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

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

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

Copyright notice

© NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.

This collection and the tools to navigate it (the “Collection”) are available to the public for general educational and research purposes, as well as to preserve and contextualize the history of the content and materials it contains (the “Materials”). Like other archival collections, such as those found in libraries, LDF owns the physical source Materials that have been digitized for the Collection; however, LDF does not own the underlying copyright or other rights in all items and there are limits on how you can use the Materials. By accessing and using the Material, you acknowledge your agreement to the Terms. If you do not agree, please do not use the Materials.


Additional info

To the extent that LDF includes information about the Materials’ origins or ownership or provides summaries or transcripts of original source Materials, LDF does not warrant or guarantee the accuracy of such information, transcripts or summaries, and shall not be responsible for any inaccuracies.

Return to top