Hackley v. Johnson Brief for Appellee

Document text

The following text has been generated automatically during the document scanning process. It may contain errors, omissions, or incorrect formatting. Please refer to the PDF document if this text is not usable.
Download

By downloading, publishing, or reusing the Materials outside of the Website, you hereby confirm and attest that you have read and agree to the LDF Archival Collection Terms of Use linked below. We draw your attention to the following:
For those Materials owned by LDF, your use of the Material outside the Site is solely for one or more of the following (the “Permitted Purposes”):
Non-commercial research and private study;
Teaching, scholarship and instruction (including distance learning);
Non-commercial print and non-commercial online use;
Criticism, comment or news reporting; or
For people with visual disabilities (See Section 121 of the Copyright Act).
For those Materials not owned by LDF you understand that:
- It is your responsibility to determine whether the way you plan to use the materials falls within the copyright exception of Fair Use.
- For any use outside of Fair Use, it is your responsibility to seek and obtain all required permissions from any existing rights holders.
LDF hereby grants you the right to use LDF owned Materials for the Permitted Purposes without seeking further permission from LDF.
If you publish or redistribute any Materials (including excerpts and quotes), you must include a credit line and/or proper citation to the source of the Material. However, you may not use the name of LDF in any manner which creates any false association between you and LDF or that incorrectly implies any sponsorship or endorsement of you by LDF.
NOTICE: Uses that do not comply with these Terms or that do not fall under Fair Use (or another exception) may make you liable for copyright infringement.
Read the full LDF Archival Collection Terms of Use Here.
I agree to the terms and conditions for use of this content.
If you would like to use this content in other ways, contact us at .
Impact area
- Economic Justice
Topic
- Economic Justice
Matter
- Hackley v. Johnson
Case
- Hackley v. Johnson
Collection
- Brief Collection
Taxonomy
Identifier
- 8ea6fd0e-b59a-ee11-be36-6045bdeb8873
Cite this item

Brief Collection, LDF Court Filings. Hackley v. Johnson Brief for Appellee, 1974. 8ea6fd0e-b59a-ee11-be36-6045bdeb8873. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/eb01d6f6-1c64-483a-abe1-e503f0f33f97/hackley-v-johnson-brief-for-appellee. Accessed November 23, 2025.

Copied!
    r

RALPH M. HACKLEY, Appellant,

v.

DONALD E. JOHNSON, et a l . , Appellees.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

EARL J. SILBERT, 
United States Attorney.

ft 3 MAR '974

C. A. No. 1258-72

JOHN A. TERRY,
ELLEN LEE PARK,
EDWARD D. ROSS, JR. , 
Assistant United States Attorneys



FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

No. 73-2072 
(C.A. No. 1258-72)

RALPH M. HACKLEY, Appellant,

v.

DONALD E. JOHNSON, et a l . . Appellees.

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE APPELLEES' BRIEF IN 
IN XEROX FORM. TIME HAVING EXPIRED______

Appellees respectfully request permission to file a Xerox copy of their

brief, lodged herewith, time for its filing having expired.

Because this has proved to be an exceptionally difficult and complex

case, we have found it necessary to request several extensions of time within

which to file our brief. Our most recent request was for an extension until
1/

Monday, March 11, counsel having hoped to complete his final draft of the

1/ Appellant ha3 opposed our most recent request for an extension, apparently 
on the ground that he has been prejudiced by the delay thus far in that others 
have been promoted to the position to which appellant also seeks a promotion. 
We respectfully submit that such prejudice Is more apparent than real, for 
the Court can surely fashion ae appropriate remedy to make appellant whole 
if it ultimately agrees with his contentions on the merits. See, e . g . , 5 U. S.
C. $ 5598.

Appellant in his opposition also refers to a telephone conversation be
tween counsel for appellant and counsel for appellee on February 28, 1974.
Our recollection of that conversation differs from that of appellant's counsel 
in one respect. We did advise counsel of our intention to request a further 
(Footnote continued on next page)



T V - *

brief by March 4 or 5 so  as to provide sufficient tim e for review , editing, 

typing and printing. However, despite hia moat diligent efforts, which in

cluded extensive evening and weekend work, ho was not able to finish his 

draft until late Thursday, March 7. N evertheless, we had hoped to have 

the b rief ready for subm ission to the C ourt, at least in tem porary Xerox  

form , on March 11. The Chief o? the Appellate Division spent several hours 

cm Friday, March 8, and over the weekend of March 9-10 reviewing the brief 

so  that it could be typed on Monday. Typing was in fact begun on Monday* 

our entire appellate secretaria l staff spent virtually the entire day working on 

j7 TFootnote continued from preceding page)

extension. There followed a discussion  concerning appellant’s acquiescence  
in prior extension* requested by appellees and the fact that in the interim  
persons other than appellant had been promoted while he had not. Counsel 
for appellant commented on the displeasure of his client over the delay 
thus far. Counsel for appellees explained that he regretted the delay, that 
he understood the concern of appellant's counsel, but that the delay was unavoid
able . Counsel for appellees reiterated his intention to file a motion for an 
extension of tim e. His reco llection ---w h ich  here apparently d iffers from  
that of counsel for appellant-—is  that although counsel for appellant in
dicated h is d issatisfaction , he did not state that be intended to file  an op
position. For this reason we made no representation one way or the other 
with respect to the intentions of appellant's counsel to file or not to file  a 
responsive pleading. We hasten to add that we are not suggesting that 
counsel for appellant has in any way m isrepresented the conversation of 
February 28. It appears that there has sim ply been a misunderstanding or 
a divergence of recollection between counsel a s  to  the substance of that 
conversation.

We see  no need to give any particular priority to this case  or to place 
it ahead of any other case. However, if appellant w ishes to request that 
oral argument be expedited, he is  of course free to do so. Although we do 
not intend to move for advancement of the case  for argument, we would have 
no objection to such a motion if appellant chooses to file  m e .

- 2 -



• - ■ ,  -.V. • . *>. V ■ - *a
■

* ! •  •
J t f

aotte-.ag teat ttei* terief."* Iteey wars ate!i* to Has ate typing alm ost a il of ttea

tertef am Itfeaday. but tevcaua* «f its  ieagtte asst tec raw m  of tte* iateereat

ealtic* & typing from 4 2!3£~pag# aaadvr ttco 4 raft, they vara unatei® to fist'ate

ttec f ’.aal m U « n  a» arg%uaKnt *od tte» ueSs-s twtil today iTaeeday, March
_ * /

1311. fcatlwT than f t  another cafoaaise. * t  asfc leave «f Coart to

ftatemit a  <&erex cofgr of ear ter af today, feeding itw aafttsifttted delivery at 

printed cqfti.ee tomorrow or the scat day* A* xooo a* ttecy arrive . *#  ^teail ■
' -  ’i  Tit. v. .‘.V . , f  !'/} j ^  vlLcfcc TJrgfa» i t : /  . £!• 'k Vw ■ 'I*'

f i l l  t e a i v H k  tte« Clock I t  the rata l site* nomtes .

A'BKlUEJrOWC, It la respeetfally  regtegeted that tte# tantent mediae tee greeted.

•A 'ri m n BKff
Ueiied -tale* M ts r w j

i c S i f  A. tk itk V '
& sex ta n t Catted tatoc A ito rw ;

; :* $  Alii# d . ' RCinS
Ae«i»ta*t Uaited Mate a Attarwj

1 /  l^m nnE pcrctaH es v e rg e d  or* tte* te<-*«f: a fifth  s e c re ta ry  was ab sen t aa 
««•<; nee* #f lllaea*.

• • v ' . •;*> ’ 'r 1~ * ';*•<; ’ _ '.<w . ?*. v;t*
a / U* teave today provided i j f t I U s t  *  roeasel w th  a Xerox copy of e»r brief 
Iwittiowt ttec iadas). V * shall of course  send h a  e e p * e  of oar printed teti-f 
a s soon as U arr iv es .



.*> -

CfeKTIFK ATL OF SEBV1CX

I HEBE BY CERTIFY, that a copy of the foregoing Motion has been 

stalled  to counsel for appellant, Jack G reenberg, 1 it quire) Jam es N. Nabri t. 

i l l ,  1 eqnire, M orris J . B ailer, r equire, 10 Columbus C ircle , New York, 

New York, 19019} David Caehdsn, Esquire, 1712 N Street, N .W . ,  and 

David J. Baylor, Esquire, 115 Connecticut Avenue, N. V , Washington, D .C , 

20005 this 12th day of March, 1974.

- 2-

A ssistant Dai ted States Attorney



I N D E X
P age

C o u n te r s t a t e m e n t  of the  c a s e ---------------------------------------

A r g u m e n t s :

I. The D i s t r i c t  C o u r t  w as  w ithout ju r i s d ic t io n  
to e n te r t a in  a p p e l l a n t 's  co m p la in t  b e c a u s e  
th e  a l le g ed ly  d i s c r im in a to r y  conduct of 
w h ich  he c o m p la in ed  o c c u r r e d  b e fo re  
M a rc h  24, 1972, the  da te  of the  E qua l 
E m p lo y m e n t  O p p o rtu n ity  Act of 197 2, and 
the  p ro v is io n  of th a t  s ta tu te  upon w hich he 
r e l i e s  w as  not r e t r o a c t i v e --------------------------------

II. A ssu m in g  th a t  the  E q u a l  E m p lo y m en t  
O p p o rtu n ity  A ct of 1972 is  to  be given  
r e t r o a c t iv e  e ffec t ,  th a t  Act does  not 
a f fo rd  ap p e l lan t ,  a  f e d e ra l  em p lo y ee  
w hose  c o m p la in t  r e c e iv e d  c o n s id e ra t io n  
and fina l  a d ju d ica tio n  in the  a d m in is t r a t iv e  
p r o c e s s ,  a t r i a l  de novo b e fo re  the  D is t r i c t  
C o u r t ------------------------------------------------------------------

A. B a c k g ro u n d -------------------------------------------

B . A n a ly s i s ------------------------------------------------

III. The  D i s t r i c t  C o u r t  p r o p e r ly  conc luded  on the 
b a s i s  of the  a d m in i s t r a t iv e  r e c o r d ,  inc lud ing  
a  t r a n s c r i p t  of a p p e l l a n t 's  s e v e n -d a y  h e a r in g ,  
tha t  h i s  c la im  w as  to ta l ly  w ithout m e r i t ----------

C o n c lu s io n --------------------------------------------------------------------

A d d en d u m ----------------------------------------------------------------------

1

6

1 2

16

21

68

74

76



T A B L E  OF CASES

★ Addison v. H olly  H ill F r u i t  P r o d u c t s ,  In c . , 322 U. S. 607 (1944)

*A ld rid g e  v. W i l l i a m s , 44 U. S. (3 H o w .)  9 (1845)

A ll iso n  v. U nited  S ta te s , 451 F .  2d 1035 (Ct. Cl 1971)

B anks  v. L o ca l  136, IB EW , 296 F .  Supp. 1188 (N. E . A la . 1968), 
r e v 'd  on o th e r  g ro u n d s ,  421 F .  2d 888 
(5th C ir .  1970).............................. ........................ ................... ..............

