Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Occidental Life Insurance Co. of California Brief for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission as Appellant

    n p -r - • - ̂  v-' J_

• r r-• LT 'V* ' - — f- m £ nri q 'prp o ■ • •'TT-'T
TOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT «

/ 2~1 /0 5 •

AL SKPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY CC t« r y .71"p. >•.
i»•

Appellant. *
 ̂ V .

r.*. •. *.* v -- *. TMQ-'O * ■’tHT' T* •** • • O . TPr ‘u. :a_j --  .» -Li, d o- ruM-'j U id w i - j. . --
.

Aww -ee.

ON ;• w-EAL FROM AN ORDER OF m V •* '
tvr"7f—»— • '•!■*, ■, nrno v» -7* r*rr>-r tr, p."«T,”r;'' J.. - . . . L A. :L.. L/VJUitiCENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIF.TrT.IA

3P.IE? )R THE EQUAL SMPLOXKSkT OPPORTUNITY CCTTIISSICN AS APPELLANT

JULIn P o COjPLRActing Genera 1 Cow...  I
T O O  ■-•■op y - T

. .EAssociate Gan.:rsl Counsel
BEATRICE RC.;, . \ r"1 T“> r* ; rv-'' CHARLES L, RTI ./JOHN SCHMSLa.

J , *<*J Fi-LaA-.

Attorneys —

EQUAL EMPLC L xj.p r  if -•"Lr!jT*jT;v r

P  0 7 , r“ ?C'TD: 'V-/ Oioiih*-!. u-l i\i
•?;, 0 1  V  o ~*— *-• w/ *_J V-> O J» Vy V  W » tWashingtony D..-> or- -'.J t* ./ W

-1̂ .._



■ * CASS.___  -ase
—PSL'SS ospori—  ”**••“•«.i^^i-vASS.Cn,mt,;..
 ̂ ' ~-'^KT OF S\« "'nin ‘ ° *......, „ „* c 3. O . . . „ „ ̂ __ ***•*
’- SGu‘v"" -.rr-. ........*»«. .*~-J *• ju » “ • * « . * * - « » .

** SSCTIOS 7 06/Vw,, ■
A:;~C1 JDS' '?^AA,t'DCSS KQr 
J~ ^ X G  SVl”~'r~:?:is2TCX

’* '--- ‘ ‘The s^..rt - ^ " r ' tuCe on <.L'“2>' the 7 =Vi ' ~"s -so,- c- teredo- « A°u Q£v n^-' -,A r-Wvs*: 'rcu ,°n~>’ toir^A-*.: J-~ in-;o-A*V5n priv- .;a  _-onat P=riod-.uxv be ' ,°a-ot> :,eiv — _.- oc “bought.. '• iiUt
~x*s lesisl * * ‘ * * ̂
^ l a t s | WoMhat the'iloiX vconfi-^s 
parries t-n °n- n--e- ‘A ' uC!s v° sue--- ' f Private
Policy cor--- ̂  
o or c ~: i o t ̂  “O-Oati o" « 0 - - -
W». n S t ^ i S t * ^  130ui ^  ”?*
W o n  on thr ™ edt0 '°e a sicr -f-r- i Power of1 j-u t-—  -a— to brircr -be C o ^ ,c-sorinire--- X ~u-- on a —  b w~ 
CCj-oiIiatTo;°f ai"cei' f a i l S ^ ° -

11. y-.rt- rrv.,. ._ * * * * *......, , " , _,
i^rp-Xy^SSlON' q oT«..m * • “  * • ls.

7C6(fM /f\ ̂ t o ^T t° SU- tv.~
-b'---S STATUTE rb ?2T SUBJFC? Zo

AOD 'S' i p A ^  STATE i r r ^ ^ T ^Cr̂ r7T>rn AFpL ’ Pi win “ J. - A^^jRl / EOf T-rp̂ T w  rr̂ rr-'’ "
« w w & S ? i s  s o n - y y - A S  r„

IC*-—  * ■



t a r.

IV JhS ALLEGATIGNS CONTAIN ”f' "
p t) T> AGRAPH 0 (b) AND 9(c) I f' ?
TIFF’V o COMPLIINT HERE PDlvJi'*ATP'
BEFORE THE DISTRICT COU?.T si:'-■rov - *.jl■ T.y-"RE LIKE AND PEL; r ~ r •• —-

r\~. —O ’llGINAL CHA RGB A:'E 1 *’ fl2
2 2  F2 •SiRED TO IK 'r'UTT4 j COM ■T C* Cf '*•-** O - m. OKABLE GAUS2  DECIS I"• > — w' a„ * 3 2

oL'.-. jjUui'o:;.. «v •* \/ © o e a
-TAELS OF AUTHORITIES _

Alls O <:J v-»e Ire, i- vL. 0 . V ■ - EEC C F. Sub 0 s4 HEP1 Case s o45 l3,Bo N. 4 t* 1972 M l )  .

ID 3. r.. -cr v c CA ■? I livestns:r.t , 42 i/-V *rp O
------- V — '(?M‘ 1970 ) cer' U * ceni ed - i■ -J JU ©ID © 32i (1971)..

ID'll L-.l’.ic4 H Co. 9 r* c4 « a-drop -
* LP Cases 212 (4.D. Cal. 1973).

Bli - 331 • ~ _4..L iZ-J0^3 *> — -  -.0 0 V. jjiOC i a18 F. 2d 3 5->V zh Car. ! QAC ) t- .  » . - <* *» * e
EEOC V a Chri c  - i—1 . . ansb ure Garr.er.t Co * 9

I Cupp .

___'/ 7 PEP l e i sss 1 2 3 3 CM r t
±jVa v 1 9 7 4 )-

•—> ■—>. r**. V. : 13nd dlls Co 502 4 ̂ 153 / Eul
'w» _  w i T V , cert , cenied, U .

O ;  0

u;S.L T»’
<, V/ 4/ M -cb t? 3 o >* 21 ̂ IT/mC \

s  j * * © a  i i  v * e w e 0 cV ti « 4 0  •

EEC 0 *•: r
* Buff 3ros- , m

°  O' 364 4 ■* Supp. / ̂ c (E. D c
4 <T .nn. 1973

EEOC Y, _E I - auPont de Nemours and Cor.pa ny,F* 2 a No - 7 4 -1 6 -7 .7 , .(3rd car. i/i’av
y

9 , 1 9 '7 5 )..
EEOC V. Sapri T -ron Worko F. Suoo.

6  .::E? Case.s 4 0  7 7 (3 - Io-4a" l1973 \ - - ;. 0. -W to  ̂4.» to e • v « 1

•: -

30

s,i

24

c

-ii—



0
: r-!->

C a s o s Cont * c -- «■ a,- —

O - , '-- '  * /** T p l  ^  / * . - -  ^  H  r* “7 'l •£■ T? o . ,  <~7 r 'r - 74: 1- NT .-. .^ - '̂ * ? J> /C 4* Sapp. 7 57....J:, vs.. i974) appeal cocketed,No. 74-1974,Abh Cir. July 6, 197A. -
p — f •*-» t.;v, 0"} r\ „ ri o * «*••

- i r . . ; .  ■:. . / _ 7  -  -  -  ••1 _L u u > y  ______________  r  •  j d a  ? W O #

/t~— 54o i P.'i Cir. lorii "0. 197 0, k c>/. o ~

Cases_ Appeal docketed' No. 7 5“*-i~p7 

NEC.', v. XniibeTlv-C.lc.rk Co'^romtic^ ~ *?£
-0 FE? Cases 3E*Tooh Cfr. Pa57~l4,“ i t 7’1 ' *

__ 4. S u p p .____ , ? FE? Cases 666
i Wt D. Venn. 1974)...... ................... 4.... 6,21

Cir. 1974") ?eversing~3^68~E.' Supo. 6 o\ -« “ 4 « A J- ci . _V /4 ✓*»«»•*••*•»*•,»•*•,»#»!>«
Z-ZZ z- J:ZZ9Z jZ :9 California 369 3;

o w*. j. a •* v ~—3. o i fc •*«*«!% sO
v. Bov/inan; Transportation , 495  

-v •••a ->93, v 5*9h Cir. -~9~?-~), cert, cer.i ad*
„  ̂  ̂  ̂ ___ U « O© * D i ' O'CvS'l' S;

S r • ' ' *̂ '••••■•'  ̂ — Ca. - - ».**»/ v - Vrf' W 1 i O  . -'. J v̂. 7 \j * O  O 5

43 U.SiJjv'l 3 617 C&afcK 2*5 7 1 9 7 5 )* u26

Howsll, 431 F.2d £63 (3th Cir.
Xy/U; < •< , 1 , , , , a ...... ............. < ...... . . . .... 3 0

Grand TrorN<_ eastern By. Co. v. United States,
-  ̂0 ,-' - — *. IP~C , s , a ,, , . . , .... 21 j 23

nit^/ille__Co., v. EEOC, 43S F.2d 32 (p-;r.
J ...... ........ ,3 i-

K r d ~ i t i g ~ f f e r I o i r r * I # 3 7 7 ^ T f ^ ~ ; . 9  T..... 2 3 ,2 9  

Johnson v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. 49 r, ■>£

u-\



vO

Vx)



o d. z, o ::j3 con: - 3: ;e
Summerlin-, 310 U.S. 414

{ - ■ y z / j  )  .

