements in regard to Section 707
actions. Not only are these actions not at issue
here, but all courts that have passed on the ques-
- 27
t i o n , i n c l u d i n g t h e F i f t h C i r c u i t i n Holmes , have
r u l e d t h a t t h e s e s t a t e m e n t s do no t j u s t i f y r e a d i n g
i n t o S e c t i o n 707 what d e f e n d a n t s a rg u e s h o u l d be
r e a d i n t o S e c t i o n 706. S p e c i f i c a l l y , t h e s e c o u r t s
have r e f u s e d to r e a d S e c t i o n 707 as somehow making
Rule 23 a p p l i c a b l e to S e c t i o n 707 a c t i o n s ( s e e
P* 21 s u p r a ) . That b e i n g s o , i t i s h a rd t o u n d e r
s t a n d how S e n a t o r J a v i t s ' s t a t e m e n t s , which c o u l d
n o t change t h e c l e a r t e x t o f S e c t i o n 707 i n r e g a r d
t o which th e y were made, c o u l d change t h e c l e a r
t e x t o f S e c t i o n 706 in r e g a r d to which t h e y were
no t made.
I n any e v e n t , S e n a t o r J a v i t s 1 s t a t e m e n t s
c a n n o t j u s t i f y c h a n g in g th e c l e a r t e x t s o f S e c t i o n
706 and R u l e 23 i n t h e m a n n e r e s p o u s e d by t h e
d e f e n d a n t s . The f i r s t p a r t o f S e n a t o r J a v i t s 1
s t a t e m e n t r e a d s as f o l l o w s :
These [ i . e . , S e c t i o n 707 a c t i o n s ] a r e
e s s e n t i a l l y c l a s s a c t i o n s , and i f t h e y
TTTeT] t h e EEOC] can sue f o r an i n d i v i d u a l
c l a i m a n t , t h e n th e y can sue f o r a g roup o f
c l a i m a n t s [em phas is and m a t t e r i n b r a c k e t s
s u p p l i e d ] . 118 C o n g . R e c . 4081 ( 1 9 7 2 ) ,
r e p r i n t e d i n L e g i s l a t i v e H i s t o r y o f t h e
E q u a l Em ploym en t O D p o r t u n i t y Act o f 1972 .
p . 1587. -------------------------------------
Of c o u r s e , e ven i f t h i s s t a t e m e n t had been made
i n r e g a r d t o S e c t i o n 706 a c t i o n s , i t c o u l d
n o t be c o n s t r u e d a s i n t e n d i n g t o e x p r e s s t h e
- 28
l e g i s l a t i v e i n t e n t t h a t t h e a c t i o n s t o w h i c h
i t a d d r e s s e d i t s e l f were to be gove rned by Rule
23 . A l l S e n a t o r J a v i t s s t a t e d was t h a t t h e
a c t i o n s o f which he spoke were e s s e n t i a l l y c l a s s
a c t i o n s . T h i s s t a t e m e n t i s w h o l l y a c c u r a t e :
S e c t i o n 707 as w e l l as S e c t i o n 706 a c t i o n s a r e in
t h e i r e s s e n c e c l a s s a c t i o n s , f o r t h e y a r e a c t i o n s
b r o u g h t by a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e on b e h a l f o f a c l a s s .
But t h i s i n no way means t h a t th e y a r e c l a s s
a c t i o n s i n t h e s e n s e o f Rule 23. They s h a r e t h e
e s s e n t i a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f Rule 23 c l a s s a c t i o n s
i n t h a t t h e y a r e a c t i o n s b r o u g h t on b e h a l f o f a
c l a s s , b u t d i f f e r f rom Rule 23 c l a s s a c t i o n s in
t h a t t h e y c a n n o t comply w i t h t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r
t h e b r i n g i n g o f such a c t i o n s and t h e r e f o r e r e s u l t
m judgm en ts d i f f e r e n t f rom t h o s e r e n d e r e d i n such
a c t i o n s .
D e f e n d a n t s i n c o r r e c t l y assume t h a t t h e on ly
c l a s s a c t i o n s t h a t can e x i s t a r e c l a s s a c t i o n s o f
t h e k i n d s d e a l t w i t h i n Ru le 23. Former Rule 23,
as c o n s t r u e d by t h e c o u r t s , r e c o g n i z e d t h e s o -
c a l l e d s p u r i o u s c l a s s a c t i o n , which was e s s e n
t i a l l y a p e r m i s s i v e j o i n d e r d e v i c e and l e d t o a
judgment b i n d i n g o n l y on members o f t h e c l a s s who
- 29
had i n t e r v e n e d i n the a c t i o n W rr . „ action. See James & Hazard.