B ea le  v. B lo u n t, 461 F .  2d 1133 (5th C ir .  1972)--------------- ------------ -

B indczyck  v. F in u c a n e ,  342 U. S. 76 (1951)

B laze  v. Moon, 440 F .  2d 1348 (5th C i r .  1971)---------- ---------

C h a m b e r s  v. U nited  S ta te s ,  451 F .  2d 1045 (Ct. C l. 1971)

* C h u rc h  of the  Holy T r in i ty  v. U nited  S t a t e s , 143 U. S. 475 (1892)-

* C le v e la n d  B o a rd  of E d u c a t io n  v. L a  F l e u r , 94 S. C t. 791 (1974)--

D a leh e i te  v. U nited  S ta te s ,  346 U. S. 15 (1953)

★ Duplex P r in t in g  P r e s s  C o . v. P e e r in g ,  254 U. S. 443 (1921)

F l o e r s h e i m  v. E n g m an ,  D. C. C i r .  No. 72 -622 , 
d ec id ed  D e c e m b e r  26, 1973-----------------------------------------------------

13, 57 

-31, 68

-32

■8

6, 7

32

•6, 7

-32

26

8

■7

-66

- 1 1

* G notta  v. U nited  S ta te s ,  415 F .  2d 1171 (8th C ir .  1969) 

H ack ley  v. Jo h n so n , 360 Supp. 1247 (D. D. C. 1973)--

H a r r i s  v. Nixon, 325 F .  Supp. 28 (D. Colo. 1971)- 

H a r r i s o n  v. B u tz , 5 E. P .  D. § 8632 (D. D. C. 1973)

H a s s e t t  v. W elch , 303 U. S. 303 (1938) 9



H ill-V in ce n t  v. R ic h a r d s o n , 359 F .  Supp. 308 (N. D. 111. 1973)---------- 8

* In r e  C a r l s o n , 292 F .  Supp. 778 (C. D. C al. 1968)----------------------------- 67

Jo h n so n  v. F r o e h l k e , 5 E . P .  E . § 8638 (D. Md. 1973)----------------------- 9

Jo h n so n  v. U n ited  S ta te s ,  S. D. Ind. No. IP  72-C-117, 
d ec id ed  N o v e m b e r  17, 1972-------------------------------------------------------------------8

* Keim v . U nited  S ta te s ,  177 U. S. 290 (1900)----------------- ------------------------- -50

K uhl v. H am pton , 326 F .  Supp. 439 (E. D. M o .) ,  
a f f 'd ,  451 F .  2d 340 (8th C ir .  1971)-------- -----------------------------------------------7

L a r s o n  v. D o m e s t ic  & F o r e ig n  C o m m e rc e  C o r p . , 337 U. S. 682 
(1949)-........... ................... .......................... - -------------------------------------------------------- 7

Love v . P u l lm a n  C o . ,4 3 0  F .  2d 49 (10th C ir .  1970), 
r e v 'd  on o th e r  g ro u n d s ,  404 U. S. 522 (1972)----------------------------------------8

M alone v. B ow doin, 369 U. S. 643 (1962)-----------------------------------------------7

* M a s t ro  P l a s t i c s  C o rp . v. NLRB, 350 U. S. 270 (1950)---------------------------- 13,

M idland C o o p e ra t iv e  W h o le sa le  v. I c k e s ,  125 F .  2 618 (8th C ir .  ), 
c e r t , d e n ie d , 316 U. S. 673 (1942)------------------------------ ---------------------------10

M osley  v. U nited  S ta te s , 6 E . P .  D. § 8875, 6 F .  E . P .
§ 462 (S. D. C alif .  1973)............. - ------------------------------------------------------------ 8

P a l m e r  v. R o g e r s ,  6 E . P .  D. § 8822 (D. D. C. 1973), 
a p p e a l  pending  sub  n o m . P a l m e r  v. K is s in g e r ,
No. 73-2110----------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------- 8

* P o lc o v e r  v. S e c r e t a r y  of the  T r e a s u r y ,  115 U. S. App. D. C. 338,
447 F .  2d 1223 (1973)------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------35,

P o w e l l  v. B ra n n a n ,  91 U. S. App. D. C. 16,
196 F .  2d 871 (1952)---------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------- 50

R o b in so n  v. L o r i l l a r d  C o rp . , 444 F .  2d 791 (4th C ir .  1971)----------------- 8



S am pson  v. M u r ra y ,  42 U. S. L. W. 4221 
(U. S. F e b .  19, 1974)............................ .................................

S m all  v. U nited  S ta te s ,  470 F .  2d 1020 (Ct. C l. 1972)----------------- ----------

T h o m p so n  v. U nited  S ta te s ,  460 F .  Supp. 255 (N. D. C alif .  1973) --------- 8, 9

U nited  S ta te s ,  v. F iv e  G am b lin g  D e v ic e s ,  346 U. S. 441 (1953) ----------- 26

^U nited  S ta te s  v. Sherw ood, 312 U. S. 584 (1941)

United S ta te s  v. Union P a c i f ic  R. R . , 98 U. S. 569 (187P)-

W a lk e r  v. K le in d ie n s t ,  357 F .  Supp. 749 (D. D. C. 1973)

^ W il l i a m s  v. Z u c k e r t ,  372 U. S. 765 (1963)

O T H E R  R E F E R E N C E S

28 U. S. C. § 1343----------- ------------------------------------------------- ----------

28 U. S. C. § 1346 (a)------------- --------- - .................... ....................................

42 U. S. C. § 1983------------------------------------------------------------------------

42 U. S. C. § 2000e-2  (Supp. II, 1972)-----------------------------

42 U. S. C. § 2000e-4  (a) (Supp. I I ,  (-1-972-)------------- ““

42 U. S. C. § 200 0 e-5  (Supp. II, 1972), 
am en d in g  42 U. S. C. § 2 0 0 0 e -5  (1970)

42 U. S. C. § 2000e-16 (Supp. II, 1972), 
s e c t io n  717---------------------------

42 U. S. C. § 2000e-16 (a) (Supp. II, 1972) 2 1 , 2 2



O TH E R  R E F E R E N C E S
P ag e

H aw kins  B i l l ,  H. R. 1746, 92d C o n g .} 1st S e s s .  (1971)---------------  20, 38, 68

W il l i a m s  B il l ,  S. 2515, 92d Cong. , 1st S e s s .  (1971)---------------------  20, 68

E r l e n b o r n  B il l ,  H. R. 9247, 92d Cong. , 1st S e s s .  (1971)-------------- 19

118 Cong. R ec .  S 177 (daily  ed . J a n .  20, 1972)----------------------------  65

118 Cong. R ec . S 221 (daily  ed. J a n .  21, 1972)------------------------------ 65

118 Cong. R ec .  S 387 (daily  ed. J a n .  24, 1972)---------------------------- 65

118 Cong. R ec .  S 1546 (daily  ed. F eb . 9, 1972)---------------------------  67

118 C ong. R ec .  S 1655 (daily  ed . F eb . 14, 1972)-------------------------- 67

118 Cong. R ec . S 2280 (daily  ed. F eb . 22, 1972)------------------------ 29, 31, 68

118 Cong. R ec . S 2281-2282 (da ily  ed. F eb . 22, 1972)----------------- 56

118 Cong. R ec . S 2287 (daily  ed. F e b .  22, 1972)--------------------------  64

119 Cong. R ec . S 1219 (daily  ed. J a n .  23, 1973)-------------- 64

L e g is la t iv e  H is to ry  of the  E q u a l  E m p lo y m e n t  O p p o rtu n ity  Act of 
1972, p r e p r e d  by the  S u b c o m m it tee  on L a b o r  of the  S ena te  C o m 
m i t te e  on L a b o r  and P u b lic  W e lfa re ,  92d Cong. , 2nd S e s s .
(C om m . P r in t  1972)------------------------------------------------------------------------ p a s s im

2A S u th e r la n d ,  § 45. 05---------------------------------------------------------------------14, 15

2A S u th e r la n d ,  § 46. 05---------------------------------------------------------------------13, 14

2A S u th e r la n d ,  § 47.11----------------------------------------------------------------------22

2A S u th e r la n d ,  S ta tu te s  and S ta tu to ry  C o n s t ru c t io n  
§ 47. 23 (4th ed. 1973)--------------------------------------------------------------------- 10

2A S u th e r la n d ,  § 48. 03-------------------------------------------------------------------- 15

2A S u th e r la n d ,  § 4 8 .0 6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- 25

2A S u th e r la n d ,  § 4 8 .1 0 -------------------------------------------------------------------- 64

2A S u th e r la n d ,  § 4 8 .1 3 --------------------------------------------------------------------- 13, 65



ISSUES P R E S E N T E D  *

In the  opin ion  of a p p e l le e ,  the  fo llow ing i s s u e s  a r e  p re s e n te d :

I. W h e th e r  the  D i s t r i c t  C o u rt  had ju r i s d ic t io n  u n d e r  the  E q u a l  E m 

p lo y m e n t  O p p o rtu n ity  A ct of 1972 to  e n te r ta in  a c iv il  a c t io n  b a se d  on a l le g e d  

ly d i s c r i m i n a t o r y  conduct w hich o c c u r r e d  p r i o r  to  the  d a te  of th a t  s t a t u t e ' s  

e n a c tm e n t?