J  C - -  ,
'  ’  T T  S v y r T T  ~

y9 * 9 !•** J- y .

 ̂ J_ O  / 9 /  »

T 2ti"”('2a CirT
v .  L c c n .1-'

Tiocvoson, 90 U . S 4 o 6
« wC**«>)Od<»C' « • • • « * * •> » - ' * 2 :

Cor:;. .
4972) % C C 4

- T'Z [.
3 2v Q. O  .

.l o  ,  u J . n s s  
* * *

r  *  1 oicvrers
0 v i J t 3 it * -- .

;r:c€s:

Title viij 
by the Ecus

y i  ; nights A C 0 of 1964, 42 u  1 3 & c: 0

?. O'~f- ~ u . s . c . §20 0 0e- f  / ^ \ 1

42 T T c  pU •# l_7 «7 V̂7 O §20 OO 5--6 (a):;;: ,  11

yil Rights Act of 19ot.; as amended
UT'.'O 1cymeno Opcoreunity Act ' 079O  — •■ / 1 p- j
S6 Q i  ^  4-  n O  7̂ ct 4/ « _L03 (197 2 )

Sec. 707 (a\! ; ) OHr ~ 77 ce » U
Sec. 71 £ 0 > ■> •\ 3 U . S
be c. 706 >cV 8

\
< »i/ r

; Ah,C U.SQ /*»Uw 'wo d 7Cc 42 U s C

.0 . §2 0 0 0e-6 (a) * -■ ̂ c /n- x * . i v o ft -4 ̂47 /''h f“\ y-. r  f
N V b U b  o —  ^  V%200C 3— 3 8 , -• - • * -* • ■ « •■ •* ® 3 "■

e -  4 ;:•} ; : ,  % .3)  .  v  P a s s i m
_ 71̂ ■»

c ? . - '

706 ( f) (1), 42 U.S, G , §2000 e~ '. f) i; , 1) . * Passim 
7 0b (f) (2 ) . 42 U . S. C . §2o0C o~ :> \ z'j \ ♦ ->
r~1 rs '  f _ \ ; ''t TT Q  P  £ li P.O ' - 1 . 3  **< **'1 3  £
/ o o ( [ i y  ;  * L > 1J  j  u  *  V  i i  1  ✓ V £ ,  y  * *  • v * "  *  ° 3 4 —  , y  j  J  ^

/ '9 _  —, r» •>'*•. -V -  / a a> r-* a** \b o C o  ^ J . y  O i .  7 1  > / ^  )  • » Q O 9 • •  9•3 W ft O e c a * t 2°* * ft 9 s

crting ana Disc ice \.rr~
A c t  c f  1959)  29 U . S . C o  § § 482( b ) >  

C l  a y e  o n  A n t i - T r u s t  A c t ,  15 U ' . S . C .

§20G0a et
p- .■ -4 ” uib r. V. — 0 t\ /-.-(-L—V_u rli. l.tb ACL ioa ;, / ou. y ̂ y 4- --

 ̂- 9.. OO 90, Or7

J d O ~ vw9 ft C «/*9 9 « •!**«.*«»»'*>
' A  ■11 1. '̂3 ll-l ,  Cl V - - - -  o Tcn-b^lloS  Ac O 1. rL 'y J :'---

*v.3vjv̂vj0 ©U
J i-J O *1

» 0 t* * 20

-v-



d n 
d n 

d:*i 
o q 

r>.• \ 
cd o d r: o> 

h 
ih 

o d 
0

0
. v - 

r 
r V

 
t* > v 

. <* ! 
. v 

j 
, 1 • i 

r\ 
r\ 

\ 
_

1 
.1 

r ■> . ,< 
m

 v. .

/ »D cor:';,16

• .-~N /•- — \ • /^■wL-.vp x  O~ / 1 G  - Cc NO  ̂x / / v y k » * • « n i. , 3 0 - 3 1

liforria Civil Procedure Cede 033/
O e  1* -1- - *- '" -X- j  + * a • ■ V «• • %* « >0 4"- > > -> —

lifornia Civil Procedure Coed 
eerinr 1972)......... J ;  J  -

nram: •..y/a;.
Civil Procedure Cor.
7 9 ■ K . 9Q

p  .o*p*'i Y\ :.■* I y> / , .
froeeaur
C w « • C « V w v v.;

<* ** .1 * t S j J  •

1-1 .1l_ sy
>■ O  C  ; a

C f. v-1 p »-> f p *v«*
V 1  i- <•% ̂  -e <j •_ o

n p crivu'
t- 6 a a c u b e e u » a a » v * «

gis-Lacave history or trs lcu.-.._ ' a-
r.t Opportunity Act, of 1972, C o m a  ctee .

p  p  ---» n ^  1-. ~ V  9 -i p  Tiijp *ua x -J-L 1- ». o.— -i. c..
_._dU d .  M Senate> 92d Cong.

i  k ; 9! A 0 J_ Uk. / « - P .-

Rec. 470 (■/ P ■ ec. Jar. 9 c

Corru Rec. 2iS3 (daily ed.- Feb. 71, 1972). 1 4
uivl b-.Cc ouiiiii— oocc ip bsction-D’

n o  (Jong. Poo 7 1 A;i f ' 7p\ - .t iA.. i. w _ j ^  / /•. i. . u * o « a J a U

rate Bill -No. 2 515? 92d Cor^,
C o  U 0  C .. ^<0 j  !L*9 / .**«**•_- —  ‘

-v a -



ro 
;

Cent5 d
ou 3 2 Report No. 92-23d, 92d Cort 

1 o ........„ J

; i--' a O-P» ■7 O
-a - 9

C< ~. v~ of - Report No. 92-41$, pp. 5~o, 87 “i c-• C « . - . J-v7
Remarks of Senator Kennedy, 117 Cong. Re c.
■S-14273 v pt 0100 3- -*-4- , ±y /j.; •...... 19
Remarks of Senator Stevenson. *! 13 Car ”••" v-
,r ~4 r. Q...IO56 (February 2 , 197 ___ .19
~P ' vv* -0 f or * *7.0 0 — ft*3 *0 jT *3 to li l* c. C1. V c A -J 3 - •-< -
jo lag. .7,3 0 .» fi“" C 5-*- / V L'‘ - - t/S i  ;1 U C‘«. -i-O ̂ —  v / . .,.19

O .-V̂O •"• ■>-> of Representative Martin,- 117
2ong. R— IT C,’) IT Cl \ J- în r-*. 7 C /.at ̂  *  *  i * “ ’ p V \  01C 0 J  01..0 0 -  —  $ —-  v  r — ) *•*■>+ -i- J

-vi:

— — H  i " aimU



IN THE UNITED STATES COURT 0? APPEAL.' 
TOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

NO. 75-1705

jQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Ampellanr

v.
/  w  — ------ > — ;*.v, -  r t  1 j _  _ » Ey o  i r  i ■» _  v -  -

Appellee.

E O T '  A T
_ _  -  —t i t — * TRCM AM ORDER OF TR •;
STATES DISTRICT COURT MCE I..

CENTRAL DISTRICT OR CALIFORNIA

;? ICR THE EQUAL EDlPLOYIISMT 
OPPORTUNITY COMMI3SION 

AS APPELLANT

TATENENT OF THE CA SE
This is an appeal by the United States Eoual
iyment Opportunity Commission (herein .ftcr the Com­

mission) from an order of the District Court for the 
Central District of California (Judge Haul) granting 
defendant Occidental's motion for summer;, pci grant and

;omnrssion ccro_;ua- i . .  ^  + .

. U V i CD i not timely filed. Since the dis 
That, sven if timely, certain all eg

(i C. A ETT'OtlilCl Kj ii z~ \.
trict court also

L - t . t

L-.V>* ik. _':L* -It: i£. r ’.if fjhlfrrfffitn v*. -t.



com clairvt should bs stricken, this 
:ak.n from its grant of partial summs
- c  • C S 3 t' " 1 3 r' 3 3* i. c  n s  •»

issues  presented

vl; mother the lower eonrt <v.
(l) of Title VII of tJ■ — , i f  \j  \ J  \  j

\ /

suit more tnan iou Gays aitei 
dth it alleging employment ci 

vhother the lower court er 
l • ve that the Ccmmissic . 
.fornia state statute of 2

r o c
_ . .  v> . L  U  i

a'O 3

! *3 ' . > y A 0  ,v 'n m . s c c . c 3  SooCucsii c
■'*p y o  -* ~  m. 0 ‘3  V  ~ t  S  -» W ’’*’  0 . 3 -j

.» w  i> —  ~  c ; an m a n o r <
/4 « U >  - -  t

7 t  .tx —  ci ̂  <

J . l i U X  O  c t  L ' .

