Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Occidental Life Insurance Co. of California Brief for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission as Appellant
Public Court Documents
May 16, 1975

Cite this item
-
Brief Collection, LDF Court Filings. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Occidental Life Insurance Co. of California Brief for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission as Appellant, 1975. 77a5f99e-b09a-ee11-be36-6045bdeb8873. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/556eb029-6a3c-4cca-9c32-3f1f8472116d/equal-employment-opportunity-commission-v-occidental-life-insurance-co-of-california-brief-for-the-equal-employment-opportunity-commission-as-appellant. Accessed April 29, 2025.
Copied!
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