II. W h e th e r  the  D i s t r i c t  C o u r t  p r o p e r ly  concluded  th a t  the  E q u a l  E m 

p lo y m e n t  O p p o r tu n i ty  A ct of 1972 did not e n t i t le  a p p e l la n t ,  a f e d e r a l  e m 

p loyee  w hose  c o m p la in t  re c e iv e d  t im e ly  c o n s id e ra t io n ,  inc lud ing  a full 

h e a r in g  and f ina l  ad ju d ic a t io n  in  the  a d m in is t r a t iv e  p r o c e s s e s ,  a de novo 

h e a r in g  in the  D i s t r i c t  C o u r t?

III. W h e th e r  the  D i s t r i c t  C o u r t  p r o p e r ly  conc luded , on the  b a s i s  of the 

v o lu m in o u s  a d m in i s t r a t iv e  r e c o r d ,  th a t  a p p e l l a n t 's  c la im  w as to ta l ly  w ith -  

o u r  m e r i t ?

* T h is  c a s e  h a s  n o t  p r e v io u s ly  b e e n  b e fo re  th is  C o u r t .



UNITED STA TES COURT OF A P P E A L S  
FO R  THE D ISTRICT O F COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

No. 73-2072

R A L PH  M. HA CK LEY , A ppellan t,

v.

DONALD E . JOHNSON, e t a l . , A p p e l le e s .

A P P E A L  FR O M  T H E  UNITED STA TES DISTRICT COURT 
FO R  T H E  D ISTRICT O F COLUMBIA

B R IE F  F O R  A P P E L L E E

C O U N T E R ST A T E M E N T  O F THE CASE

On S e p te m b e r  26, 1972, a p p e l la n t ,  a V e te r a n s  A d m in is t r a t io n  em p lo y ee  

who w as  d i s s a t i s f i e d  w ith  the  d i s p o s i t io n  of h is  co m p la in t  by bo th  the V e te r a n s  

A d m in is t r a t io n  and the  C ivil S e rv ic e  C o m m is s io n ,  filed  th is  c iv i l  ac t io n  in 

the  D i s t r i c t  C o u r t  p u r s u a n t  to  the  E q u a l  E m p lo y m e n t  O p p o rtu n ity  A ct of
J I

1972. In e s s e n c e ,  a p p e l la n t  c la im e d  th a t  he had been  d en ied  a  p ro m o t io n  

to  which he w as  e n t i t le d  so le ly  b e c a u s e  of h is  r a c e .  The G o v e rn m e n t 's

1/ T he  E q u a l  E m p lo y m e n t  O p p o rtu n ity  Act of 1972, Pub. L. No. 92-2 61 
(M arch  24, 1972), am en d ed  T i t le  VII of the  C iv il R igh ts  A ct of 1964, Pub.
L. No. 88-352  (luly 2, 1964), 42 U. S. C. § 2000e et s e q . One p ro v is io n  
added  to  the  1964 Act by  the  1972 a m e n d m e n ts  w as s e c t io n  717, 42 U. S. C.
§ 2000e-16 (Supp. II, 1 9 7 2 )(h e re in a f te r  s e c t io n  717), the  p ro v is io n  upon w hich 
a p p e l la n t  r e l ie d  in f i l ing  su i t  in the  in s ta n t  c a s e .



- 2 -

m o tion  to  d i s m i s s  the  a c t io n  f o r  la ck  of j u r i s d ic t io n  w as  d en ied  on M arch  

14, 1973. T h e r e a f t e r  the  G o v e rn m e n t  f i led  a  m o tion  fo r  s u m m a r y  ju d g m e n t ,  

re ly in g  in l a r g e  p a r t  on the  v o lu m in o u s  r e c o r d  d ev e lo p ed  d u r in g  the  a d 

m in i s t r a t i v e  p ro c e e d in g s .  T h a t  m o tio n  w as  g ra n te d  by the  H o n o rab le  G e rh a r d  

A. G e se l l  in a  m e m o ra n d u m  opin ion  and o r d e r  i s s u e d  on Ju ly  13, 1973. 

ap p ea l  fo llow ed.

On Ju n e  29, 1967, a p p e l la n t  t r a n s f e r r e d  f r o m  a GS-7 p o s i t io n  a t the  D i s t r i c t  

of C o lu m b ia  D e p a r tm e n t  of P u b l ic  W e lfa re  to  a  GS-7 p o s i t io n  a t  the  V e te r a n s  

A d m in is t r a t io n  lVA), w h e re  he b eg an  w o rk in g  a s  a  G e n e ra l  In v e s t ig a to r  in the  

in v e s t ig a t io n  and S e c u r i ty  S e rv ic e  (ISS). At the  t im e  of h is  t r a n s f e r  a p p e l 

lan t  la ck e d  the  e x p e r ie n c e  w hich  would have  q u a lif ied  h im  f o r  a GS-11 p o s i t io n ,  

the  n o r m a l  s t a r t i n g  g r a d e  f o r  G e n e ra l  I n v e s t ig a to r s  in  th a t  un it;  h o w e v e r ,  

a p p e l la n t  had b een  sch e d u le d  fo r  p ro m o t io n  c o n s id e r a t io n  a t  the  D e p a r tm e n t  

of P u b l ic  W e lfa re ,  and on S e p te m b e r  24, 1967, he was ̂prom oted  b> the \  A 

to  a  G S-9  le v e l  (R ec. 92; T r .  8-11, 13, 49, 126, 912). "  A l i t t l e  m o r e  than  

one y e a r  l a t e r ,  in N o v e m b e r  1968, a p p e l la n t  a d v an ced  to  a GS-11 p o s i t io n  

(T r .  49). A gain  abou t one y e a r  l a t e r ,  in N o v e m b e r  1969, a p p e l la n t  w as

p ro m o te d  to  a GS-12 (T r .  49).

In F e b r u a r y  1971, abou t f if tee n  m o n th s  a f t e r  h is  l a t e s t  p ro m o t io n ,  a p p e l -  

2 / H ack ley  v. Jo h n so n , 360 F . Supp. 1247 (D. D. C. 1973).

3 / "R ec .  " r e f e r s  to  the  r e c o r d  of the  a d m in i s t r a t iv e  p r o c e e d in g s  b e fo re  the  
V e te r a n s  A d m in is t r a t io n  and the  C iv il S e rv ic e  C o m m is s io n .  T r .  r e f e r s  
to  the  t r a n s c r i p t  of the  h e a r in g  b e fo re  the  C iv il S e rv ic e  C o m m is s io n  h e a r in g
e x a m i n e r  on S e p te m b e r  27 -30  and O c to b e r  1-5, 1971).



- 3 -

la n t  f i r s t  c o m p la in ed  th a t  he , a N eg ro ,  had b e en  d en ied  a  p ro m o t io n  to the
4 /

le v e l  of GS-13 so le ly  b e c a u s e  of h is  r a c e .  As a r e s u l t  of th is  a l le g a t io n ,  an

eq u a l  e m p lo y m e n t  o p p o r tu n i ty  c o u n se lo r  in te rv ie w e d  five of a p p e l l a n t 's  p a s t

and p r e s e n t  s u p e r v i s o r s .  On M arch  8 the  c o u n s e lo r  in fo rm e d  a p p e l la n t

th a t  h is  s u p e r v i s o r s  c o n s id e re d  h is  a l le g a t io n  to  be  ' u n fa ir ,  u n ju s t  and not

t r u e " ;  the  c o u n s e lo r  a l s o  to ld  a p p e l la n t  th a t  he w as not going to  be  p ro m o te d

u n t i l ,  in the  ju d g m e n t  of h is  s u p e r v i s o r s ,  he w as  " c a p a b le  of hand ling  GS-13
5 /

c a s e s "  (Rec. 60; s e e  R ec . 58-59).

S h o r t ly  t h e r e a f t e r ,  on M arch  22, 1971, a p p e l la n t  lodged  a f o r m a l  c o m 

p la in t  a l le g in g  r a c i a l  d i s c r im in a t io n  with the  V e te r a n s  A d m in is t r a t io n ,  in 

w hich he c la im e d  th a t  the  d i s c r im in a to r y  con d u c t (the d en ia l  of h is  p r o m o 

tion) w as  e ffe c ted  " u n d e r  the  p r e t e x t  of a s s ig n m e n t  of c a s e s  a c c o rd in g  to 

[his] 'u n r e a d in e s s '  " (R ec . 55). A ppe llan t n a m e d  h is  s u p e r v i s o r ,  the  A s 

s i s t a n t  D i r e c t o r  of ISS, W il l ia m  L. R ettew , J r .  ; the  D i r e c to r  of ISS, A .  