Pro oecure §3*+0 O  / •
(4 ) feet her the court erred is. a:

M r  T V  : -

cr'i sinal
co aJ-iegatton 
-.chi ch were em

-i.-.ce or re late a



C',use decision and were ;he basis
S?A?E?£ENT C?- FACTS 

in Reoruary, 1974 r the Unitec 
t_cy.T.ent Opportunity Commission, ; 
v. or cement powers coni'erred an or. ia 
of title VII of the Civil Rights Act

c y i p c Equal •qv,

. c. Lied. i l l* *c o  “c _'i -a e n

v.. . ; J G 1 01*1 . / .oo  \ -

O  -L .1. s anena;
A  V  TT c  p  Q - ,  *- T ~ ~  \ r -  /  r *  X f -  \ . -
+ ~ v •— *X-'P * — ' - )  S ^ b o O e - 5  ( I ) ; _L ) f l l  _ C  s u i t

on account
' N-' <J A. i

arsons adversely
i er.aant s re a’

/~i - _ ->
-- - ̂  — -i-t/w

>seque:itly,

.ee O cciden ta l Insurance oupany o f  C a li­
irthern D is t r ic t  o f  C a lif on nia charging
lin ation  in  variou s ample ...; n u orc c o ce s
x» One commission a c up.; "* v ' ■ - Q — -I ~

■aetc.css and ap p rotm a te ova.; pay l o r  tnose
y a ffe c te d  by then. Ir. response to  rie-
t  f o r  a change o f  venue w' . * c J a. 14 S ct Vv’cL S
he United States D istr i,. t - . , r»̂ v*■' O  Vu> c.—i 4 J_ VD _L w X 1 cf

o f  C a lifo rn ia  (R. 69-71 )

sc.;...vary judgment contending that 
~ — d and tha^ certain alie.aati 
not properly before the cc

.acts v/itr. restect tc t^ese

leant fil 't Cl c- TUG u 2.0X1 j. or*
tnat the suit was not timely
;ations of the ccmD_.amt were
‘t bee a us a t r issue was not
s w e  (0_ \iU r-. ~ V / *\ -. Che relevant

a cor
> currents before the distri t  b  t t  i-----L





that eznpioyeas rec :j!v
c:..iployoc£ 'ar.csr ucciciir.'ca-.1 s

.es .....so

.u l  C o :.U /c. -, .o o r_..L

■ w -J—  C ^  o c. - - O' -

by

C —  -J „• -< w _  U  j - vZ i- .1C U _ ii w L O w U____V. J - •-•

b.vec-b. o - y -V / C t  i  i t -  w

.to.

V —

*- ~ o -

i-oh oCt- u S :'iv .-

9 " 099~ > — ' {

X\£.o P6 :L

 ̂- - >-/ ̂ y ciis.
9 :.uVr!V ^  C  £>

_ v.; ce’e ~ a;. r.a*c i o n
* * T* ** - ■" C'. *» -»> i-a. %_ v - v V.. *-I -4- o _

j. W  v; U_

xiirenvrjrx pc



______________ • A  «- —  '~U W * ..W 4 W



Os 
fi>

-  J . W  U  O ; C:
.legatic:

o ...,.i_obion- 3 con.pl a
c:.2 :c uer.tlv v 0 r c o

that even ii the 
contained in paragrapn ni

t had ceased an Aug-;
**% ->•.- • “** hU — V-K

... Ht
^ 3  on cr.a year U-

i C 1 1 3 C iiail- j
09 1 v *' ~ v-' y

* Cl L/ 1 A :t i ecu

ns contained in ps , ~ Cr f V>a  ■' J. a  J . o  o  .

•i v/ 'w‘ i* o .

■•lyinv c
ground buoy tore out

-- •
- • -• r

i /
19 > Cl? th

j - *>... .7 /' a. p  v~. O

at 21•; a or

h»

.■ ... j.v

p  at -

oh ''• J- L 12 2 <
2 C 0 *0 of t.

* i ^  o

iharge (?.„ 227!

- / nine (9 )/ oio2.r0 ""9 - o **■
a l le g e d  t h e :  
prcviae-a under mora favorable ter;;...

..:U
j.c..al retire:
Orayratn s/ / <) the coutx, 

irriedc . on - -0ir3 pregnant
aer.ied a_l pregnancy relate 

con: any* s health insurance tlan..

arh& —'Her age than their

£ a i or. - 1 0 0 72) It.
frir.'•■ be 2’ltS "1
srrrui tc tr lives
re .- .. erp — 2; •’* 21‘ 1

; cur:' • _ ■ ",•21'.l Cr' c - * ; ■ -•y .>
.e ant .At:: 1a ertrl
t. _ ■ :i t .- c. i s : . *■

■ - ■ ' y . ■ ... £ \.J

u • -- 1 _.t a
...y. -- , ~ C .h.;:.mai •
enal. ercplo./ses o ■
*tu - - c ct .. ■•-»• - r>

they

- -" r • *

Ci, 
O



Axi*rUM£ni - 

I

SECTION 706(f)(1) DOSS ’ )T PRECLUDE TH2_SCM. 
MISSION FROM FILING SUI'. liOLi THAN ISO D-US
after A _____rvu EMPLC1--.NT D15GRIMIhAT 1GN.

HiRGS HAS BEAR FILED WITH IT A ...LLG-

on that all the
terprov avion- the
. slativo hi story.'',

j.t is the Commission5 s posxti. 
factors which govern statutory mterc. 
language of the statute, its legisi 
and policy considerations-Iead to the ee-.c_usicn

gvQ rp - "-it of the Commission to sue : not .Limited 
to the •oericd of ISO days after the filing of a charge* 
This position has been adopted by an-
anneals that have ruled on this issue; the rourun Ca a- 
cuit Court of Appeals in the case of hutn n  C-cvelsna 
Kills Co, , 502 F. 2d 153 (4th Cir, 1974)> denied ,.
- U .S-j 43 U .S j L«W« 3465 (Feb. 24, 1975): the Fifth 
Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of ?f£0 Z.a ±»2£lgz. 
in ~: l e  & N a s h v il le  Railroad Company, 5C5 IK 2d 610 (5th
Cir. 1974) and in EEOC v, Griffin_V. --- *
ho. 74-1546 (5th Cir, April 10, 19?5 • > the Sixth Circuit 
Court of Appeals in the recent decision in EEOC
k ±mberlv-Clarh Corporationt.___?.2c.___, lO^SF oases no
(6th Cir, Feb. 1975) and the Third Circuit in EEOC vn.
E.I, duPor.t d 3 )4~, ours and Company, JF. 2d— . Ho. 7 4-1 o? 7 ,

(3rd Cir. Kay 9, 1975)* * v-

197 4) ootn of w m  of Appeal

:ea
U  h r  :

' /Significantly, in the court ow.c. y.- uo---~ucnt c. 
the district court decisions in ShCC y : infmoe^v_ola^x _—  
LSuop -,7FEP Cases 666 (W*D. Tern. -:9 /-n’ nna_ v . ̂
v- e* & Nashville Railroad Co.... 3tc f .Sapp o33 U  - K ia". _ rTooth 'of which were subsequently rsa or sea oy one Courts

—6-

.... • ..... • - - !. -V Cr . , r..-:



c... • period is in 
•period in which 
mally be brought

:bv: .. .

.ded c n l  t o

.va te  s u i t s  ...ay n o

.das in  port:'.:.

LX *G0IT* 3. Ciici.r. V- i s  .
w ith in  t h i r t y r. sy
;d o f  r e  o a r  en : •X X-XIX'

: u

. y  y o -  - U U  U  _ - t'.-'t-. . . •-> ’-un—  w - * SSD'**-
sac tier, (c) or ( cl) f the Conani -mien . o beer, unaole 
to secure from the respondent a ccn cniation 
agre em­
ir, ay brij

acceptable to the f o..r.ic .r. ;n, cho Coma
a C-Ci-L

cvei
action a g a m  
governmentsh n. 
in she char :;c ..

i:- it-.. -/ j

;d vh-th the C o m i  s si on pure 
■=■ -■ -1 -5 sa9 bv th& 0omi^s

'el'

X j~ cm. C 11 ~u X\gb v
rob £:. • o •: i on

\Cj os nusrcisbec. ay ~.:e vu-it:....:;.. ..e: .... no .•.j.uhxn
one hundred and eighty days iron a. 
such charge or the enpiraticn _ o..:' w 
reference under subsection (c, or

ision has not i.
section ♦ - .• or the Comissic:
> a c c n c i d . .c t g,. a amort to 

ggrieved is a tarty. the Com­
mission „ „ shall so notifg the ..rot agaric’ 
and within ninety days after bus pa.-, a c- such 
notice a civil action may be brought against the

O  *..J —  . »»*. *»-oit* *, oris o orsni
C “01. OX­ under this s
'S 0 IX 0a entered int
'hi oh the person ag

'.i c~ 1

caaiming to o
nt named in the charge 

aggrieved- - *
m e  person

i£. j-S V.G.’Gii 
■ v

i i ^ ... -i-b i h w d of Section 
two distinctly differs::t

- ~  V •* )  V —  / t x i w . - .

■ •■*.}as os suits«
Tnc n e s t  car the st it.e c onc e::uns 11 so... : with

,he power .. 
Lit ions for each

’omnission to suj 

rc.it, i . e . t that
mo con-

more :. on 30 cays
nave eaapstd from one H u n g  ox a c m  
Commission has been ‘unable to obtain 
a conciliation agreement which it in 
There are no other conditions -.chi: 1 .