-jvil Procedure, § 10.l8 (2d ed> 197?)
of class ac t i o n is no 7 ’ ’ * Cypen « no longer part of Rule 23 as
Z T B u c a S e c t i o n 706
e; c i s a w *“ ‘ - - ■ > c *i e o h , Puri0US ; U l
IC differs from it i„ that the C • •rather rh= C th CoiBmission
" tl,in 4 "e"b" °f I-. class bri„gs £he
a C t l ° n ' but if resembles it in that the • _
r r d i n £t b u d s - — ■ ~
r r ™ - ” “ h° cd e i r
Z and kn° ” i n 8 l y " * i - d any a d d i -
e n ” 7 h t a " i 8 h t ^ v e . A c c o r d i n g
fo 7 t S t a C e M n C “ “ * “ * « 7° 7 ' “ dror that m a t t e r Sect i o n 7n*thp Cr, 9 actions brought byrhe Commission are essenciallv c... .... ?. ■ ----i. CJ-3 ss actions isentirely accurate.
s e n a t o r d a v i t s c o n t i n o e d in h i s s t a t e m e n t „ i t h
d s o d s s i o n o f c l a s s a c t i o n s , i „ e f f o r t to
“ l a r i z e h i s c o l l e a g u e s w i th the i n s t i t u t i o n :
IC S e e m s c ° m e t h a t t h i s fi *
“ &TSJZ s‘h*
by s u i t . And i f . t " " 18” 0" c>n o” 1? P roceed
oan P r o c e e d - V c u s " s Cu? tdS V f ” ” Ie
L c« ? ; » t £t' “ eis Din th a o ^ : - ;
does i / P.tht” „ £ practice"” its°£
30
I have referred Co Che rules of civil
procedure, I now refer specifically Co rule
23 of Chose rules, which is encicled "Class
AcCions" and which give Che opporCunicy Co
engage in Che Federal CourC in class acCions
by properly suing parcies: We ourselves
have given permission Co Che EEOC to be a
properly suing parCy.
118 Cong. Rec. 4081-82 (1972), reprinCed in Legis-
lacive HisCory of Che Equal EmploymenC OpporCunicy
Ace of 1972, p. 1589-90.
On Cheir face, Chese sCaCemenCs are wholly in
accord wich SenaCor JaviCs' earlier scaCemenC ChaC
SecCion 707 acCions are essenCially class acCions.
All SenaCor JaviCs did was indicaCe addicionally
whaC kinds of acCions class acCions were, ChaC Che
basic nocion of class acCions was a familiar one,
recognized in Che Federal Rules of Civil Proce
dure, and ChaC SecCion 707 acCions were essen
Cially of Che same Cype. BuC nowhere did SenaCor
JaviCs say ChaC Section 707 acCions were Co be
subject to, and would have to meet the require
ments of, Rule 23. To the same effect, see
Reiter, The Application of Rule 23 to EEOC Suits:
An Examination of EEOC v. D.H. Holmes Co., 28
Syr. L. Rev. 741, 753, n.72 (1977).
- 31
On t h e c o n t r a r y , w h a t S e n a t o r J a v i t s d i d
s t a t e e x p l i c i t l y i s t h a t " i f i t [ i . e . , t h e Com
m i s s i o n ] p r o c e e d s by s u i t , t h e n i t can p r o c e e d
by c l a s s s u i t . " He t h u s p u t beyond doubt t h a t
t h e C o m m i s s i o n , i f i t d e c i d e d t o s u e , w o u l d
h a v e t o m e e t no a d d i t i o n a l r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r
b r i n g i n g a c l a s s a c t i o n . He added t h a t , i f t h e
Commission " p r o c e e d s by c l a s s s u i t , i t i s i n t h e
p o s i t i o n o f d o i n g e x a c t l y what t h e Depar tm ent o f
J u s t i c e d o e s i n p a t t e r n and p r a c t i c e s u i t s . "
At t h e t im e S e n a t o r J a v i t s made t h i s s t a t e
m e n t , t h e A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l h a d n e v e r b e e n r e
q u i r e d to s a t i s f y Rule 23 i n p a t t e r n and p r a c t i c e
s u i t s . And , i n f a c t , no c o u r t h a s e v e r h e l d
e i t h e r t h e A t t o r n e y G e ne ra l o r t h e EEOC t o t h e
r e q u i r e m e n t s o f Rule 23 i n such a c t i o n s . C l e a r l y ,
t h e r e f o r e , S e n a t o r J a v i t s ' s t a t e m e n t e x p l i c i t l y
c o n f i r m s t h a t , i f t h e Commission p r o c e e d s by c l a s s
s u i t , i t need no t meet the r e q u i r e m e n t s o f Rule
23.
O t h e r l e g i s l a t i v e h i s t o r y r e l i e d on by
d e f e n d a n t s a p p e a r s i n t h e s e c t i o n - b y - s e c t i o n
a n a l y s i s p r o v i d e d by S e n a t o r W i l l i a m s . 118 Cong.