K en n e th  M a ie r s ;  and the  A s s i s t a n t  A d m in i s t r a to r  '(of the  VA ) fo r  M anage-

4 /  On N o v e m b e r  15, 1972, a p p e l la n t  r e c e iv e d  an  in c r e m e n t  to  GS-12, Step 2

5/ In a c c o rd a n c e  w ith  e x is t in g  re g u la t io n s ,  M r. R o b e r t  C. B u m b a ry ,  the 
E q u a l  E m p lo y m e n t  O p p o rtu n ity  C o u n se lo r ,  f iled  a  w r i t t e n  r e p o r t ;  in it he 
m ad e  no find ing  of r a c i a l  d is c r im in a t io n .  H o w ev er ,  he did r e c o m m e n d  
th a t  a p p e l la n t  be  p ro m o te d  f o r  a  n u m b e r  of r e a s o n s :  the  a b se n c e  of job 
s t a n d a r d s  m a d e  d if f icu l t  an  e v a lu a t io n  of a  s u p e r v i s o r ' s  d e c is io n  to  p r o 
m o te  o r  not to  p ro m o te ;  a p p e l la n t  had a p p a re n t ly  p e r f o r m e d  a d eq u a te ly ;  
c o m m u n ic a t io n  b e tw een  a p p e l la n t  and h is  s u p e r v i s o r s  w as  in ad eq u a te ;  and 
a p p e l la n t ,  b e c a u s e  he w as  b la ck ,  w as  an a s s e t  to  the  o rg a n iz a t io n  in view  
of c u r r e n t  m in o r i ty  p r o b le m s  (Rec. 58-60).



m e n t and E v a lu a t io n ,  B lake  E . T u r n e r ,  a s  the  r e s p o n s ib le  p a r t i e s .  A p p e l

lan t  r e q u e s te d  th a t  he "be p ro m o te d  fo r tw ith  [s i c ] to a GS-13 G e n e ra l  In 

v e s t i g a to r  r e t r o a c t iv e  to  [his] d a te  of e l ig ib i l i ty  Nov 15, 1970 (R ec. 55). .

F o r m a l  in v e s t ig a t io n  of a p p e l l a n t 's  c o m p la in t ,  begun on F r id a y ,  A p r i l  2, 

1971, w as su sp e n d e d  the  fo llow ing  Monday a f te rn o o n ,  A p r i l  5, a t  a p p e l l a n t 's  

r e q u e s t  (Rec. 82-89) . In a c c o rd a n c e  w ith  h is  w is h e s ,  a  new in v e s t ig a to r ,  

M rs .  T h e lm a  L. K e n n ib re w , w as  a s s ig n e d  to  the  m a t t e r  (R ec. 79, 89).

T he in v e s t ig a t io n  r e c o m m e n c e d  on A p r i l  13, 1971, invo lved  in te rv ie w s  w ith  

s ix te e n  p eop le  o th e r  than  a p p e l la n t  (f if teen  of whom  su p p lied  M rs .  K in n ib rew  

w ith a ff id a v i ts ) ,  and c u lm in a te d  in the  i s s u a n c e  of a w r i t t e n  r e p o r t  on Ju n e

4, 1971 (Rec. 4 9 -5 4 ;  s e e  R ec . 125-170). On Ju n e  23 a p p e l la n t  m e t  w ith  

A s s i s t a n t  A d m in i s t r a to r  T u r n e r  to  d i s c u s s  h is  c o m p la in t  in l igh t of M rs .  

K in n ib re w 's  r e p o r t ,  bu t the  m a t t e r  r e m a in e d  u n re s o lv e d  (see  R ec . 46-481.

On Ju ly  6, 1971, a p p e l la n t  d e m an d ed  a  full h e a r in g  on h is  c o m p la in t  Rec. 

46 -4 7 ) . P u r s u a n t  to  M r. T u r n e r ' s  r e q u e s t ,  an e x a m i n e r  f r o m  the  C iv il 

S e rv ic e  C o m m is s io n  w as  d e s ig n a te d  to  conduct a  D is c r im in a t io n  C o m p la in t  

H e a r in g  (Rec. 4 4 —45). On A ugust 30 a p p e l la n t  no tif ied  the  e x a m in e r  s 

office th a t  he would be  r e p r e s e n t e d  by an a t to rn e y  a t  the  h e a r in g  (Rec. 43b  

T he  h e a r in g  w as  held on S e p te m b e r  27, 28, 29, 30 and O c to b e r  1, 4 and

5, 1971. A pp e llan t  w as g iven  an o p p o r tu n i ty  to  p r e s e n t  h is  own ev id en c e  

and w as  a llow ed  full c r o s s - e x a m in a t io n  of a l l  the  w i tn e s s e s .

- 4 -



- 5 -

On D e c e m b e r  7, 1971, the  h e a r in g  e x a m in e r  i s s u e d  an e le v e n -p a g e  m e m o 

ra n d u m  in w hich  he s u m m a r iz e d  and an a ly zed  the  ev id en ce  adduced  a t the 

h e a r in g  and m a d e  f ind ings  w ith  r e s p e c t  to  e ac h  of a p p e l la n ts  d e ta i le d  a l l e 

g a t io n s .  T he  e x a m in e r  found no ev id en ce  to  su p p o r t  a c la im  of d i s c r i m i n a 

t ion  b a se d  on r a c e  and re c o m m e n d e d  th a t  a p p e l l a n t 's  c o m p la in t  be  d en ied  

(T r .  Rec. 31-42). By l e t t e r  d a ted  J a n u a r y  25, 1972, How ard M. Denny, 

A s s i s t a n t  G e n e ra l  C o u n se l  of the  VA, ad v ise d  a p p e l lan t  of the V A 's  c o n c u r 

r e n c e  w ith  the  e x a m i n e r ' s  f ind ings  and r e c o m m e n d a t io n ,  which w e re  adopted  

a s  the  f in a l  agen cy  d e c is io n .  M r. Denny a lso  ad v ised  a p p e l la n t  of h is  r ig h t  

to  a p p ea l  to  the  B o a rd  of A p p ea ls  and R eview  of the  C ivil S e rv ic e  C o m 

m is s io n  (R ec. 27).

On F e b r u a r y  4, 1972, a p p e l la n t  a p p ea led  to the  B o a rd  of A p p ea ls  and 

R ev iew  (Rec. 26). P u r s u a n t  to the  C h a i r m a n 's  r e q u e s t ,  the  B o a rd  w as 

fu rn ish e d  w ith  a d d i t io n a l  in fo rm a t io n  c o n c e rn in g  the p ro m o t io n  s c h e d u le s  

of the  o th e r  g e n e r a l  in v e s t ig a to r s  in a p p e l l a n t 's  un it (Rec. 11-14, D -18).

A f te r  i t s  re v ie w  of a ll  the  ev id en ce  the  B oard  on May 22, 1972, i s su e d  

i t s  f ina l  d e c is io n  a f f i rm in g  the  d en ia l  of r e l i e f  sought by a p p e l la n t  (Rec.

3 -8 ) .  F o u r  m o n th s  l a t e r  a p p e l la n t  filed the  in s ta n t  su it .

On A p ril  24, 1973, the  G o v e rn m e n t  filed  a m o tion  f o r  s u m m a r y  ju d g m en t 

to  w hich it appended  a  copy of the  a d m in i s t r a t iv e  r e c o r d  dev e lo p ed  d u r in g  

the  p r o c e s s in g  of a p p e l l a n t 's  c la im , inc lud ing  a t r a n s c r i p t  of the  h e a r in g  

b e fo re  the  C iv il S e rv ic e  C o m m is s io n  h e a r in g  e x a m in e r .  A pp e llan t  opposed



- 6 -

th a t  m o tio n , a rg u in g  in t e r  a l i a  th a t  he w as  e n t i t le d  to  a p le n a r y  h e a r in g  b e 

fo re  the  D i s t r i c t  C o u r t .  On Ju ly  13, 1973, the  c o u r t ,  in a  m e m o ra n d u m  

opinion and o r d e r ,  conc luded  th a t  a t r i a l  de novo is  no t r e q u i r e d  w h e re

"an  a b se n c e  of d i s c r im in a t io n  is  a f f i r m a t iv e ly  e s ta b l i s h e d  by  the  c l e a r  w eigh t
6 /

of the  ev id en ce  . . . . S ince in the  c o u r t ' s  ju d g m e n t  the a d m i n i s t r a 

t ive  find ing  of no d i s c r im in a t io n  w as  su p p o r te d  by a p re p o n d e r a n c e  of the 

e v id en c e ,  the  G o v e r n m e n t 's  m o tio n  w as  g ra n te d  and a p p e l l a n t 's  c a s e  d i s 

m is s e d .

ARGUM ENT

T he D i s t r i c t  C o u r t  w as  w ithout ju r i s d ic t io n  to 
e n te r t a in  a p p e l l a n t 's  c o m p la in t  b e c a u s e  the  
a l le g e d ly  d i s c r i m i n a t o r y  conduct of w hich he 
co m p la in ed  o c c u r r e d  b e fo re  M arch  24, 1972, 
the  d a te  of the  E q u a l  E m p lo y m e n t  O p p o rtu n ity  
A ct of 1972, and the  p ro v is io n  of th a t  s ta tu te  
upon w hich  he r e l i e s  w as  not r e t r o a c t i v e .