:i-.‘.vd Oi-ho L-i-

a S’C 3 _. i. o 3 l.
C- u; o -i 0 —  w

' 'rll with

*9-



x  m c . " ' r * i * • . 3 /~y -* ”i t *! p ■•O O  O  i  _ <_a  v -— .  —  w . -«- V-, vO —  O  0 , -  -  u ,  —  —  -J- ■*-*- O L  o  'X —i. O  o

■*. • ■*, r--j.oyj c.ay j.sm.>u
becomes cl; wnen

7 0 6 (f) are compared vdth
idscessoi

,r.e lyoif Act
Section 706(e) of 
the Commission had no oc. ■

solely at
.sions of 
.sicns of 1

. ■ - v T*o y r»

I / mx n „ ,
- ‘ /  i i l ' d  w  U * . - v - * - L -  vlC w 3 1 - U i * could., however> oanporary
under § (
,J_./ One 
Icy in a 
will not 
_n Go days ■
1 p. *-«o n

/. 9 §2000 e-:
0 V 2 3 y o 1 y iTi 3 . u ̂ ViinGli f cr,/CC' t....

j. v, - v ̂ qV«
0 — V.- ̂  .. - >.U. a. C —-f O' •—» li. — ~-J W

•- *V- -. -~s j- . v- », » f-..- o:. . J u u*___1 o S -i
able co evan consider a c h a r y w U.1 O-l-i- C%1 U Cl
,e ori vat 3 party may o b t a i n  a :', 6 V> -b_0 Q_,3 01 0
£ at perloci, Bauman . i. n

f, 
/

or. il

Supp*__;6 IS? Cases 212 (H.Do Calif,

- 10 -

J -  5 j- W b .
; i

v.

ues



rot to resolve charge ay

to a ring

h. toe right
. tilss 1 or', was to att .̂-p

tr.ods of conciliation, w  
::v it based on a charge reserve a to private 

statute provided in pertinent0 /partres.
Tp a ~ —* •-* »»

1 C:-. :er

-within thirty days after a“*■ - ‘.r̂ r- v-« *1with the Gommissioi
ex pi rati on of any ;
secti on. (c; (exc ep­
rich may os extend
HT' ci i 5.
off V .. \.< In aciora v
r a n cod) - ' ' tr O -T if ill- b
vol tnta-ry comp-ianc*v‘( 3uf 3 or. s f t a l 1 so no
• o a . o  — or. r . a y ,
. j 3 c r ou•:*h'o cgainst
CO 3I ;Q u ) y the p
Q.’C if such char
Cor:amiss2.0x1 j oy any

riod oi i*8I
that in vJ —
oC not mo

. by 'the Ccr
bunt ary c o:
>ior. has be.
: '■/ith this

ore ■.*.
■■•n ?r ‘ •

notify the person 
, within tr.rrty

UT*J- CA . • -

.. .. -• d'n 1 &A
'j. . _  o  -L  —  - i -

• 233 suon pe— 
vtv days 

•_tn tnat further 
.-.os are war-

the Con-
r c* rr eve’O. 30 o
/_> . . m  ''fj S!T j

o. c; t.

... he aggrieved; 
a. member of the 
charge alleges
til employment

^OO "ractice
It is o:;hus evident that, by the rv/~ 

embodied in present Section 706 (f)U,\ 

two things: (1) it gave the Commission
j. «3Q cry3 after a charge and failure

.*r-' .• _ -.•■..-I the time limiti.— •- -ana, \e,/ -u c..c— --1~
orivate suits. Instead of oarring a-- •- * '■ 
30 days after the filing of a charge c-r 
the private party was barred from arirr 
days, and, instead of having 30 days a: 

v right-tc-sue letter m  which ------

amendments 
Congress die 
power to bring 
o f conciliation;
noplicable to 

. o suits for 
tertod of deferr 

suit for ISO

...

/ The Attorney General was gi
a id f. ;s cases. >e© 5 s e c t S b l h t C ;  n  £ 1 :0? f i s c :





_  u . r a loamy „ U  x. O  C*. enable c:..
**\

W  e . Id nC/2 2rove ms a:at that a suit, v/n

be .. roug! it ■FUTxtl-i- “urther c -caps of at

2 ui c n had been cc:mpleted, had to bo
p  •- - r e cr’ be forever barred =.

1 u should be r.oted that, vrhera 0

2 C craft si at uses of limit 2 .  U 2-

iv.y r  r*. 1 m g u a g ■:;■ not sub ject to m~
t  —

u  «L v-< 21 V In • -  ~  3 /  _ \
l ;  ^  O  y  c :  J 42 Urn, G o •(Sunt .

. c * ____ ,
n . --- j. . sxontl - -  h- *. er

L u i v tat use p; j - *  2 h  ’  T i  C. 2 2 t.

f m o : . .. _ e.

t. . m i  

t h s p e c - 
.on.. cruc- 
■ e— G { 3

ur,

euf-- -. m. .•

o- ■ V -

t i c n  £-33.--— OS 0 1.-G0. O- c:...

£ after the =11 esse uni
* ics occurred - * * w Section 70o • c

no. II) v 2 0 C 0 e - 5 ( c )  provides in pood
•x- -x -a :-:o charge may be file a unde:: 
of 'Ohio section by the person, ague. 
expiration of sixty days after ore.

/ n ^•eetion (o,< 
• efore the

SHCxx vl ’.f vO--- - bo ndvo *
b 6 3 -1 C O 22 *2 2 C. 3 Cl V2C0.3 - * O 2 2 2 o* O-

chV\" VC -A'

also-; i7C6{s). C C S a '-j if \ o û. _• - - y ■ : '

ral.reive oO 0 -S ^
■-* -v r; y*d" ̂ J o It V.’GUl.d be moon; ........................w on a

C 00..trary t ■J d)ssi c pn:ncip.las of s ‘ . ' - c j const „ ■ w.c o — c n

•«/ read the 1 angp 00*2 ^ o at issue here ■ ■ r. r.t a ... m'

212._ • • .** 
.Uii th2 lac e of the clear c* . . G . 4 i v- -

- -j:*
UX

S illfn limit ■?- *on 3 pisev:het3i
In additi 0-1 y Sect icn 14 of the I f -2 . ... namenos

,'p V ~ V 02—23-- >* DO vf. —’ at w. 1C 3 ) e:tpres si’ ... a cao Corn-

Hi_:ision1s pov;*0 Y* to bring suit applic: bio c ) all charges

-i..



.ns: oommss: >n on tne ene< tire a
of the amendments. Congress woulc herd nave none 

rower coi sj __ oiiu oi. j .. com /. — - - - i
suv cn pending charges only within ISO coys after 
the filing of such charges. Indeed* the- legislative 
history of this section shows explicitl' that Congress 
intended the Comission to sue on chargee filed more

19?n
110 toys before suit- 
amendments applicable cater pent oei

the Commission was exo1 air.ed as fcl! . . - 0  -

the .cotornev General cucted in clidl v . .  C' Chet stian
burg  ̂ ...V n - *7 Tv? w Pcccc O"vjr :t - :.i i# v.  ̂ u /  •— •5 9 (v/.D. T.;

1971):
•ovic:

c. only apply t.o cnarges

being processed and who have v.u 
months to two years for re seine- 
not ha t the benefit of the new 
ity. (See ill Cong. Rec. ?’> A~J. 
1972) ref

- -  -> -  / g ,  -. -N N
. ■ —  C  i  -  -  j — C  J

t if f . I f  -  ... provisions
,-p *7' (■or its effec

■ the' a -m y  t nous anc.03 VfflX ' are still
h w i l ... w _ - , _  uiho —  —-

i i . c n  G u them should
1 tc cevent autho(daily od. Feb. 21

,  , _  ~] - j -  X -  . -j
 ̂va ui.o — „  j  u t i  .. ,

cn^cess tnus clearly contemplated j   ssaon suit
would be filed more than ISO days after tus filing of 
a charge.

Under the lower court’s reading of the statute, 
the Commission has the exclusive opportunity to act

-unity for 90 days thereafter fro.
carrot c:: a suit

.her. wii-C - X ght is cut

exo!l U S l V C ; o' 1— ». *C C  f p  vJ - ’ ■*“

‘rom til 3  G 1 of re-
■its -• ■ • - if the private

-11-



i. C ; w • - v s..u V •' w-i
. ui: no- the . . J O O o- oongr

ved thc.t the Commission v/ould ’so

- 7~n V>

, cvcav of t h e  act. EEOC tv Clevsi
156, 15? (fth Cir, 1974); cert, dania-r?