R e c . 4 9 4 2 ( 1 9 7 2 ) , L e g i s l a t i v e H i s t o r y o f t h e
E q u a l O p p o r t u n i t y A c t o f 1 9 7 2 , p . 1173. We
32 -
subm i t t h a t t h e f o l l o w i n g s t a t e m e n t by S e n a t o r
W i l l i a m s c o n f i r m s t h a t Rule 23 does no t a p p l y t o
S e c t i o n 706 a c t i o n s :
In e s t a b l i s h i n g t h e e n fo rc e m e n t p r o v i s i o n s
u n d e r t h i s s u b s e c t i o n and s u b s e c t i o n 7 0 6 ( f )
g e n e r a l l y , i t i s n o t i n t e n d e d t h a t any o f
t h e p r o v i s i o n s c o n t a i n e d t h e r e i n a r e d e
s i g n e d t o a f f e c t t h e p r e s e n t u s e o f c l a s s
a c t i o n l a w s u i t s u n d e r T i t l e VII i n c o n j u n c
t i o n w i t h R u l e 23 o f t h e F e d e r a l R u l e s o f
C i v i l P r o c e d u r e .
T h i s s t a t e m e n t s t r e s s e s t h a t a c t i o n s by t h e
Commission do no t in any way a f f e c t c l a s s a c t i o n s
b r o u g h t u n d e r Rule 23 by p r i v a t e l i t i g a n t s . I t
was i m p o r t a n t f o r S e n a t o r W i l l i a m s t o s t r e s s t h i s ,
f o r i t d i s p e l l e d t h e n o t i o n t h a t a c t i o n s b r o u g h t
by th e Commission would d i s p l a c e Rule 23 c l a s s
a c t i o n s by p r i v a t e l i t i g a n t s . As S e n a t o r W i l l i a m s
n o t e d , " t h e l e a d i n g c a s e s i n t h i s a r e a t o d a t e
have r e c o g n i z e d t h a t T i t l e VII c l a i m s a r e n e c e s -
s a r i l y c l a s s a c t i o n c o m p l a i n t s . "
T h e r e f o r e , w h i l e S e n a t o r W i l l i a m s ' s t a t e m e n t
p r o v i d e s no s u p p o r t w h a t s o e v e r f o r t h e c o n t e n t i o n
t h a t t h e l e g i s l a t u r e i n t e n d e d Rule 23 t o a p p ly t o
S e c t i o n 706 a c t i o n s by t h e Commission, i t does
s u p p o r t t h e view advanced h e r e t h a t a c t i o n s by th e
Commission unde r S e c t i o n 706 a r e a d d i t i o n a l t o ,
- 33
and d i f f e r e n t f rom, a c t i o n s b r o u g h t by p r i v a t e
l i t i g a n t s u n d e r Rule 23.
D e f e n d a n t s have a l s o made r e f e r e n c e t o o t h e r
l e g i s l a t i v e h i s t o r y m a t e r i a l s i n d i c a t i n g t h a t
C o n g r e s s i n t e n d e d t h e F e d e r a l R u l e s o f C i v i l
P r o c e d u r e t o a p p l y t o S e c t i o n 706 a c t i o n s .
Of c o u r s e , no one d e n i e s t h a t t h e s e r u l e s a p p ly t o
c i v i l a c t i o n s b r o u g h t by t h e Commission. Rule
1 e x p l i c i t l y so p r o v i d e s . But t h i s does n o t mean
t h a t r u l e s on t h e i r f a c e i n a p p l i c a b l e , s u c h
as Rule 23, app ly t o EEOC a c t i o n s under S e c t i o n
706.
T h u s , t h e l e g i s l a t i v e h i s t o r y , a l t h o u g h
s c a n t , s u p p o r t s t h e view t h a t t h e Commission, i n
b r i n g i n g S e c t i o n 706 a c t i o n s , need no t comply w i th
Rule 23. P l a i n meaning and l e g i s l a t i v e h i s t o r y
t h e r e f o r e p e r m i t o n l y one c o n c l u s i o n . As S e n a t o r
J a v i t s p u t i t : " [ I ] f i t [ i . e . , t h e Commission]
p r o c e e d s by s u i t , i t can p r o c e e d by c l a s s s u i t . "
- 34 -
I I I
THE EEOC ACTION AUTHORIZED BY SECTION 706 IS
SUI GENERIS.
The f a i l u r e Co r e c o g n i z e Chat Rule 23 c l a s s
a c t i o n s a r e n o t t h e o n l y k i n d s o f a c t i o n s on
b e h a l f o f a c l a s s , and t h a t S e c t i o n 706 a u t h o r i z e s
t h e EEOC t o b r i n g a s p e c i a l and d i f f e r e n t k in d o f
a c t i o n , ha s been a r o o t prob lem. Even t h e N in th
C i r c u i t i n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e , a l t h o u g h p r o p e r l y
h o l d i n g t h a t t h e Commission need no t comply w i th
23 i n b r i n g i n g a S e c t i o n 706 a c t i o n , a p p e a r s
t o a s s u m e t h a t S e c t i o n 706 d i s p e n s e s w i t h t h e
r e q u i r e m e n t o f c l a s s c e r t i f i c a t i o n , b u t t h a t
" o t h e r p r o c e d u r e s o f Ru le 23 . . . a r e a v a i l a b l e to
t h e c o u r t s i n an EEOC a c t i o n . " 599 F . 2d a t 333.