B e fo re  the  e n a c tm e n t  of the  1972 a m e n d m e n ts  to  the C iv il R ig h ts  A ct 

of 1964, s u p r a  no te  1, the  c o u r t s  w e re  w ithou t j u r i s d ic t io n  to  e n t e r t a i n  s u i t s  

a l le g in g  e m p lo y m e n t  o r  p e r s o n n e l  p r a c t i c e  d i s c r im in a t io n  a g a in s t  a  f e d e r a l  

o f f ic e r  o r  ag ency . B ea le  v . B lount, 461 F . 2d 1133 (5th C ir .  1972); B la z e 

v. Moon, 440 F .  2d 1348 (5th C ir .  1971); G notta  v. United S ta te s , 415 F . 2d 1171

6/ H ack ley  v. Jo h n so n , s u p r a  no te  1, 360 F . Supp. a t  1252



- 7 -

(8th C ir .  1969); Kuhl v. H am pton , 326 F . Supp. 439, 440 (E. D. M o .) ,  

a f f 'd ,  451 F . 2d 340 (8th C ir .  1971). T h e s e  d e c is io n s ,  b a sed  on the p r in c ip le  

of s o v e re ig n  im m u n ity ,  r e c o g n iz e d  th a t  the  U nited  S ta te s ,  i ts  o f f ic e r s  a c t in g  

in t h e i r  o ff ic ia l  c a p a c i t ie s )  and a g e n c ie s  a r e  im m u m e  f ro m  su i t  u n le s s  c o n 

s e n t  is  e x p r e s s ly  g iven  by C o n g re s s .  M alone v . Uowdoin, 369 U. S. 643 

(1962); D a le h e i te  v. U nited  S ta te s , 346 U. S. 15 (1953); U a rso n  v. D o m estic  

& F o r e ig n  C o m m e rc e  C orp . , 337 U. S. 682 (1949). The B e a le , B laze  and 

G notta  c a s e s ,  s u p r a , r e je c te d  the  a rg u m e n t  th a t  ju r i s d ic t io n  could be b a se d  

on an y  of the e x is t in g  s ta tu te s  su ch  a s  28 U. S. C. § 1343, 42 U. S. C . § 1983 

o r  28 U. S. C. § 1346 (a) o r  on the  F if th  A m e n d m en t  to the  C o n sti tu tio n .

T h ey  a l s o  d e c l in ed  to  c o n s id e r  the  c a s e  u n d e r  the  v a r io u s  ex ecu tiv e  o r d e r s  

o r  r e g u la t io n s  then  in  e ffec t .  Cf. E x e c u t iv e  O r d e r  No. 10, 925, 26 F e d .  Reg. 

1977 (M arch  8, 1961).

Setion 717 of the  C ivil R igh ts  Act of 1964, s u p r a  note  1, added  by the 

E qua l E m p lo y m e n t  O p p o rtu n ity  Act of 1972, s u p ra  note  1 ( h e r e in a f t e r  the 

1972 Act), e x p r e s s ly  p ro v id e d  th a t  a f e d e ra l  e m p lo y e e ,  a g g r ie v e d  by final 

ag en cy  ac t io n  on h is  c o m p la in t ,  could file  a c iv i l  ac t io n  in a U nited  S ta te s  

D i s t r i c t  C o u rt .  H ow ever, in the  in s ta n t  c a s e  th e  conduct of w hich  a p p e l 

lan t  c o m p la in s  o c c u r r e d  p r i o r  to  M arch  24, 1972, the  e ffec t iv e  d a te  of th is  
7 /

s e c t io n .  C o n seq u en tly ,  u n le s s  s e c t io n  717 is  to be app lied  r e t r o a c t iv e ly ,  

w hich  we s u b m it  it is  not, a p p e l l a n t 's  su i t  m u s t  fa il .

T) A p p e llan t  c o m p la in s  of d i s c r im in a to r y  conduct by w hich  he w as den ied  
a  p ro m o t io n  in N o v e m b e r  1970. See Rec. 55.



- 8 -

The 1972 A ct c o n ta in s  no in d ica t io n  w h a ts o e v e r  th a t  s e c t io n  717, w hich 

c r e a t e s  in f e d e r a l  e m p lo y e e s  a new r ig h t  to  fi le  a  c iv i l  ac t io n  a g a in s t  

h ead s  of f e d e ra l  a g e n c ie s ,  w as  to  be  g iven  r e t r o a c t iv e  e ffec t .  It i s  t r u e  

th a t  p r i o r  to  the  1972 a m e n d m e n ts  the  p r o v is io n s  of the  Civil R igh ts  A ct of 

1964 w e re  held  to  be  r e t r o a c t iv e  in t h e i r  e f fec t  on e m p lo y m e n t  p r a c t i c e s  

in the  p r iv a te  s e c to r .  R ob inson  v. L o r i l l a r d  C o rp . , ’44 F .  2d 791 4 th  C n  . 

1971); Love v. P u l lm a n  C o. , 430 F . 2d 49 (10th C ir .  1970), r e v 'd  on o th e r  

g ro u n d s , 404 U. S. 522 (1972); B anks  v. L oca l 136, IBEW ^296 F . Supp.

1188 (N. E . A la . 1968), r e v 'd  on o th e r  g ro u n d s , 421 F . 2 d  888 (5th C ir .  1970). 

H ow ever , s in c e  the  p a s s a g e  of the  1972 a m e n d m e n ts ,  the S u p re m e  C o u r t  

h a s  c l e a r ly  s ta te d  th a t  the  1972 e x ten s io n  of the  p r o v is io n s  of the  C iv il R ig h ts  

Act of 1964 to  pub lic  e m p lo y m e n t  by  a  s ta te  w as  not r e t r o a c t iv e .  C leve land  

B oard  of E d u ca tio n  v. L a  F l e u r , 94 S. Ct. 791, 795 n. 8 (1974). A lthough 

we know of no a p p e l la te  d e c is io n  w hich d e a ls  s p e c i f ic a l ly  w ith  42 U. S. C.

§ 2000e-16, the  United  S ta te s  D i s t r i c t  C ourt  fo r  the  D i s t r i c t  of C o lum bia  

c o n s id e re d  i t s  a p p l ic a b i l i ty  to  sex  d i s c r im in a t io n  in f e d e r a l  e m p lo y m e n t  to  

be  p r o s e p e c t iv e  in P a l m e r  v. R o g e r s ,  6 E . P . D. § 8822 'D. D. C. 1973), 

ap p ea l  pend ing  sub  n o m . P a l m e r  v. K i s s i n g e r , No. 73-2110. A ccoi d , Hill 

-V in c e n t  v. R ic h a rd s o n ,  359 F . Supp. 308 (N. D. 111. 1973); M o s le y v.

United S ta te s , 6 E . P . D. § 8875, 6 F .  E. P . § 462 (S. D. C alif .  1973). See 

a l s o  Jo h n so n  v. United  S ta te s ,  S. D. Ind. No. IP  7 2 -C -  117, d ec id e d

N o v e m b e r  17, 1972. But s e e  T h o m p so n  v. United  S ta te s , 460 F . Supp.



- 9 -

255 (N. D. C alif . 1973); H a r r i s o n  v. Butz, 5 E . P . D. § 8632 (D. D. C. 1973); 

W a lk e r  v . K le in d ie n s t , 357 F . Supp. 749 (D. D. C. 1973); Jo h n so n  v. F r o e h l k e ,

5 E . P . E . § 8638 (D. Md. 1973).

A d d itio n a lly ,  we s u b m it  th a t  u n d e r ly in g  p o licy  and ju d ic ia l  p r in c ip le s  

su p p o r t  o u r  co n ten t io n  th a t  the  D i s t r i c t  C o u rt  w as  w ithout ju r i s d ic t io n  to 

e n te r t a in  a p p e l l a n t 's  c la im .  United  S ta te s  v. S herw ood , 312 U. S. 584 (1941), 

t e a c h e s  th a t  w a iv e r s  of s o v e r e ig n  im m u n ity  should  be s t r i c t l y  c o n s t r u e d .

T h u s  Sherw ood s u g g e s ts  by a n a lo g y  tha t  s in c e  n e i th e r  the  1972 A ct n o r  i ts  

le g i s la t iv e  h i s to r y  a d d r e s s e s  the  i s s u e  of r e t r o a c t iv i ty ,  any  d o u b ts  c o n c e r n 

ing the  sco p e  of s e c t io n  717 should  be  re s o lv e d  in fa v o r  of p r o s p e c t iv e  a p p l i 

ca t io n  only. T h is  i n t e r p r e ta t io n  i s  in d ica ted  by a n o th e r  w e l l - e s t a b l i s h e d  canon 

of s t a tu to r y  c o n s t r u c t io n .  The S u p rem e  C o u rt  h a s  o b se rv e d  tha t  a  law  is

p r e s u m e d ,  in the  a b s e n c e  of c l e a r  e x p r e s s io n  to  the  c o n t r a r y ,  to  o p e ra te
8/

p r o s p e c t i v e l y . "  H a s s e t t  v. W elch , 303 U. S. 303, 314 (1938). T hus ,

fo r  th is  f u r t h e r  r e a s o n ,  th e  n e u t r a l i ty  of s e c t io n  717 and i ts  l e g i s l a t i v e

h i s to r y  s u g g e s ts  th a t  it app ly  only to  th o se  a l le g ed  d i s c r i m i n a t o r y  a c t s

o c c u r r in g  a f t e r  the  d a te  of i t s  e n a c tm e n t .

T he  c o n c lu s io n  th a t  s e c t io n  717 is  not r e t r o a c t iv e  is  a l s o  su p p o r te d  by

a  c o m p a r i s o n  of o th e r  p ro v is io n s  of the  1972 Act. Sec tion  717 w as  en ac ted

8? A s i m i l a r  c o n c lu s io n  w as  s e t  fo r th  in United  S ta te s  v. Union P a c i f i c 
R. R . , 98 U. S. 569, 606-607 (1878): " [I]t w ill not be p r e s u m e d ,  u n le s s
the  lan g u ag e  of th e  s ta tu te  im p e ra t iv e ly  r e q u i r e d  it, th a t  C o n g re s s ,  by a 
r e t r o s p e c t iv e  law . . . w h e re  no r ig h t  of a c t io n  founded on p a s t  t r a n s a c t io n s  
e x is te d  . . . in ten d ed  to  c r e a t e  it . "



-1 0 -

by s e c t io n  11 of Pub . L. No. 92-261, s u p r a  no te  1. Setion  14 of the  s a m e  

pub lic  law p ro v id e d  th a t  " th e  a m e n d m e n ts  m ad e  by th is  A ct to  S ec tion  / 06 

of the  C ivil R igh ts  A ct of 1964 s h a l l  be  a p p l ic a b le  w ith  r e s p e c t  to  c h a r g e s  

pending  w ith  the  C o m m is s io n  on the  d a te  of e n a c tm e n t  of th is  A ct and  a ll  

c h a r g e s  f iled  t h e r e a f t e r . "  T he  " C o m m is s io n "  sp e c if ie d  in s e c t io n  14 of the