. t  . JX & .V y J? — O  5 0  * ~  V  .' J  )  -

B. The legi sistive history
that the 180-day o e~ ’ — c ..
right of -OrOYcl'C, 6 portae

n tad:..... to •Che 1~£ islettv

KJ ~ '1 -.ortions of the fegisia.tx.Y6 nas ocrftxxx  -css

' -■ >

~i,,

in t e r n r a t a t io n  a i c n  in  our vrov; ..s as;
_ax . ...ago of icctncn vQ6 ii ;
provision if .nos tao psrics — — — *c -...  ■-----
one.-, a ns -— y  -'j - - o - a ̂  — -

The legislative hi so cry of ties 1971 uaLsndments maices
7' x ore So ints-iC; l x x r  t h a t  i n  e n a c t i n g  b e c t i c n  / 

;c  i n s u r e  t h e the Comtession vrovld
x ' n . n v  :.x.

‘7? ; r-‘- ( \ O'7 9 -L-w* it;/ — - ̂  j ^ '

ex:.'f e n c i n g  Title VII r i g h t s  .

Section—hy—Section -r.
/

.xxx senior

T *■* ..) i"i O *,0 6 Cl C i l a t  r e c o u r S 6 ' t o  '//Oh "... . .VC0 .... w —
m  ̂  tc v r i !11 b e  t h e e x c c e t t i o n a n d  n e t  t . ' . - - *1—1-6 7
VlcX'O Oil e v a s t  r a a j o r i t y o f COUpB.-c.UX.. 3 \ x,..,... t o  r a u t - c x
■hr o u t  h o i io  OX j. -.u s s  o f t h e S fO C  ox- ta r . •! i . t x o . x a y
■ s n e r a l cl S 3/0 p V Ou r i & t e A he x . t v  an , a s .....^ --------------

l

OCX.
__- ;___. _ y vj v • if

‘ill 2.3 i. 3 n • v  • .C 60. 30
•ry of •/< v 6 .1. c uav liraoio'xt'
O OCyCl o -1 a o o v cV.d Pti.ll

iixt t y  —

XXXCt 3 &
c >> aid Ceng.

vn



1 \

4- 4 . • "00 rear 0 3 S .re par&r r at •v. Tvr t r.e
arc ■:;.2:.0ns of Titl Via. at a.. -

A' /
t nci" <_v_L — avenues b left open fox" qua OK
and ex';:eC"Cw <5 reli j- *

,e Coremittee ’ s Anal /sis (Id.)—— r.: C <• n» -m arer.t
he 1atter part of Section 7C6 ' % ' / - t ~ ; v ~ • ns no u» an-

. to cut off the Commission's po a.;-■ of suit , but

> to make sure that the pp . ■t r ,-nd
C.C : 3 not have to 3 hy ao - 41V3 at Vj
C cist.is si u0a0 Attoraey Genera 1 ~ . 3 13ct a■ Ct wit a
due dill rrfd̂ p do *■ ana steed. -:cconli r y th.3 provi-
si on3 G.Gscribed abeve allow tho .4 ;̂ f ’ vril ci .d. ip aeved
q -'•.act "CO '-Tp.rare -T — ~ > ...,.: _ .. UI OV *f -• p v v ̂ * J V— . d 3 r

Ji.J. O a — - — v : Our is a vency
inactiondalliance or dismissal
OX' ^j.duululi-C^Oiy - Cbuj-UC*0,*J —'-J

ingress corn: •, V» .t f

vat.3 party v:as to have an election c c r..-.todies voider 
Title V I I ; to sue in his own name or to rely on the 
Commission. If the Commission cannot, cue after ISC 
days then an the situation where the adninistrative

complet ed in ISO d: / a .. too private 
illcw the employer to acquire irn-

cess cannct be
cy must sue or

‘i'has clearlyiii-maty ..r . . r 
Congress.

vfnile Congress was ccnsaaer

.ntent ci

1964 Act j it had before it a proposal 
mission power to issue cease-and-dasir. 
cf the proposal would have cut off the
Cot-mission to act upon a charge vice a y : i t x

_. - r

: 11. on

-_/ This is reproduced at p. 184? n 
History,suora*

lie Legislativ

4at**£*dtciwt •' • .m̂TBjksihi--

p
- 

(X



y l>c
i C
+ V
O I 

’• O
 M

0 - . 0 e quer to X :c ... . :
ion’s 133 days of ex lusive juriadi ction.— ‘

0 0 jfl 0 bill as final!y enacted wa Site ...  iron.
,,c.T_1.i.£sicri was noo ... >>i- .■ -■ '-"C w.

a 0aten but only to sue iV c curt

-  r.0 ecu,i valent exp reO Oion c.
to - 33. of th f"*. O0 cr n,.......... n. w-.3 ion 0 v9 act
P 3 ray has bnought 0uit i cor.ta

To\. ar.... she end O— oil■s debat
c e a.3 0 —c-LT.Ci ci.OSIS'C ‘D C wer for the

limitatnon on tne 
- sue tinon a private 
led in "he present. Act.
the ■ Ao had favortd 

mania si or. indicated o
v.illin t:e-o to accent court enforcement. there was 
. jreertent between Senator Javits, forme; _v a proponent
O  ~ if \J2 Ct3  ?w ““" —-i"lV— C 6  io— b t y cL-iv-*. v -  .-I — .-

coart enforcement, t;
held to a specific time limit within wr.icn to sue,

. -  _  r%  . . . .   ____ ;  ‘  ^  - - n / - n-U -c — — -a ..L.v ac.^ ■ - t  o

Senator Javits said.*
—... r r j -
---------boi JJ - shoul d ifl 0 ~Z> } - *. view of :
■> y C, "  <** as kind of• .. - elite tab!
••ameters., of cGU... O O J V. nx the s:nwithin the 

rent 33^  cut...
Senator Dominick said:
I do not think the Commission should be mandated
C' - -hut date an agency should brio;: ■.-.■.it wh en we 

q/ing to work out matters the : 
concallacion. * 1

.st we can b"

9 / That bill provided in pertinent oron one
tre Conan:

in sue:
2d Ceng., 1st Sees. L& (Cct. 28, 19711 
hat even this section did not cut off ever to act after 130 days if no a: Avat
1_ed *

, at.. ._ a t c g an i
.• action with
appl i c at i on, the
mission. * * to
.ate Bill No. 2515,It should la noted
:• Commission ‘ s

3 action hat been



• -- - o v./̂;.h • 4Gd« .. ’ as:_y e a . ot ,uar>

« 71 P-,1 - rv considerations uppor
t nat *che 180 days peri' -d was
be a 1imitation on the power

* t ■ C,*7 ov* v-. -  J lv i .

o•p ■ nmi <=f; ■»
to bring sui' on a charge of discrimination 

cf conciliation.
-ar.g t

u ciiim — s  it x  c  n

u.ic Commission, power to 
.os oar. name., .even though founded on a c 
: private party), Congress manifestly intended oh

a position to enforce the puhli 
gainst di-scrimination in employment. ItA

' co o cr " *w — no n * r. * “ > —",; - * *s '■»/ w o  >_> w av j. i«. o  a. u_ » u ■ —

party an absolute ri;;hu u.

c* :: y *r : J  X cJ -  -  o

terrene
■_» C ■-/ O  11 I.1.U J X  uO;—  - h i  i A i luoirjr.xssxc 

leave to intervene in privai lit: in so co:
its recognized the principle, estaoiisneo in otner 
ts, that suits to vindicate a put lie interest art

to redress private rights, o
imson v Steel Coro., 4

-V /• v. Local Uni

.. e .
„ x . w „  yiu o _ -

ir.ternat'.ona.
u u x  o n r~, *■ 7 O T»f i" 4 *—j- w-  ̂ .i. r.. u ,ig E n g i n e '

*7' ;i P u a  it 3 s  x G 5 o (N .D o  Ca'

v 4. •> — v» 0 - 0*7*5 7 •> X> i s  J j w h e r e  t !

X ‘ _ ; ~ - O/3 Ox ’03. ITT) i e o — X a- X C- „ - u. o j. -

1 u oUO yi TOO
v:t Ca

7944>
C; £' fetheb 7 O x.

. CO w ' lei O --

.1U wtul.C;' vx'S i.u I'm*.u- X.-.i t u t  O'.o* .. — 1.

QXSon.r:ci: o:-3i
nterest represented by 
.d practice suits under

■. ̂  -c: u _ ■.i e vi:
v — o n v o vj i x j.