The f a c t i s , how ever , t h a t t h e l e g i s l a t u r e has
c r e a t e d a v a r i a n t o f c l a s s a c t i o n t h a t i s n o t
gove rned by Rule 23 f o r t h e s im p le r e a s o n t h a t
Rule 23 was n o t w r i t t e n f o r t h a t type o f c l a s s
a c t i o n and c a n n o t p r o p e r l y be a p p l i e d t o i t .
When th e l e g i s l a t u r e d e c i d e d t o a u t h o r i z e the
EEOC t o b r i n g an a c t i o n on b e h a l f o f i n d i v i d u a l
em p lo y e es , i t d e p a r t e d from an e s s e n t i a l c h a r
a c t e r i s t i c of t h e Rule 23 c l a s s a c t i o n , f o r i t
- 35
a u t h o r i z e d a g o v e r n m e n t a g e n c y , r a t h e r t h a n
an i n d i v i d u a l c l a i m a n t who was a member o f t h e
c l a s s , t o b r i n g t h e a c t i o n . T h i s d e p a r t u r e had
s i g n i f i c a n t c o n s e q u e n c e s . S i n c e t h e Commission i s
n o t a member o f t h e c l a s s and h a s no c l a i m o f
d i s c r i m i n a t i o n o f i t s own, i t i s w h o l ly d i f f e r e n t
f rom th e t y p i c a l c l a s s a c t i o n p l a i n t i f f i n a Rule
23 a c t i o n . S p e c i f i c i a l l y , i t c a n n o t m e e t t h e
r e q u i r e m e n t s o f R u l e 2 3 ( a ) ( 3 ) a n d ( 4 ) , w h i c h
s e ek to i n s u r e t h a t the p l a i n t i f f ' s i n t e r e s t in
t h e r e l i e f s o u g h t b e t h e same as t h a t o f t h e
members o f t h e c l a s s i t r e p r e s e n t s and t h a t , as a
r e s u l t , t h e p l a i n t i f f can a d e q u a t e l y r e p r e s e n t ,
and t h e r e f o r e c a n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y b i n d , t h e
members o f t h e c l a s s . However, s i n c e by d e f i n i
t i o n the C om m iss ion ' s i n t e r e s t c a n n o t be t h e same
as t h a t o f t h e members o f t h e c l a s s i t r e p r e s e n t s ,
i t c a n n o t so a d e q u a t e l y r e p r e s e n t them t h a t i t can
c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y b i n d them. C o n s e q u e n t l y , t h e
Commission c a n n o t b r i n g a Rule 23 a c t i o n whose
p u r p o s e i t i s t o p r o d u c e a j u d g m e n t b i n d i n g
upon the c l a s s . I n s t e a d , i t can b r i n g on ly an
a c t i o n on b e h a l f o f a c l a s s t h a t i s no t b i n d i n g
upon a l l members o f t h e c l a s s .
- 36
The C o m m is s io n h a s i t s e l f c o n s i s t e n t l y
r e c o g n i z e d t h a t i t c a n n o t so a d e q u a t e l y r e p r e s e n t
t h e c l a s s as t o b in d i t by judgm en t . I t s b r i e f in
t h e i n s t a n t c a s e and i t s p e t i t i o n f o r c e r t i o r a r i
i n t h e Holmes c a s e a r e s q u a r e l y b a s e d on i t s
c o n f e s s e d i n a b i l i t y f a i r l y and a d e q u a t e l y t o
r e p r e s e n t t h e c l a s s w i t h i n t h e mean ing of Rule
23. T h i s c r u c i a l and commendable a d m i s s i o n by
t h e C o m m i s s i o n r e n d e r s i t i m p o s s i b l e f o r t h e
Commission , c o m p a t i b l y w i t h t h e due p r o c e s s c l a u s e
o f t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n , t o b i n d t h e c l a s s . H a n s b e r ry
v . L e e , s u p r a .
Of c o u r s e , t h i s c i r c u m s t a n c e by no m eans
d e p r i v e s S e c t i o n 706 a c t i o n s by t h e Commission of
t h e i r u t i l i t y . On t h e c o n t r a r y , such a c t i o n s a r e
an e x t r e m e l y u s e f u l and e f f i c a c i o u s d e v i c e t h a t
m o s t a p t l y r e c o n c i l e s t h e p u b l i c i n t e r e s t i n
e r a d i c a t i n g d i s c r i m i n a t i o n w i t h t h e p r i v a t e
i n t e r e s t s o f i n d i v i d u a l employees i n o b t a i n i n g
t h e b e n e f i t s t h a t a r e t h e i r due .