1972 Act i s  the  E q u a l  E m p lo y m e n t  O p p o rtu n ity  C o m m is s io n  (EEO C ). 42
£ /  . . . . .

U. S. C. § 2000e-4  (a). T he  a p p l ic a t io n  of th o se  l im i te d  p r o v is io n s  of the

1972 Act, e f fec t iv e  a s  to  m a t t e r s  a r i s i n g  p r i o r  to  i t s  e n a c tm e n t ,  m a k e s  it 

eq u a lly  c l e a r  th a t  p a s t  a c t io n s  a r e  o th e rw is e  no t w ith in  the  sco p e  of the 

A ct on the  " p r in c ip le  of e x p r e s s io  u n iu s  e s t  e x c lu s io  a l t e n u s . M id.ana 

C o o p e ra t iv e  W h o lesa le  v. Ic k e s ,  125 F .  2d 618, 626 (8th C ir .  ), c e r u  den ied ,  

316 U. S. 673 (1942); s e e  2A S u th e r lan d ,  S ta tu te s  and S ta tu to ry  C o n s tru c t io n  

§ 4 7 .2 3  (4th ed. 1973). S im p ly  s ta te d ,  C o n g re s s  d e a l t  w ith  the  p ro b le m  of 

r e t r o a c t iv i t y  when it fe l t  th a t  r e t r o a c t iv e  a p p l ic a t io n  of the  1972 a m e n d m e n ts  

w as  n e c e s s a r y .  T he  a b se n c e  f r o m  s e c t io n  11 of lan g u ag e  s i m i l a r  to  th a t  in 

s e c t io n  14 s u g g e s ts  th a t  C o n g re s s  did no t fe e l  th a t  su ch  r e t r o a c t iv e  a p p l i 

ca tio n  w as  m e r i t e d .  T he C o u rt  should  not o v e r tu r n  th is  c o n g re s s io n a l  

d e te r m in a t io n .

!fl~~We e m p h a s iz e  th a t  the  d is t in c t io n  m u s t  be  c a r e f u l ly  d ra w n  b e tw een  c o m 
p la in ts  pend ing  b e fo re  the  E E O C , which a r e  s p e c i f ic a l ly  a ffe c ted  by s e c t io n  
14 of the  1972 A ct, and c o m p la in ts ,  l ike  a p p e l l a n t 's ,  pending  b e fo re  the  C ivil 
S e rv ic e  C o m m is s io n  on M a rc h  24, 1972, w hich a r e  not a f fe c ted  by s e c t io n
14.



-11-

A c co rd in g ly ,  s in ce  the  in s ta n t  c a s e  d e a l s  w ith  ev en ts  w hich o c c u r r e d  

p r i o r  to  the  e f fec t iv e  d a te  of the  1972 a m e n d m e n t  con ta in ed  in 42 U. S. C. § 

2000e-16, it  i s  c l e a r l y  im p e r m is s ib l e  to  app ly  th a t  s e c t io n  r e t r o a c t iv e ly .

T h is  C o u r t  should  thus  conc lude  th a t  th e r e  i s  no ju r i s d ic t io n  of a p p e l l a n t 's  

su i t  in  the  D i s t r i c t  C o u r t  and re m a n d  th is  c a s e  w ith  d i r e c t io n s  to  d i s m i s s  the 

c o m p la in t .  See, e ^ ,  F lo e r s h e im  v. E n g m a n ^  D. C. C ir .  No. 72-622 , 

d ec id ed  D e c e m b e r  26, 1973.



12

II. Assuming that the Equal Employment Opportunity 
Act of 1972 is to be given retroactive effect, 
that Act does not afford appellant, a federal 
employee whose complaint received consideration 
and final adjudication in the administrative 
process, a trial de novo before the District 
Court._______________________________________ ___

Appellant contends that under subsection 717 (c) of the

Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16 (c)
10/

(Supp. II, 1972), which permits a federal employee inter alia 

to file a civil action in a United States District Court if 

dissatisfied with the final action taken by the agency on his 

complaint, he is entitled to a plenary hearing in the District 

Court, despite the fact that he was afforded a full hearing 

during the administrative proceedings. We strenuously disagree.

10/ Section 717 is set forth in its entirety in the addendum, 
Infra. Specifically, subsection (c) provides:

Within thirty days of receipt of notice 
of final action taken by a department, agency, 
or unit referred to in subsection (a) of this 
section, or by the Civil Service Commission 
upon an appeal from a decision or order of 
such department, agency, or unit on a complaint 
of discrimination based on race, color, reli- 
tion, sex or national origin, brought pursuant 
to subsection (a) of this section, Executive 
Order 11478 or any succeeding Executive orders, 
or after one hundred and eighty days from the

(Footnote continued on next page.)



13

Little quarrel can be had with the generally recognized 

proposition that the meaning of a particular clause or phrase 

in a statute can only be discerned by construing it "with 

reference to the leading idea or purpose of the whole instru
n /

ment." As has been noted by a leading commentator, that

10/ continued;

filing of the initial charge with the depart
ment, agency, or unit or with the Civil Service 
Commission on appeal from a decision or order 
of such department, agency, or unit until such 
time as final action may be taken by a depart
ment, agency, or unit, an employee or applicant 
for employment, if aggrieved by the final dis
position of his complaint, or by the failure 
to take final action on his complaint, may 
file a civil action as provided in section 
2000e-5 of this title, in which civil action 
the head of the department, agency, or unit, 
as appropriate, shall be the defendant.

Congress did not otherwise describe the parameters of the 
civil action to which a federal employee was entitled. It simply 
provided that such an action was to be governed, "as applicable," 
by the provisions which govern a private-sector employee Title 
VII action. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16 (d) (Supp. II, 1972). Those 
provisions do not specifically address the nature or scope of 
the civil action provided thereunder. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5 
(Supp. II, 1972), amending 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5 (1970).

11/ 2A Sutherland, supra, § 46.05; see Mastro Plastics Corp. v. 
NLRB, 350 U.S. 270, 279 (1950); Addison v. Holly Hill Fruit 
Products, Inc., 322 U.S. 607, 613, 617, 621 (1944).



k

- 14 -

proposition is closely related to and necessarily places great

weight on a consideration which is of paramount importance in
12/

statutory interpretation, the intent of the legislature:

The presumption is that the lawmaker has 
a definite purpose in every enactment and has 
adapted and formulated the subsidiary pro
visions in harmony with that purpose; that 
these are needful to accomplish it; and that, 
if that is the intended effect, they will, at 
least, conduce to effectuate it. That evident 
purpose of a statute is an implied limitation 
on the sense of general terms, and a touch
stone for the expansion of narrower terms.
This intention or the prevailing perception of 
it affords the key to the sense and scope of 
minor provisions. From this assumption pro
ceeds the general rule that the cardinal pur
pose, intent or purport of the whole act shall 
control, and that all the parts be interpreted 
as subsidiary and harmonious. 2A Sutherland, 
supra, § 46.05 at 57.

We submit that the words "civil action" contained in section

717 (c), when read in accordance with this principle of "whole 
13/

statute" interpretation and in view of the intent of Congress
14/

in enacting section 717, do not entitle appellant, or one

similarly situated, to a plenary hearing in the District Court.

12/ See 2A Sutherland, supra, § 45.05.

13/ Id.

14/ (Footnote on next page.)



15

It cannot be doubted that to some extent the intent of

Congress in enacting section 717 is expressed in the language

of the section and implied in the delegation of authority that

the language effects. But the full breadth of that legislative

intent, and consequently the full meaning of section 717, can

be fully appreciated only by reference to thj legislative history

of that section as well as the history of the entire 1972 Act.

Particular attention, of course, must be paid to the evils which,

it can fairly be assumed, Congress intended to remedy through
15/

that legislation. So viewed, section 717 emerges as a com

prehensive, integrated and exclusive approach to the problems of 

discrimination in federal employment.

14/ Section 717, supra note 1, is the only section of Title VII 
that deals directly with federal employees. It also deals ex
clusively with federal employees. Consequently, it is the only 
appropriate frame of reference for application of the "whole 
statute" doctrine.

15/ The appropriateness of such considerations cannot be doubted. 
See 2A Sutherland, supra, § 48.03. See also id., § 45.05 at 15, 
where the "classic formulation of the rule in 1584 by Lord Coke" 
emphasizes the determination of legislative intent by viewing the 
law before the act in question, determining the mischief at which 
it was aimed, and analyzing the statutory remedy and its purpose.



16

A. Background

A brief chronology of the events leading up to the passage

of the Equal Employment Act of 1972 facilitates an understanding

of what it was that Congress intended to do for federal employees.
16/

Originally Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, supra

note 1, did not apply to federal employees. While Congress had

declared it to be "the policy of the United States to insure

equal employment opportunities for Federal employees without

discrimination because of race, color, religion, sex, or national 
17/

origin," specific legislation implementing that policy was 

not enacted until the passage of the Equal Employment Act of 

1972, supra note 1, which extended the protection of Title VII 

to federal government workers. In 1971, while Congress was con

sidering amendments to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII 

coverage of federal employees was encouraged. Proponents of 

such an extension argued that existing complaint procedures, 

which were of an informal nature, were inadequate, and that a

16/ Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits 
generally all discrimination on employment based on race, color, 
religion, sex and national origin. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2 (Supp.
II, 1972).

17/ 5 U.S.C. § 7151 (1970).