■0 7) of the
h'orkers , 404 U „ 3 “7 7

-iS-



1 r/i; \m< y . 10 G C «u. O' •* disc a -v - ~ - j
nt Retorting and Dieclosure Ac
statute plainly imposes on th
L-xDorj ttu t-ty to serve two
rest ;., v;hi ch ars relatedy but

L 1 J.. ^ J o t .. COCL,ry has an cbli
t e x t  tie ’’vital ? ublie i nte rcs
e and democratic unic n 1 1ectio

... • :. —. ̂  '• ' 3* interest cf th

• -7  ̂ Q ■»“ -r. 2. C 3.2- .
. _;. \./ __ -V . . ^ -J

\ i r.i o n c* 31 o 3 r * s - >viriss i-Q ca...
.1 il ^ y $5 3 * iC * 3 *-

1‘Uiicticn,'- are ir:.por*oant ana tney iao oc . o^oayo 
•xi cvS.te nrsci'seiy the seme spores, c... »,c -no 
conduct c;:' the litigation.
:.::e reasoning applies to Commission a - it... under

icn 7 0 6(f) as distinguished from private suits. it
C'v

-U V  ̂
_ _ x . __

1*.

oae reroo: . C---- — - - '

-.— o  V -  - ~5 3 a CO 102.0 

_  „ a a - 3 111...'. w o ti.c; O —. oi*c? ou....'.
0:: cue lie interest- to th

.L 013 c:. - oCj

. ____1.L U '-t -L _L O W V.,. v_i j/

C0CCS CV. -.0.1,

snort art imprac1 

'Ora the filing ox t.xe charge. 
;or.3:ress was well avrars that it

, C ~ _l

..i,o impossible for the Commission to v ..nix drat it 'nr-
•.I'ocess all the numerous complaints filed vrith it

10,/
v.'ithin the IcsC day pericot. While it nay hav« hoped 
that the Commission could be in 3. position to determine; 
rithir. that period, whether it should hi-try

— t/ See House Report No. 92-23S, 92nd Con,;., 1st Sess.,
:.. 3-5? 12; Senate Report l:o. 92-115, to-. 5-6. ?7; Re- 

...:.xx t of: Senator Kennedy, 117 Ceng.

Ceng. lee. H-ot59 (September 15, 1971)-

19



K!
!> s

—A
'o 
Hj 
o'-;
-'

- - V . ' ̂v~- ̂- - C w Oilh7t J_ Id 4j f_ O _. 0 O ] 1 /do so# — ■ Ic the c or..war*y, the
• •'V of v hp statute rer.r res that t 0 o m i  s i on

h a s  power so act even after the 180 ci. ay period.
O A s siding vi 1 accord v.ii/cli toe pos-- v- — Oil Ct;Op w6

by the court belo1,:f would greatly hump-OS' ci.. 0 a bill c y
w — "0 V 3 i/Ci.’. . .3sicn to renedv d i s c . 4" -... tr " *» -■ m (t

me arc xvos to vioi 
:ini.21rativ3 proceedin

j . vvv u _ . - ^  . . v . y j  v >ei
s oiy

si.cv or 
an invoo

•- . wJ. O Jl. v»i

It; Jc

x‘» ̂  .

22.tier., and xi 
s by pretending to bargain 

co.it Quite easily extend

mission oO cursue an siiec

. . . : g  employers .... ag cut

.ngs so that tl■ t ICO day —

J n w o____ 1  - ".•:ou._d re
. a* Vv eh.'0  u i -  ■__s . re solve
is of ccnoilixt n, Sven
r\ rr 6 r  * c  . 

■ u o ?  ~ ~  -  ■-
-  d

: .1 j. v» y. . '  0

■ring ever race as during
■ d r a g g o . .  cut . or.oiliation
.rgain in good f a -L »«* xT j  — O

V. -» ^  ,-b . . . . ........... . .
’ - l e i  a l i . i : . . .  . .w l p  T c y ''t  '*■ rr r? 0

no reason to a : t '  “T” '*1 — if  U  V -f — •

r -m  y * p  -■*;? *; p* *1 - j- employers
u i i ' j  A m i  o_ he Com-

x ■/ if r v f i s a v d r . 3 Courts#

11/ It is interesting to note thi
np . . a t itnto of limitations ■' a ■ of time ad.rowed has oe«n s

C .1

a p rsss a as
~  “  4- '  — ■

 ̂ . O  U <... -w n. _c f.vz to prove: v 
‘-fc, See-.rustraticn of the remedial purpos _ _

the Clayton -Anti-Trust Act, 15 bl-S.C . •>§ 12-27 
4 year period)« 'Moreover, it is signifi#, w.c that 
either the public accommodat i cr.s nor f t  p folio faeiiiv 
itlasof the 1964 Civil Rights Act, 42 "JvS«C« §$ 2000a 

et sea* and 2000b £t» seo.,contain any limitation on the 
filing of suits alleging their violation# fr.



*
0

. 
Cl

 (
■'

 
cl

!

'  ̂ --OV
no Hi;

on oo
nation no tt.o

• govermon-
■ — S  ̂  \ jil ̂  _■_ - ■

*2iw when
suit, and the 'sorts
-.pcs to create e -ch :

m e  go vs]•rjnent is enforcing-
OOc: 
/

• lit 5d S •. - 5 urine 2-: ■' ,.-
- v 'C ̂ _V/s stern R-/., Co 

252 1 12 (1920); United s*. ~
( Q ' * •'■ ' y ̂ ^

e s v ..

ave 
limit 

PUDlic ri oht• 

310 U.s* a 4

; _o _st.
■•■ H .1 1 .-

tn.3 .v

<£_ d a e t e m Pa ilt
-e has al 1

C-.. :.ui, £.00— J wO

•clear and ;r.ozii ft

;sn the rul<  ̂- X1-01 to"
;ates m ;

■ -aniisst Centres si
;'0'0 1 2/ T„- - Where

UCw .

sessional mt e "  *■ •'•• > ̂ +. 4-'•‘'u -u -nat tney sha]
°ner'e ls nc statute -f

tor govorr
is net for o/'-o.

-a j J, i to Tl "0 .021 - 0; 0 /

-imitations 
courts to

-'V no-ii £??iy lirutatio- —
ovornnan^l n whers the V. f V  - ' - ^ o n s

l ^ c  °f 2 1V1--'  ̂ ^red b^a
c M i S r f l r l  . - - I f e

. -i ~ * ■**"1 .j.uions o c— u.■ -.la eon-or in--- •-> o.-ater0:tot---~hxlUn-ud:P. . inn . .. l,~t.....sT n- ,
— -— ■“ ■ J oi3 [V^n Avi0i

p m  IVhen. 0 °ngra s s want s + 0 ,• n „ -.,....i o-i o X OJi S \ (3.0. i- ; - „ -  ̂ -u U i. 0 ........
stderation of t h e ^ n e e d ' S ' d J S f - ^ v I n ° c - 0n ~ :
^ssspciii 11 w  — r ::-
: *7 0 6(g) bSv 0re tna Cornr. 1 : DS
more 1"..D£ck pay liab~l- - ■ 1 . ■ -'••. p tv;0 years prio- to o0 - period,w“vs Commission. x ‘ 0 Uiiy of a c‘-a-ga~-



;0 O

C 0.-. •... a SxON 1S RjlGHT iU 3 w ;

;h SECTION ?’06(f)(1) IT tca «-<

EOT TO ANY STATE STATUTS
LIMITATIONS,

AS AH alternative groizr.d for dismiss _ng the v> A..

pi si district court ruled thatv : f . Ca p
P& 1X1od aftg- ■ ccl3 iiiing oi ci cnarp:; --- -• cons dilute

1 -h —uitatio;a 'on the Commission's right to i . . .e  t ' - Gcx —

>} 0) 
•Hr; it on * s .use tc file suit was barred 1 / ^ c.jplicable

Soi’Cip d o u o uoe of limitations, which it fo •..* _ 1 3 0 c e t

O "•. year pericd fixed by California Code Cl OXVI 1 D v r n m .  -U x  U. V«< •»'

CAM"! §340(3 ) as tc torticus actions. It -o the Commissi o n 1 s

tcsition th a t  its right to bring an a c t i o ■ it hosited by
/> - ...... re ss to xix c c s c c tne *o\ix n c  x - .  •.. >i x■ j ct c-i * j

Hue subject t0

cl - state .. j  A d/ U*C0 O f. IX HI — 'j  a  t a u . i O  -

~ ~ j— 1 6 '0  -j 1 0 C  — a W  "0nCl v-/ 0  3 X  O jT rJ X o  C- m e  of __ . . .1  U c . u J- o n 3
*1 r~ Vc-. - - operate hv5 .—n ^  i  o \ t i a . 1 .* *» — •— -• ;  3siona U -

-<— V r*\ -.- it so ."•cerate must be clear. In mb i t  'St?. as v .

it  A \ f -• - .......... (£  rr O-r  ̂ T ;• - *■) 1  £)• 
_L

... . .  -  9  - 
V., v v»> «l - . v_/ 9

I *  5 (1836), the Supreme Court stated the rati ona,le for this

li ' Xorecv.r, ns discussed in ?ci
ou:x applied tne.imitations should ; st a vat a. eve..

>e held avoir cu-1.
1̂  O 0' 3  c l ^  v •• v

^f^nfui^iawud
^ B P 9 N 1 j | r- | . .

awFflwBWeitiayhNi •



: o c t . :~i ne

i " ■- •-'led Ds/on.. ■-iGuot cr conoro/arsy — coo^«nê  foundation of the great prinei ol:- of public 
- sPplicable to all governments alike,

L ■ : • - - - - tnac the public interests'-sho '■ d
-- P uuj.ce a oy the negligence of fie officers 
~ i asgyl3 3 °, whose care they are collided - that 
;:*c L'— States, asserting ri •. "ssted in them as sovereign government, are 
c.ny statute o f  limitations. not bounc
clearly roc, r.ifested its intent!on th — they soe sc bcure.