I t w i l l n o r m a l l y b e t h e C o m m i s s i o n t h a t
p u r s u e s b o t h t h e p u b l i c i n t e r e s t and t h e i n t e r e s t s
o f i n d i v i d u a l employees by b r i n g i n g a S e c t i o n 706
o r 707 a c t i o n . Once t h e Commission ha s b ro u g h t
37
such an a c t i o n , p e r s o n s a g g r i e v e d may i n t e r v e n e
( S e c t i o n 7 0 6 ( f ) ( 1 ) , 42 U .S .C . § 2000e-5 ( f ) ( 1 )
( 1 9 7 6 ) ) , b u t may n o t b r i n g t h e i r own a c t i o n . Of
c o u r s e , when i n d i v i d u a l s i n t e r v e n e , t h e y w i l l be
bound by t h e judgm en t . A f f e c t e d employees who do
no t i n t e r v e n e may s t i l l a c c e p t t h e judgment and
back pay awarded and waive t h e r i g h t s t h e y may
h a v e . And when th e y do s o , t h e employer i s bound
by t h e judgment t o pay them t h e i r due u n d e r i t .
Th i s i s l i k e l y t o o c c u r i n t h e v a s t m a j o r i t y o f
c a s e s .
However , i f t h e members o f t h e c l a s s do n o t
a c c e p t t h e judgm en t , t h e y may p u r s u e t h e i r r i g h t s
i n p r i v a t e a c t i o n s . D on inge r v . P a c i f i c Nor t h
w es t B e l l , I n c . , 564 F .2d 1304 ( 9 t h C i r . 1977) ;
U n i t e d S t a t e s v , A 1 l e g h e n y - L u d l u m I n d u s t r i e s ,
i £ C . , 517 F .2d 826 ( 5 t h C i r . 1975) , c e r t , d e n i e d ,
425 U . S . 944 ( 1 9 7 6 ) . S e e a l s o Cox v . A l l i e d
C h e m i c a l C o r p . , 538 F . 2 d 1 0 9 4 , 1 0 9 7 - 9 8 ( 5 t h
C i r . 1976) , c e r t , d e n i e d , 434 U.S . 1051 ( 1 9 7 8 ) ;
Watkins v . S c o t t P a pe r Co. , 530 F .2d 1159, 1172-
73 ( 5 t h C i r . 1976) , c e r t , d e n i e d , 429 U.S . 861
(1976) ( h o l d i n g employees bound by a c o n c i l i a t i o n
a g r e e m e n t n e g o t i a t e d by t h e EEOC o n l y i f t h e y
a c c e p t e d b e n e f i t s t h e r e u n d e r and knowing ly waived
- 38
t h e i r i n d i v i d u a l r i g h t s ) . Even i n such a c t i o n s
u n d e r S e c t i o n 706, t h e judgment o b t a i n e d by th e
EEOC w i l l p r o v i d e t h e i n d i v i d u a l employees w i t h a
s u b s t a n t i a l b e n e f i t . For i n such a c t i o n s t h e y may
p l e a d t h e judgment o b t a i n e d by t h e EEOC, i n s o f a r
as t h a t judgment found th e employer l i a b l e f o r
f o r b i d d e n d i s c r i m i n a t i o n i n employment , as p r e c l u
s i v e on t h a t i s s u e . T h i s o f f e n s i v e u se o f the
d o c t r i n e o f c o l l a t e r a l e s t o p p e l i s a p p r o p r i a t e
u n d e r t h e h o l d i n g i n P a r k l a n e H o i s e r y Co. v .
S h o re , 439 U.S. 322 ( 1 9 7 9 ) , and i t g i v e s maximum
e f f e c t t o t h e j u d g m e n t o b t a i n e d by t h e EEOC,
f u r t h e r i n g t h e p o l i c y o f e f f e c t i v e l y c om ba t ing
d i s c r i m i n a t i o n i n employment .
The t y p e o f a c t i o n which S e c t i o n 706 a u t h o r
i z e s t h e Commission t o b r i n g i s t h e r e f o r e a most
f e l i c i t o u s l y c o n s t r u c t e d p r o c e d u r a l i n s t i t u t i o n ,
which does e x a c t l y what t h e l e g i s l a t u r e wanted
i t t o do . I t p e r m i t s t h e EEOC t o p r o c e e d a g a i n s t
p r o h i b i t e d employment p r a c t i c e s , b o t h on b e h a l f o f
t h e common weal and on b e h a l f o f i n d i v i d u a l em
p l o y e e s , by s e e k i n g r e l i e f t h a t i s as e f f e c t i v e
as i t p o s s i b l y c a n be w i t h o u t u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y
d e p r i v i n g i n d i v i d u a l e m p l o y e e s o f r i g h t s t h e y
m ig h t wish to a s s e r t i n d i v i d u a l l y .
- 39
T h i s t y p e o f a c t i o n by a f e d e r a l agency on
b e h a l f o f a c l a s s i s so i d e a l l y s u i t e d f o r i t s
p u r p o s e s t h a t C o n g r e s s h a s u s e d i t o f t e n . A
number o f s t a t u t e s g i v e such a g e n c i e s t h e r i g h t
t o s e e k j u d i c i a l r e l i e f , i n c l u d i n g p e c u n i a r y
r e l i e f , on b e h a l f o f i n d i v i d u a l c l a i m a n t s .