17

built-in conflict of interest, i.e., each agency acting as its

own judge, prevented fair and impartial adjudication of discrim-
18/

ination complaints. Civil Service Commission review of
19/

agency determinations was of a rubber-stamp character, and
2 0 /

court review was virtually non-existent. Even where fair

adjudication was possible, administrative delay often prevented
21 /

satisfactory resolution of complaints. Furthermore, remedies
22 /

for discrimination's victims were entirely inadequate. In

18/ Hearings on H.R. 1746 Before the General Subcomm. on Labor 
of the House Comm, on Education and Labor, 92d Cong., 1st Sess. 
127-128, 153-159 (1971) (hereinafter cited as House Hearings); 
Hearings on S. 2515, S. 2617 and H.R. 1746 Before the Subcomm. 
on Labor of the Senate Comm, on Labor and Public Welfare, 92d 
Cong., 1st Sess. 201-207, 210-218 (1971) (hereinafter cited as
Senate Hearings).

19/ House Hearings, supra note 
supra note 18, at 212, 217.

20/ House Hearings, supra note 
Senate Hearings, supra note 18,

21/ House Hearings, supra note 
supra note 18, at 212.

22/ House Hearings, supra note 
supra note 18, at 206.

18, at 155-158; Senate Hearings

18, at 154-155, 322, 391, 418; 
at 296.

18, at 155; Senate Hearings,

18, at 157-158; Senate Hearings,



18

sum, testimony before the respective committees of both Houses 

of Congress reflected a general lack of confidence in the 

integrity and the effectiveness of existing complaint procedures.

With these problems in mind, the House Committee on Educa

tion and Labor reported out H.R. 1746, 92d Cong., 1st Sess.

(1971), which was known as the Hawkins Bill (named after its 
* 23 /

chief sponsor). "The basic purpose of H.R. 1746 [was] to

grant the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission authority^to 

issue . . . judicially enforceable cease and desist orders

which, when issued in the private employment sector, were subject 

to only limited review in a United States Court of Appeals.

23/ H.R. 1746, supra, is set forth at pages 3 2 - 6 0  of the Legis
lative History of the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972 
nreoared by the Subcommittee on Labor of the Senate Committee o 
Labor and Public Welfare, 92d Cong., 2nd Sess. (Comm. Print 1972) 
(hereinafter cited as Legislative History), which is a compendium 
of the bills, committee reports and legislative debate that re
sulted in the enactment of the 1972 Act. References to the bills 
and reports hereafter will include parallel citations to the 
Legislative History.

24/ H.R. Rep. No. 92-238, 92d Cong., 1st Sess. 1 (1971) (here
inafter cited as House Report) at 1, Legislative History, supra 
note 23, at 61. Originally under Title VII of the Civil Rights 
Act of 1964, supra note 1, the Equal Employment Opportunity _ 
Commission (EEOC) was authorized to seek resolution of complaints 
through the informal methods of persuasion and conciliation. 
Compulsory compliance with Title VII dictates could be had through 
a civil action, which could be initiated only by the aggrieved 
employee. The major issue with which the proposed amendments to 
Title VII dealt was enforcement authority for the EEOC.
25/ (Footnote on next page.)



19

The Hawkins Bill also extended Title VII protection to federal

employees. Again enforcement responsibility rested with the

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC); however, a

federal employee, instead of having recourse to an appellate

court, was to file a civil action when aggrieved by the final
26/

disposition of his complaint. The House, reluctant to vest

the EEOC with cease and desist authority, adopted the Erlenborn 

Bill, H.R. 9247, 92d Cong., 1st Sess. (1971), as a complete sub

stitute for H.R. 1746; it placed Title VII enforcement responsi

bility with the United States District Courts. The Erlenborn
27/

Bill did not apply to federal employees.

25/ See Legislative History, supra note 23, at 39-42. See also 
House Report, supra note 24, at 8-11, Legislative History, supra 
note 23, at 68-71.

26/ See Legislative History, supra note 23, at 58-60. See also 
House Report, supra note 24, at 26, 32, Legislative History, 
supra note 23, at 86, 92.

27/ H.R. 9247, the Erlenborn Bill, is set out in the Legislative 
History, supra note 23, at 132-140. As passed by the House, H.R. 
1746 appears in the Legislative History at 326-332. They are, 
as we have indicated, almost identical.



20

On the Senate side, the Williams Bill, S. 2515, 92d Cong.,

1st Sess. (1971), as introduced, was almost the equivalent of

the Hawkins Bill; i.e., it granted cease and desist authority to

the EEOC, extended Title VII protection to federal employees

with enforcement power in the EEOC, and afforded federal employees
28/

judicial recourse only in United States District Courts. The

version of S. 2515 which emerged from the Senate Committee on

Labor and Public Welfare (the Committee Bill) left unchanged the

provisions granting to the EEOC cease and desist authority in

the private employment sector, with limited appellate review;

with respect to federal employees, however, that power was

transferred to the Civil Service Commission (CSC). The Committee

Bill also imposed additional responsibilities on the CSC, but it

retained the provision allowing a federal employee to file a

civil action in a United States District Court when aggrieved by

the final disposition of a complaint or when stymied by agency 
29/

inaction. Like the Hawkins Bill in the House, the Committee

28/ The Williams Bill, as originally introduced, is set forth 
in the Legislative History, supra note 23, at 157-187.

29/ The Committee Bill is set forth in the Legislative History, 
supra note 23, at 344-409.



21

Bill met stiff resistance on the Senate floor because of its 

proposal to equip the EEOC with cease and desist authority. 

Eventually that provision was rejected; the EEOC was instead 

given limited authority to seek Title VII compliance through 

the District Court. On the other hand, the provisions extending 

Title VII coverage to federal employees were adopted unchanged. 

Ultimately those provisions were accepted by both Houses, and on 

March 24, 1973, they were enacted into law as part of the Equal 

Employment Opportunity Act of 1972, jL.e. , section 717 of the 

amended Civil Rights Act of 1964.

B. Analysis

There can be no dispute that section 717 plainly expresses 

an intention by Congress to extend Title VII protection to federal 

employees. Subsection (a) makes this point clear: "[a]11

personnel actions affecting employees . . .  in the executive 

agencies [of the United States] shall be made free from any dis

crimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national 

origin." 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16 (a) (Supp. II, 1972). The very 

force of the language used and the affirmative nature of the 

effort dictated in other provisions of the section underscore



22

this intention.

Equally clear and equally important, we submit, is Congress'

intention that the CSC play a prominent and almost exclusive role

in implementing this newly legislated commitment. Again, the

very language of the statute dictates this conclusion. It is the

CSC which "except as provided" shall have the authority to free
31/

the federal employee of Title VII discrimination. The pattern

of distribution of enforcement responsibility effected by section 

717, together with the magnitude and pervasive character of the 

authority delegated, also demonstrates the intended primacy of 

the CSC in the Title VII area. The CSC is commanded to issue 

whatever rules, regulations and instructions in its judgment may

30/

30/ Plans for maintaining "affirmative program[s] of equal 
employment opportunity" were to be developed by all government 
agencies. Provision was to be made for the "establishment of 
training and education programs designed to provide a maximum 
opportunity" for employee advancement and personal development.
42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16 (b)(1) (Supp. II, 1972). Such programs 
were to be periodically reviewed and evaluated, and progress 
reports were to be submitted. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16 (b)(2)
(Supp. II, 1972). Recommendations for improvement of such 
programs were to be actively solicited. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16 
(b)(3) (Supp. II, 1972).

31/ 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16 (a) (Supp. II, 1972). See 2A Sutherland, 
supra, § 47.11.



23

be necessary to carry out its responsibilities. The CSC is

required to review and approve all agency plans for equal employ

ment opportunity programs, to review and evaluate those programs

on a regular basis, and periodically to publish reports indicat -
33/

ing the progress of the various agencies in the Title VII area.

The CSC is also directed to solicit recommendations and ideas to 
34/

assist it.

More important to the issue before this Court, however, is

the clear intention on the part of Congress that the CSC be the

focal point of complaint adjudication for federal employees. To

be sure, the testimony at the hearings on the proposed amendments

to Title VII highlighted the ineffectiveness of the complaint

procedures previously administered by the CSC as well as the in-
35/

adequacy of the remedies sporadically utilized. However,

32/

32/ 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16 (b) (Supp. II, 1972).

33/ 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16 (b)(1), (2) (Supp. II, 1972).

34/ 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16 (b)(3) (Supp. II, 1972).

The report of the Senate Committee, S. Rep. No. 92-415,
92d Cong., 1st Sess. (1971), which accompanied the bill contain
ing the provisions which later were enacted as Section 717, in
dicates quite explicitly the central and in many respects exclu
sive role of the CSC in effecting Title VII protection to Federal 
employees. See Senate Report, supra, at 14-16, Legislative 
History, supra note 23, at 423-425.
35/ House Hearings, supra note 18, at 127-128, 157-158; Senate 
Hearings, supra note 18, at 201-207, 210-218.



24

instead of removing that responsibility from the CSC as some 

had urged, the Senate Committee expressed renewed confidence in 

the ability of that agency to develop fair and impartial adju

dicatory machinery and spelled out the authority for and re-
36/

sponsibility of the CSC to do so. The report of the Senate

36/ The Senate Comnittee stated in its report:

The Civil Service Commission's primary 
responsibility over all personnel matters in 
the Government does create a built-in conflict 
of interest for examining the Government's 
equal employment opportunity program for 
structural defects which may result in a lack 
of true equal employment opportunity. Yet, 
the Committee was persuaded that the Civil 
Service Commission is sincere in its dedica
tion to the principles of equal employment 
opportunity enunciated in Executive Order 
11478 and that the Commission has the will 
and desire to overcome any such conflict of 
interest. In order to assist the Commission 
in accomplishing its goals and to make clear 
the Congressional expectation that the Com
mission will take those further steps which 
are necessary in order to satisfy the goals 
of Executive Order 11478, the Committee adopted 
in Section 707 (b) of the bill specific require
ments under which the Commission is to function 
in developing a comprehensive equal employment 
opportunity program. Senate Report, supra note 
34, at 15, Legislative History, supra note 23, 
at 424.