It is not unusual for Congress to i•up o s a T I C limitat ion
on t< !:ie severmeant - s ------ pova .r . .. - w S Vv3 6- j  ̂0 .7 o.tutes
ernpcr ' \ r s  - ne gove:_-/u* cc sue "to enf o.1*’ vJ 3 the pub lie
inte:r e s t ,  3 .6 . v, JQ -

. j J . . .merlin. 3 1 0 3 •- S . -' , n; C .r7 at .61:
Trunk lies tor c. Pc/. Q.J  o v. United St- tea.. :■> ar 3 IT .c: 1 ’ 2 L' 92

with re:react to Title VIZ the ..ip. ... u- discus red in
point I above, is. . he language, legi,:uLacive hi:story an
policy considerations, a 1-1 indicate that Costress intense
iiO „ is on cl':e Ccmrii ssi cn* s right t o sue„ The
failure of 3cingress to specif;/ a statues 0 1 limitations
governing the: Commissi on*3 right to sue \ nor. c;'.3 re-
suit cf inset1-art once c.t oversight« Whe n r  -egress •a ci n u 3 q
to inelude a statute of limitations 2 / c di - 0 C 1 3 S.rly and
concisely as it did in imposing a liv-»- — — c r-  o f  tv,.?o years
prior to the filing of the charge fo! V* 3 ;• . li-.bility
under §706 ( g ) and in limiting the indiv-o..■ui agtTiered
party * s right to sue tc> 90 days under §70c { f' \ f i \  Cjf the

-23-



_ 0 ;



. vj X ‘ V  r v .3

a p' .Vd:;e ura no"
. La. c  _j  P  C 's> <-* v.-* ci. y  0  — — -J c i  3  _L 3  £

d u d l i e  a ' c t o o r  a n a

o - cs QU C‘

!> spe ci 1 ui_y sugge st thatc‘
. decision is incorrect. •

s *
a ~ - rv

_... mi c a roi«•
a. -u ..

. i U i 1C  V-Tl -i. X U X. i  I

y"*C: rh *

'. n.. s csiirr with o i. 11; c u 0 .*■ > i c r: c — av re—
'J u .■ l; _ V_4. * v: oil3 i:..r

r .■> oro a; 0ex or 3

• .1. .i
j_ y ...l:.c 1972 amendvrenus ;o ritie VII j was'

t,vcuI ;:d ov the 1972 smendine'r t s 'W  ■ I lOV Drovic.3

•cv.'c years oeicre filn-1 Ox trt« f- .. ; ;lL -

Congress chose the charge, and not the ..av/ suit, as m v-

j.ng tue tm o  1 or recovery or oa c.< . -• <j ~ r 3 *
in zhe la hi <■: . •' •• • V - • f. 1“, p T, p
0 ii C; il c at* e -•-13, Gil3 gOi tiil—.L-it ’ p -1*_ v̂v; "G 1> recover
buck pay s sub ̂ e ct l. 0 a p 1.... c a or ! n v—*,  ̂ O iii- different
y f ~ t ̂ right to sue for injur. - h n: • n» lie ft G1 t:- cu. C - x
instance, under Section ?0o(f ). V,i 1V; y .1.:■ 0 ssicn may not
nja unless it nas been unaoie to civ /■a /*\ v*- ••■» -i i  -1 t  — *\ *•at L u i i ^ i  a - l a U - L  .1

agreement acceptable to ii 
occurs at the same timer,

Failure or -oncinat:



u ... 0 0 «L v w relief, back pay or both, Tne * - i c. . 1 hi
3U.3‘C 2 ilC - ~d;, therefore) be the same. It 2. haul.. not be
3 hi 0 j 3 C t *-< G the vagaries of state star  ̂ * - --iu«\. d* .. a. •> — ti.o

. .... OilS C'w ls..̂  il '•** a o O r Oil t-*o -.•■■■ -V. ■ ■/*--3- ~ *-
did not d=cids what the appropr: .."o : 
should be, it is pretense leading to

iis ... .1

u e> ■' r 3 S nr.'.*3 d 3 31. C1 ■?; I
Acs: ons i'or hen:- ration o : , i iu ■. -- - "X57
L, dev, ’/63 , 77— .. _94b j,

It should he noted thus even 
rationale, the lower court here went toe I 
inv the entire Commission action since eo. 
sought injunctive relief for a number cl v 
The action alleged in the complaint 
■orob 1 eras as to amount of recovery ier o.: c... ;

~.c -■■■■ C '

: oil :

-1 1 - ~ or — v.. -  .

•. cic:

. n o 6 '

i eve

:/ T;Jioh1 its 0wn terms ‘J3. _ - J_s to 'C2.lle int0 accoun yj

i_mludi ng .u*ec r 0— 'yp.tvTp. v* t.
vri’oh the Commdosaon tolls■> - ---*0 cL ’ i* C. 0ns cericd for bac.
tine as the tro couses of cl
and unti _ 1C f-’-/ -J-!.cation t0

3_hint ary COmpld...ace can ii
Bcv..~an Tr 1 nstort ation Co, 7

de c a si..- v. l
at the fill ii:; 
the running of

incr, -i

r'L

•J e!

) hi w 3. —1*1 or (j.

495 ?.2a 393.Case, SC; j  3 j  C o * r t  J
gr̂ cijTG0d. * Tsls go another 

UTITL-VL 3~5l3T(March 25, 1975); johnso, 
:o. , 491 F. 2d 1 3 6 4, 1373 (5tha x-uooai - - j ., — .governmentJs right to sue for an Individ 

be shorter than the individual's right 0

roe
•ate of 
oa cl.

at v'ork

.1  •*; .!,■ / ■■> 1 ;■
. . .  .. .-,

;ould not
his own

\



;  _  j .  - .  o iplvs oi scn
ig tha' dec is: 

i x*i i s o ̂ 11 o c e 
he Coirnni ssior.7 s -osi.

v.nae: >3ccion iGO !, 1 ; \ / 5 -• - -•
; q ui t a c 1 e re 1 i e f \ /h i c it me v i • ■ -.. ;

CO. . -Jr..n r  V  0 ' : '% t  r> c;

.3 action, therefore y i

"'men x
a one

* a j v.. - 1 .

X O e . o U. J "C

no U O •_- .

- 2 7 -



•A ssi'.: 
p e r i g  
ecu ::
LI. ipf.

L-NC THAT 
C IS A ? P -
Apot

i o n
II'j
O j

IC 1
’̂ilS





ores c r 
cf ac..on

O  i _  .v U. .
one £02 t-invcr.

rare .or which, as stated at.

Ca.-t-or.:.
ca .a. '•3 e 

atorstria

one of cl er of remedies. u esat an th:i.
light,, it is a uoar an; chat si.-r.r?
recognised no S *0 3 Cific cause . . .

crirairtit ion, there 0 XI. 3 v.. 3 C\ 0 - ■ • ■— — * 'ftz
series _*_*_ sJ :: nay be used. It ecu h cases i,a
R. CC * Art. 3 !—ivrs general l id • v . lMOO.
as appi_ c a 01 e■j :a.2arc»v at 1■> .
• also 1, _ si i. i. 0 s p e d fi c liti . ate ;• ..s
action course rcss die crini - it: : . L / C>

j p l y  t n e

Title VII c1 eats d rights CL] id la.— ... - - ‘ww ch
t • 'iously had r:o c 3 xx 3 c 0 g g c* common law, a. ., r.
of a handful of other federal civil rights stt. s e.
0 enerally, the courts in selec

_ or Press have  ̂ -
at eh ail”' statutes rather than

C - 3 S p  C - 1 a  i  21g to a ■titular ccmrnor. lav/
? & F rivestment., 420 2d 119" 17':" 4

GO V3C-. -  \>0 s i>.jb iVx v —. ? s - • tc. ̂
d 465 (cth Cir. 1970/1

are era!

ic . n
. v/ ■- a

hi' The defendant argued in the district ;cr. 
yc .̂ r statute cu. . .vc .. ̂ a .■... -S , ŝ i* . ..
priate on the strength of E£0C Uni on
*5o9 ?. Supp. 56 {M«D. Ala- 19747V '“in' that'""// 
district of Alabama applied Title 7 Ala. Code 
ore pear period cf limitations. This Ivtii'c- 
he ever, aces net deal with tort acti .
the relevant part of that statute re;1 ̂  o <.

• " .. a p p r o -
. »c ..! .L a. . e cL j

o •.3 o r  "c *101*41
/>:■ a t /  a

: per.l.o J.
C C .A •- -  ' v . i  V j;



l j . j  rz. n td V VS1- he Commission is subject to a state
ons, the lower ccurt erred in dis~
action. This is so even id' th,e 3 year

— —.  ̂ oy C-g c c _l on • 3 z> 'o (the shoresjo section

01 c-i sen;
secision) is applxcso-Li

on c g g. .h- g ci con*
'hen those

'Cl... 19?l

1 :■ ~.y
tiled on February 22, 1971 less than vires years

•"> / C -1 o G.
lection 2o, iiniti^icn ci one yiiro — m e  
following must he conaa^ncec. v h i  in one year'

vf vt

Actions tor an injury to the person or 
rights cf another, not arising from contract, 
ana not herein sueciixce.il .' enumerated.

the part of the statute m i c h  the -J~ 
aptly be A:araotertzed as a "catcha_m ana m - ;  
similar to California §343.

