Guy v. Robbins & Myers, Inc. Reply Brief in Support of Certiorari

    I n  t h e

tour! of %  Imted States
October Term, 1975 

No. 75-1276

Dortha Al ie n  Guy, 

— v .—

B obbins & Myers, I nc.,

Petitioner,

Respondent.

REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF CERTIORARI

J ack Greenberg 
E ric S chnappbr 
B arry L. Goldstein 

10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York 10019

A. C. W harton

Memphis and Shelby 
County Legal Services 
Association
46 North Third Street 
Memphis, Tennessee 38103

Of Counsel:
Albert J . R osenthal 
435 West 116th Street 
New York, N. Y. 10025



I n  t h e

i>upmnp (Enurt 0! %  United States
October Term, 1975

No. 75-1276

Dobtha Aleen Gtjy,
Petitioner,

—v.—

R obbins & Myeks, I nc.,
Respondent.

REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF CERTIORARI

This petition for certiorari presents important questions 
for review. In refusing to apply Section 706(e) of Title 
VII as amended in 19721 to charges of discrimination pend­
ing with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 
(EEOC) as of that amendment’s effective date, the Sixth 
Circuit decision is in conflict with a decision of the Ninth 
Circuit.2 Davis v. Valley Distributing Co., 522 F.2d 827 
(9th Cir. 1975) cert, pending sub nom. Valley Distributing 
Co. v. Davis, No. 75-836. The United States has filed a 
brief amicus curiae in opposition to the issuance of a writ 
of certiorari in No. 75-836, and, accordingly in favor, in 
effect, of the issuance of a writ of certiorari in Guy.

1 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5(e) as amended by the Equal Employment 
Opportunity Act of 1972, 86 Stat. 103, 105, set forth in the Peti­
tion for a ‘Writ of Certiorari, p. 3.

2 See Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, pp. 10-12.



2

In light of the substantial administrative problems 
which the conflict between the Courts of Appeals will cause 
the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission3 and in 
light of the stated concern of the United States in No. 
75-836, the petitioners respectfully suggest that the Court 
request the United States to file a brief setting forth the 
interests of the federal government.

Respondent suggests that the question of the applica­
bility of the 1972 amendments to Petitioner’s Title VII 
charge is not properly before this Court4 because the Peti­
tioner failed to raise this legal argument in the district 
court. The Respondent is in error. The pertinent facts 
concerning the question were presented to the district 
court and are uncontested. The petitioner presented an 
alternative legal argument in the Sixth Circuit in support 
of her position that the district court had jurisdiction to 
hear her claim of racial discrimination in employment. 
The Sixth Circuit heard the argument and ruled against 
the Petitioner, (18a; see dissenting opinion of Judge 
Edwards, 18a-23a). I t has been the consistent rule of this 
Court to permit amendment of jurisdictional pleadings 
where the jurisdictional facts appear on the face of the 
record. Willingham v. Morgan, 395 U.S. 402 (1969); 
Realty Holding Co. v. Donaldson, 268 U.S. 398 (1925); 
Horton v. Lamey, 266 U.S. 511 (1925); Howard v. De Cor­
dova, 177 U.S. 609 (1900). A fortiori where the facts are 
presented and are uncontested in the district court and 
where the jurisdictional allegations are properly made it 
is appropriate to consider a legal argument based on these

3 See Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, pp. 13-15.
4 Brief for Respondent In Opposition to Certiorari, p. 6.



3

facts and pleadings which was first made in the Court of 
Appeals.

Respectfully submitted,

J ack Greenberg 
E ric Schnapper 
B arry L. Goldstein 

10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York 10019

A. C. ’Wharton
Memphis and Shelby 
County Legal Services 
Association 
46 North Third Street 
Memphis, Tennessee 38103

Of Counsel:
Albert J. R osenthal 
435 West 116th Street 
New York, N. Y. 10025



MEILEN PRESS INC — N. ¥. C. 219