I n d e e d , t h e N a t i o n a l Labor R e l a t i o n s Act g i v e s
t h e NLRB t h e r i g h t to s e ek j u d i c i a l e n fo r c e m e n t o f
an o r d e r d i r e c t i n g an e m p l o y e r " t o t a k e s u c h
a f f i r m a t i v e a c t i o n i n c l u d i n g . . . back pay" as may
be a p p r o p r i a t e . NLRA § 1 0 ( c ) , ( e ) , 29 U . S . C .
§ 1 6 0 ( c ) , ( e ) (1 9 7 6 ) . Most s i g n i f i c a n t l y , i t does
so by u s i n g t h e same l a n g u a g e t h a t a p p e a r s i n S e c
t i o n 706 ( g ) o f T i t l e V I I . No one , o f c o u r s e , ha s
e v e r t h o u g h t o f s e e k i n g to compel t h e NLRB t o com
p ly w i t h Rule 23 when i t s e e k s r e l i e f on b e h a l f o f
i n d i v i d u a l e m p l o y e e s . - The u s e o f t h e same
4 / ̂ The Equa l Employment A d v i s o ry C ounc i l s t a t e s
i n i t s amicus b r i e f (p . 12, n. 19) t h a t Rule 81,
Fed . R. C iv . P . , e x p r e s s l y exempts p r o c e e d i n g s to
e n f o r c e o r d e r s o f t h e NLRB, i n c l u d i n g back pay
o r d e r s , f rom a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e F e d e r a l Rules o f
C i v i l P r o c e d u r e . T h i s s im p ly i s no t t r u e . Rule
8 1 ( a ) ( 5 ) p r o v i d e s t h a t " t h e p r a c t i c e i n t h e d i s
t r i c t c o u r t s [ i n p r o c e e d i n g s t o e n f o r c e o r d e r s o f
t h e N a t i o n a l Labor R e l a t i o n s Board] s h a l l conform
to t h e s e r u l e s so f a r as a p p l i c a b l e . " The o n l y
e x c e p t i o n i s t h a t t h e F e d e r a l R u l e s s h a l l n o t
- 40
l a ngua ge i n S e c t i o n 706 i s c l e a r e v i d e n c e o f t h e
l e g i s l a t u r e ' s i n t e n t i o n no t t o r e q u i r e com p l iance
w i t h R u l e 23 when t h e C o m m i s s i o n b r i n g s i t s
s i m i l a r a c t i o n .
Use o f t h i s s p e c i a l type o f a c t i o n i s a l s o
a u t h o r i z e d by t h e F a i r L a b o r S t a n d a r d s A c t .
S e c t i o n 1 6 ( c ) o f t h i s A c t , 29 U . S . C . § 2 1 6 ( c )
( 1 9 7 6 ) , g i v e s t h e S e c r e t a r y o f Labor t h e r i g h t t o
b r i n g an a c t i o n to r e c o v e r unpa id minimum wages
a n d u n p a i d o v e r t i m e c o m p e n s a t i o n on b e h a l f o f
u n d e r p a i d i n d i v i d u a l e m p loye es . No c o u r t h a s e v e r
a t t e m p t e d to h o ld t h e S e c r e t a r y o f Labor to t h e
r e q u i r e m e n t s of Rule 23 when he p r o c e e d s under
t h i s s e c t i o n .
4 / c o n t ' d .
a l t e r t h e p r a c t i c e p r e s c r i b e d in 29 U.S .C . §§ 159
and 160 f o r b e g i n n i n g and c o n d u c t i n g p r o c e e d i n g s
t o e n f o r c e o r d e r s o f t h e NLRB. However, t h e s e
s e c t i o n s c o n t a i n no r e f e r e n c e t o such p r o c e e d i n g s
as c l a s s a c t i o n s , and th e y r e g u l a t e o n ly how such
a c t i o n s a r e to be b r o u g h t (by p e t i t i o n ) and how
t h e t r a n s c r i p t o f p r o c e e d i n g s b e f o r e t h e NLRB
i s t o be p r o v i d e d . What, s i g n i f i c a n t l y , § 159 o f
29 U . S . C . d o e s p r o v i d e i s t h a t p r o c e e d i n g s
b e f o r e t h e NLRB a r e a l s o t o be c o n d u c t e d i n
a c c o r d a n c e w i th t h e F e d e r a l Rules o f C i v i l P r o c e
d u r e . A c c o r d i n g l y , t h e a n a l o g y o f t h e r i g h t
o f a c t i o n o f t h e EEOC w i th t h a t o f t h e NLRB i s
- 41
One may w e l l a s k why so s u s t a i n e d an a t t e m p t
i s made t o s u p e r im p o s e t h e w h o l ly i n a p p r o p r i a t e
r e q u i r e m e n t s o f Rule 23 upon S e c t i o n 706 a c t i o n s ,
w h i l e no such e f f o r t has been made i n r e g a r d t o
s i m i l a r a c t i o n s u n d e r t h e N a t i o n a l Labor R e l a t i o n s
Act and F a i r Labor S t a n d a r d s A c t . The answer i s
a p p a r e n t . The a t t e m p t t o b u r d e n S e c t i o n 706
a c t i o n s w i t h Rule 23 r e q u i r e m e n t s i s o n ly a n o t h e r
d e v i c e i n t h e f i g h t t o b l u n t t h e weapons which
Congres h a s p r o v i d e d f o r co m b a t in g d i s c r i m i n a t i o n .