. w V n — V.- - V-/
H  p r* — r. . • , : ;

tiled foui:c

1-4 For ail the reasons discussed in the text it is 
evident that even if a state statute of limitations applies,.
the instruct e m u  in l i n i n g  tne violations a_itci m
paragraph 9 of the plaintiffs complaint should.be dismissed 
because the company terminated the practices alleged in 
August 1971, two and a half years prior to the filing of this
r - '' - — f *0 O O f  \

i-oreover, she fact that .a practice c 
filed, dees not necessarily mean the 
be inappropriate. Unitea States vt 
?.2d 14h (5th Cir. TsfoT) . cert, den?

a ms t .or tne exercise or ■

.sed im* . 4 v» charges were
ca** ia J.I’d 4 ■.ion would
3.S. . 1 3i, -2S'
1 * L -‘v̂0 0 c o : . " v '
(5tn •.*_4 ’». p •-■*; o \ 4V, o — ✓ / > «- 1 -*-u f
tier. Vv ’is district

-31



ur_.n.

nrr"’ > •- •*'»/-* /; ~ . "i j -........ ' • n ■ t • ry-"t *p v • -
S(o) AhJ 9(c ) 0■ ■■• . ■i _J. v U~L\ . _r'V ‘; 0 1 . .wi\ _
"WERE PROPERLY £ •»—■ '■*' •7' rrt y ntjuriii/ in-jj *P\ T "Y > "l —■’T COURT
■ RICE Tni : WERE LIRE . .1 * ~ r HD TO THE
ORIGINAL CHARGE AND WERE RET? HE-:i:o to he
THE CCi/ifESSION - ■> : J ' ..EEiEit.-i

The d is t r ic t  court i i t s  fin Tact : E -
cd a llegations oz sex des cn r u -e o n 0t .. agm
rried  pregnant employ© c s a a ...e- -- 'O - - ' •- - - » &•_ - -
o tire  at the same age as j. dn-o- •s ’e •: y.'- f C - - -i;. 1
c as trued Tamer 15 s is  :•n ' s cu.argC £.3 CIO■; : itir . ■ E 2
s o f  the Comas.:ion’ s ■.-■uic .... •> .. . . z

“■ or? ' - '7 / ;•}J Sane- C Vo andnrl Ha’anEg... . E Si S'- ; -00

Cir. 1970) ,
In th is  case .• ©videnee GA'- no:. •*;. t s . t ' . . c«. ■ JL it .;; •.arc

crierination ....:rged -as soon £■s "he .. .rr.ri s. -9 -■ 11 to.V 7 r\ ■
vest igating Tamar Edelsorr 0 cl-£xrge that c 'Y S> do forriant
deni ed her benefi'C s which at arforded to - V 0 3 Gj.' real
e rn.plcyees0 OV -> t-i.lS c. -L Sgations r'.. H i , u  ...■ ■tor _  ■ E.oy.;.
p ractices directed against unrurrien »vc employe
is.'-asanifestly related to  the cos :.j s ob • rrisdnatory 
practices concerning other pregnane • in .



♦

nsbion re*.



f : —



oo on ao race, -oh-t may not bt brou “hr. . ..... a no b lur...* C. ' O’ • - ... disen.; i-iaoicn ouch as sen. h a s -■he the
. a tic: 4 - on in If■ '• >-< y . Genem~ v i »<■«•.■*•-. -. ■" ■' ^ npp,
• • \ • V a 1 .. : 'a. epueui Hoc>etod ho, .' - - 4th CarJUJ.y G.- ->'74, on ■■■•irLch defendant relied- oelc > "»r- ■: 1 c-.-  ̂ - -- c.

---- iifffv.■ •' o .nr; •. • '•" 'h.n >-• ■ - • • j • i X C V‘ Z
■ -i— :5 C;C■'-of (ho . '/0-1123 ). V'lhatover ... -
 ̂ ; v •i ini on.. •-■■ose dec-oi-uu. r.ne --t apr_. ' ' .1 ; , s *-•

V-'ilGT'- '•of son discrimination is invciv
■• - *410 r -'*•  ̂ C „ A it .... .i-Sfi,u.ion as to pension riyrc relatestC clh j;n i i  ' “■ r *- onaanst males rather . • n .• ■' - r.J 1 afovevir ,• ‘-S  *t'iG court ruled in Petter^.-v. -■ b. -::4-" -<a-Ua

... y f  CCO ..Co . , - h  S u p p . .........: S SPD 1372": ' 'b p  , ~r.: -, 0 ;■.-
■“ l  • " .n v/ ^ - -c  C c i> to. 75-1262; 4th Car. ff- 1975:

I- /. J to the cc.-it-̂ r/
1‘ .• .CO

• . T. ■ >

-jO_? J ia c « s e s  854 * 856’
V. Qe Li:.:-;

on chs bi-i-s or b-yh —' t;=. “ -="gs alleged caly raf d i h f .;.,,atp h
i p 7  takers, Tnc ^  358 F St8  - — -r:- r:i« ^ s u s  of so- district-^

'•' O r ti . ' • -/

...■ I..-. . ... uj. sc-:: disc::tcnsidorod, v:r. •- 
^^\rt, aithough only nai

3.0ZC1 
0 bvs Jt:'iP "■•''OB r

> •) ( V ••'■: ,■J-- Colo, hich the1 <rr
*• -- on n;-i d. ori in '-ai ‘ v v ... :r ....v■■•.— . v”-* — u.* cm. -.jeci* *• - i . l . ; i * c.riir/I;
orig: n f  f - ..■ ' f' f'-'t : ■ —  •■■'• - ’ "•
f h V f t f p  T - & *  t;OO jS iipi ted - <•< *->>-, -T__ • - "*•- O::
oyenooa to determine w h e t h a o ^ b e r f ' O O  O: ',.:f “a0

3r? of bisorimiiiaticy'O :y.,7“ .-;r
°r tn- Jevasn faith and Heproes iT'flXl" wl*iJ.1 v i Z M S l 1 - -*-> ^ . . . S C  3 6; ">

-35—

■ „. i . j - .

... =izii: f .Vht'.hih. . wbVl ____ y

•.■•! 
S

'! 
O

 0
(



• V

yoa “ 3■- u. he i neons is..e nt vrloh h • rem.edi a.I
of X 1 -s_s VII no hold i _ <•-cHcly On ca m e  issue of
di scri m.ination had be en pro S 0nt t d - ■ *• a a .
0 Aon, th a Commiscion could ly investigate
' _*U i.s c r-mi nation agains C pel' X.' a s of a a: same

dj
y-

gender as trs person who node t , e i  
propel1 investigation of th'a-» 
necessarily involve inquiry i: o •••'••.; 
sex ; beiru discriminates a; 
of an - cisci . . nation ' .i tr a .a
seek ;o __ aviate it in accor.n; :a

aula subvert one p m  
C ertai nl'. di s crrrr ; ' io •

within "the scm.-e 
hi oh can bs reasee­
the char pa of

ex discrir.inatian

0 i

\ '3 ( •o' '-J •J '-J ■— J  \ /
p r e v i s i o n * ,-n , .
b o t n s e x  e s wa s
i n v e s t . . . 'or. ■
oO g r o w  out of

a j. legs - acre c. .

p e r — y  ow-m-c C j. .. j

> i

C:i h her 
Discovery
i - - v , • •->

; 'Ji Zn& C

-1 ea

'■ _ - Jit;

I

r'r ■ •■'

■36-



u5 (/)

**

Ot

v_> — b» - C -b ia ^ O in g  ro a -ons, we
-t or*.... m-'- u o c a s io a of the i
V 1J ci c. ar.d that the C onmi s si on ■ s o
illy r ... . r....

— ■ — '-iy 
at Court 
c .olaint

L -6, 19,75
/ CO OS j'C iX ij j. 0

Respectfully submit

JULIA F, CCOREL
a coin 2; u rai

T '\ C ' 'D U  n  ■' T ' T ‘> TQ— x - j  - w l l 'J  O
associcoo ra.. Cornsm

BEATRICE RGSllSESo 
CHARLES L» EEISCHL

/'• , /■ ; ,A/L--W '-At/Co;
/’JOHN S e m m ' S R  
^/'Attorneys

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OSr : . LAITY
2101 E Street, K
W- o V i -  '-J- ~ 7) p------- J-r* - - o '  -

r•r'PT •

-37-

. / ... . • ..... . . .. - __________ ___________________



T

CERTIFICATI: ;F _ th H V I'

I hereby certify that copies of one Soual 

... Loy&eri Opportunity Cocanission 3 brie * as ■ 

ha /:, beer, mailed to one .h liovh a. :

Fra tennis Vaughn
jl’LL ■* i-JWci. if̂Cl u » j /̂V

Hasennas> ^annee... .... . _ . 
iy toner ibo.vor Street- v. err 
hos Angeles, California . 90073.

//'Attorney
EQUAL iltPTO'.:.. . apt..: 
COlIMISSIG.

-.. a. E e ■
Vfeshinrt . r., D . a 70 at

'.'•■lay .6, 197o

,-i.
eJ