As d e m o n s t r a t e d , a p p l i c a t i o n o f Rule 23 t o
EEOC a c t i o n s u n d e r S e c t i o n 706 would c o n f r o n t t h e
c o u r t s w i th i m p o s s i b l e t a s k s . I f i t would no t
p r e c l u d e s u c h a c t i o n s a l t o g e t h e r , i t w o u ld
p r o v i d e an e m p l o y e r w i t h t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o
r a i s e a w h o l e s e r i e s o f p r o c e d u r a l o b s t a c l e s .
And, most s i g n i f i c a n t l y , i f t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t s
were to d e c i d e i n f a v o r o f t h e employer on any o f
t h e s e i s s u e s so a s t o p r e c l u d e t h e Commission from
4 / c o n t ' d .
p a r t i c u l a r l y a p p o s i t e . The NLRB h a s n e v e r b e e n
r e q u i r e d t o comply w i t h Rule 23, even though Rule
8 1 ( a ) ( 5 ) e x p l i c i t l y d e c l a r e s t h e Ru le s a p p l i c a b l e .
A f o r t i o r i , t h e EEOC s h o u ld no t be r e q u i r e d t o
comply w i t h Rule 23.
- 42
p r o c e e d i n g w i t h t h e c l a s s a s p e c t s o f t h e a c t i o n ,
no i n t e r l o c u t o r y a p p e a l w o u l d n o r m a l l y l i e . —^
I n an e f f o r t t o add s u b s t a n c e t o t h e i r
a r g u m e n t s , d e f e n d a n t s h a v e a s s e r t e d t h a t t h e y
would be s e r i o u s l y d i s a d v a n t a g e d by t h e a b s e n c e of
t h e p r o t e c t i o n s a f f o r d e d by R u l e 2 3 . T h e i r
a rgum e n ts a r e w i t h o u t m e r i t .
F i r s t , d e f e n d a n t s have a rg u e d t h a t t h e y would
be b e t t e r p r o t e c t e d a g a i n s t f u r t h e r l i t i g a t i o n by
a j u d g m e n t b i n d i n g u p o n t h e members o f t h e
c l a s s . The a rgument d i s r e g a r d s t h a t t h e Commis
s i o n c a n n o t c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y r e p r e s e n t a c l a s s o f
employees so as t o b in d a l l i t s members . S i g
n i f i c a n t l y , d e f e n d a n t s f a i l even to m e n t io n t h i s
i m p o r t a n t c o n s t i t u t i o n a l o b s t a c l e .
S e c o n d , t h e d e f e n d a n t s h a v e a r g u e d t h a t
d i s c o v e r y w o u l d b e u n d u l y b r o a d , u n l e s s t h e
Commission were f o r c e d t o comply w i t h Rule 23.
5 / In Coopers & Lybrand v . L i v e s a y , 437 U.S.
463 ( 1 9 7 8 ) , t h i s C o u r t h e l d t h a t t h e " d e a t h
k n e l l " d o c t r i n e c o u l d n o t s e r v e as t h e p rem ise
f o r a p p e a l i n g i n t e r l o c u t o r y o r d e r s o f t h i s n a t u r e .
In t h e a b s en c e o f a dou b le c e r t i f i c a t i o n u n d e r 28
U.S.C § 1292(b) ( 1 9 7 6 ) , t h e Commission would be
e f f e c t i v e l y p r e v e n t e d f ro m p r o c e e d i n g i n t h e
manner a u t h o r i z e d by t h e l e g i s l a t u r e .
- 43
Th is a rgument a p p e a r s to assume t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f
i n a R u l e 23 c l a s s a c t i o n m u s t i d e n t i f y t h e
members o f t h e c l a s s and the a l l e g e d d i s c r i m i n a
t o r y p r a c t i c e s w i t h g r e a t e r p a r t i c u l a r i t y t h a n in
a S e c t i o n 706 a c t i o n . S i n c e t h e a s s u m p t i o n
6 /
i s u n w a r r a n t e d , — th e a rgument i s as w e l l .
T h i r d , t h e d e f e n d a n t s a rg u e t h a t i n S e c t i o n
706 a c t i o n s , a s d i s t i n g u i s h e d f rom R u l e 23
a c t i o n s , t h e Commission c o u l d somehow r e c o v e r back
pay w i t h o u t p r o v i n g t h e e n t i t l e m e n t to i t . Th i s
a s s u m p t i o n i s a g a i n u n w a r r a n t e d and so t h e r e
f o r e i s t h e a rgument f o r which i t i s t h e b a s i s .
D e f e n d a n t s f i n a l l y a p p e a r t o s u g g e s t t h a t i t
i s somehow u n f a i r t o h o l d them bound t o a judgment
i n a S e c t i o n 706 a c t i o n , w h i l e t h e i n d i v i d u a l
employees who have n o t i n t e r v e n e d a r e not bound.
A p p a r e n t l y , t h e d e f e n d a n t s w ish t o r e s u r r e c t the
dead d o c t r i n e o f m u t u a l i t y . There i s , o f c o u r s e ,
n o t h i n g u n f a i r a b o u t h o l d i n g d e f e n d a n t s bound by
a judgment r e n d e r e d in an a c t i o n in which th e y had
6 / I n d e e d , t h e A d v i s o ry Commit tee s p e c i f i c a l l y
s t a t e d t h a t Rule 2 3 ( b ) ( 2 ) i s i n t e n d e d as a v e h i c l e
f o r c l a s s a c t i o n s " i n t h e c i v i l - r i g h t s f i e l d where
a p a r t y i s c h a rg e d w i t h d i s c r i m i n a t i n g u n l a w f u l l y
a g a i n s t a c l a s s , u s u a l l y one whose members a r e
i n c a p a b l e o f s p e c i f i c e n u m e r a t i o n . " A d v i s o r y
Commit tee Notes r e Proposed Amendments t o Rules o f
C i v i l P r o c e d u r e , 39 F .R .D. 69, 102 (1 9 6 5 ) .
- 44
e v e ry o p p o r t u n i t y t o d e fe n d t h e m s e l v e s . See P a r k -
l a n e H o i s e r y Co, v . S h o r e , s u p r a . T h a t , we s u b m i t ,
i s e x a c t l y what t h e C o ng re s s wanted when i t gave
t h e C o m m i s s i o n t h e r i g h t t o s u e on b e h a l f o f
a f f e c t e d em p loyees . T h a t , we f u r t h e r s u b m i t , i s
e x a c t l y wha t i s n e e d e d i f d i s c r i m i n a t i o n i n
employment i s t o be e f f e c t i v e l y combated .
I n any e v e n t , t h e a b i l i t y o f i n d i v i d u a l
e m p l o y e e s t o i n v o k e a s c o l l a t e r a l e s t o p p e l a
j u d g m e n t a g a i n s t an e m p l o y e r i n a S e c t i o n 706
a c t i o n in no way depends on th e a c t i o n ' s ha v in g
been b r o u g h t a s a c l a s s a c t i o n . O f f e n s i v e u se o f
t h e d o c t r i n e o f c o l l a t e r a l e s t o p p e l may be made
i r r e s p e c t i v e o f w h e th e r t h e Com m iss io n ’ s a c t i o n
be c h a r a c t e r i z e d as any k ind o f c l a s s a c t i o n .
Moreover i f t h e Commission i s r e c o g n i z e d as b e in g
a u t h o r i z e d to b r i n g an a c t i o n and to s e ek back pay
on b e h a l f o f a c l a s s , t h e r e i s a g r e a t e r l i k e l i
h o o d t h a t f u t h e r l i t i g a t i o n by i n d i v i d u a l em
p l o y e e s w i l l be a v o i d e d , inasmuch as employees
can be bound by a c c e p t i n g th e judgment and w a iv in g
t h e i r r i g h t s ; o t h e r w i s e , f u r t h e r i n d i v i d u a l
l i t i g a t i o n p r e m i s e d on t h e p r i o r f i n d i n g o f
l i a b i l i t y w i l l be n e c e s s a r y . C o n s e q u e n t l y ,
r e c o g n i z i n g t h a t the EEOC can p r o p e r l y m a i n t a i n
- 45
an a c t i o n s e e k i n g c l a s s r e l i e f u n d e r S e c t i o n
706 would on ly s e r v e t h e d e f e n d a n t s ' s t a t e d g o a l
o f o b t a i n i n g a judgment t h a t w i l l , t o t h e f u r t h e s t
e x t e n t p o s s i b l e , a v o id f u r t h e r l i t i g a t i o n .
Cone lus ion
The judgment o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s C our t o f
Appea ls f o r t h e N in th C i r c u i t s h o u ld be a f f i r m e d .
R e s p e c t f u l l y s u b m i t t e d ,
HANS SUIT
435 West 116th S t r e e t
New York, New York 10027
BARRY L. GOLDSTEIN
806 15th S t r e e t , N.W.
S u i t e 940
W ash ing ton , D.C. 20005
JACK GREENBERG
PATRICK 0 . PATTERSON
JUDITH REED
S u i t e 2030
10 Columbus C i r c l e
New York , New York 10019
A t t o r n e y s f o r Amicus C u r i a e
F e b r u a r y 1980.