25

Committee, a reliable and, we submit, extremely persuasive source
37/

of congressional intent, was quite explicit in this regard;

One feature of the present equal employ
ment opportunity program which deserves special 
scrutiny by the Civil Service Commission is the 
complaint process. The procedure under the 
present system, intended to provide for the 
informal disposition of complaints, nny have 
denied employees adequate opportunity for im
partial investigation and resolution of com
plaints .

* * * • * ■ *

The testimony before the Labor Subcommittee 
reflected a general lack of confidence in the 
effectiveness of the complaint procedure on the 
part of Federal employees. Complaints have 
indicated skepticism regarding the Commission's 
record in obtaining just resolutions of com
plaints and adequate remedies. This has, in 
turn, discouraged persons from filing complaints 
with the Commission for fear that doing so will 
only result in antagonizing their supervisors 
and impairing any future hope of advancement.
The new authority given to the Civil Service 
Commission in the bill is intended to enable 
the Commission to reconsider its entire com
plaint structure and the relationships between 
the employee, agency and Commission in these 
cases. Senate Report, supra note 34, at 14, 
Legislative History, supra note 23, at 423.

37/ Normally, reports of standing committees in the Congress 
axe entitled to great weight in determining legislative intent. 
2A Sutherland, supra, § 48.06. This is especially true when the 
report accompanies a bill (or provision) that survived subse
quent legislative processes unscathed, which is precisely what

(Footnote continued on next page.)



26

Thus the major thrust of the provisions in the Committee

Bill which ultimately were enacted as section 717 can hardly be

contested. The CSC was given virtually carte blanche to develop

adjudicatory machinery that would effectuate the policies of the

act. Its authority to require reinstatement and back pay was

explicit, as was its authority to devise other remedies which,

in its judgment, were essential to recompense those victimized
38/

by invidious government discrimination. It cannot be doubted,

then, that Congress intended that the CSC provide the primary 

forum for Title VII complaints of federal employees; and clearly 

it was under that agency's auspices that Congress intended and 

expected that those complaints would be resolved.

37/ continued;

occurred with section 717. See United States v. Five Gambling 
Devices, 346 U.S. 441 (1953); Church of the Holy Trinity v. 
United States, 143 U.S. 457, 464-465 (1892).

38/ 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16 (b) (Supp. II, 1972).

CSC remedial authority was to be broad as well as exten
sive, including "immediate promotion and any other remedy needed 
to fully recompense the employee for his loss, both financially 
and professionally." Senate Report, supra note 34, at 45; 
Legislative History, supra note 23, at 454. See also Senate 
Report at 15, Legislative History at 424, where the Senate 
Committee noted that "immediate promotion" could also be an 
appropriate remedy.



27

It is only against this background of pervasive CSC 

authority that section 717 (c) can be meaningfully interpreted.

A close reading of that provision reveals that it permits a 

federal employee to have recourse to a United States District 

Court in two quite different situations. First, a federal 

employee may file a civil action when he is aggrieved by the 

final disposition of his complaint before the agency or the 

CSC. Second, he may file a civil action when he is aggrieved 

by the failure of the agency or the CSC to make a final dis

position of his complaint in timely fashion. In either case, 

it is the conduct of the agency -- either final action or 

intransigence -- that triggers the right to file a civil action. 

Significantly, that triggering conduct can reflect either of 

two directly opposing kinds of treatment given to an employee's 

complaint, thorough and expeditious or inattentive and haphazard. 

It is apparent, then, that section 717 (c) really serves two 

unrelated purposes: the insurance of lawful agency action and

the avoidance of agency inaction. This approach is consistent 

with the enhanced status of the CSC resulting from the other 

provisions of section 717: while an employee could reasonably

be required to press his complaint through the channels speci

fically designed to resolve it, i.e., the adjudicatory machinery



28

administered and supervised by the CSC, he should not be denied 

expeditious relief by reason of administrative delay not of his 

own making. Support for this interpretation of section 717 (c), 

which is based on reason and logic and reinforced by a consid

eration of the other provisions of section 717, is found in the 

legislative history of the 1972 Act.

As testimony before both the House Committee and the 

Senate Committee established, a major evil of the then-existing

discrimination complaint procedures was the absence of court 
39/ 40/

review. Despite some testimony to the contrary, the

Senate Committee concluded that federal employees did not have

access to the courts. Its report which accompanied the bill

containing the provisions ultimately enacted as section 717

noted that "[t]he only appeal [from final agency action] is to
41/

the Board of Appeals and Review in the [CSC]." Later the

report explicitly stated:

39/ House Hearings. supra note 18, at 154-155, 322, 391; Senate 
Hearings, supra note 18, at 296.

40/ House Hearings, supra note 18, at 319; Senate Hearings, 
supra note 18, at 296, 318.

41/ Senate Report, supra note 34, at 14; Legislative History, 
supra note 18, at 423.



29

An important adjunct to the strengthened 
Civil Service Commission responsibilities is 
the statutory provision of a private right of 
action in the courts by Federal employees who 
are not satisfied with the agency or Commission 
decision.

The testimony of the Civil Service Com
mission notwithstanding, the committee found 
that an aggrieved Federal employee does not 
have access to the courts. In many cases, the 
employee must overcome a U.S. Government de
fense of sovereign immunity or failure to ex
haust administrative remedies with no certainty 
as to the steps required to exhaust such 
remedies. Moreover, the remedial authority 
of the Commission and the courts has also been 
in doubt. The provisions adopted by the com
mittee will enable the Commission to grant 
full relief to aggrieved employees, or appli
cants, including back pay and immediate 
advancement as appropriate. Aggrieved em
ployees or applicants will also have the full 
rights available in the courts as are granted 
to individuals in the private sector under 
title VII. Senate Report, supra note 34, at 
16, Legislative History, supra note 23, at 425 
(emphasis added). 42/

42/ Parts of the Senate Report, supra note 34, which dealt with 
federal employees, including the excerpt here quoted, were 
characterized by the floor manager of S. 2515 as a "more detailed 
analysis" of what later became section 717, and were printed in 
the Congressional Record at his request and without objection on 
February 22, 1972, before those provisions were adopted by the 
Senate. See 118 Cong. Rec. S 2280 (daily ed. Feb. 22, 1972), 
Legislative History at 1727.

While we deal with appellant's claim of equal treatment of 
federal and private sector employees more fully hereafter we 
feel compelled to note here that the last sentence of this ex
cerpt from the Senate Report cannot be understood without a
(Footnote continued on next page.)



30

The House Committee was similarly unpersuaded by the CSC testi

mony:

Despite the series of executive and admin
istrative directives on equal employment oppor
tunity, Federal employees, unlike those in the 
private sector to whom Title VII is applicable, 
face legal obstacles in obtaining meaningful 
remedies. There is serious doubt that court 
review is available to the aggrieved Federal 
employee. House Report, supra note 24, at 25, 
Legislative History, supra note 23, at 85. 43/

42/ continued;

knowledge of the bill which it accompanied. At the time of the 
report, the Comnittee Bill provided the EEOC with cease and 
desist authority in the private sector; its determinations in 
this regard were to be subject to limited review in the United 
States Courts of Appeals. A private employee's right to assert 
his claim via a civil action in a United States District Court 
existed only where the EEOC failed to act in timely fashion or 
failed to act at all. Thus this sentence, instead of supporting 
appellant's claim of entitlement to a second de novo hearing 
(see Brief for Appellant at 21), cuts directly against it.

43/ While the bill reported by the House Committee was rejected 
on the House floor, it cannot be doubted that the House Com
mittee's conclusions as to the plight of federal employees at 
the time of the proposed amendments reflected the evils to 
which the extension of Title VII protection to federal employees 
was directed. See 2A Sutherland, supra, § 49.01.



31

Furthermore, Senator Williams, the floor manager of S. 2515, in 

explaining the new protection afforded to federal employees de

clared that the bill "provides, for the first time, to my knowl

edge, for the right of a [federal employee] to take his claim to 
44/

Court."

Against this background it can hardly be denied on any
45/

reasonable basis that, contrary to appellant's assertion, a

major objective of Congress was to insure judicial recourse for

federal employees with Title VII complaints. Section 717 (c)
46/

has accomplished that objective in no uncertain terms, and in

44/ 118 Cong. Rec. S 2280 (daily ed. Feb. 22, 1972) (remarks
of Senator Williams).

[Generally], statements by individual 
members of the legislature as to the meaning 
of provisions in a bill subsequently enacted 
into law, made during the general debate on 
the bill on the floor of each legislative 
house following its presentation by a stand
ing committee, are generally held not to be 
admissible as aids in construing the statute.
2A Sutherland, supra, § 48.13.

See Aldridge v. Williams, 44 U.S. (3 How.) 9, 24 (1845). However, 
the Courts realistically

have excepted the statements of the members 
of the committee in charge of the bill during 
the course of its consideration on the floor 
of the legislature from the general rule . . . .

(Footnotes continued on next page.)



32

44/ continued;

His remarks upon presenting the bill to the 
house . . . will be considered by the courts 
in construing provisions of the bill subse
quently enacted into law. 2A Sutherland, 
supra, at § 48.14.

See, e.g., Bindczyck v. Finucane, 342 U.S. 76, 83 (1951).

45/ Appellant contends that if court access "really was its 
purpose, then . . . [section 717] was largely superfluous [be
cause] Federal employees already had 'access' to the U.S.
District Courts on discrimination matters" (Brief for Appellant 
at 29) (emphasis in original). He points to three court 
decisions, one by a United States District Court, Harris v.
Nixon, 325 F. Supp. 28 (D. Colo. 1971), and two by the United 
States Court of Claims, Chambers v. United States, 451 F.2d 
1045 (Ct. Cl. 1971), and Allison v. United States, 451 F.2d 
1035 (Ct. Cl. 1971), which he claims had already assured federal 
employees of judicial recourse; the Senate and House Committees, 
he also notes, were aware of these decisions (Brief for Appel
lant at 29-31).

First of all, we submit that one decision by a United 
States District Court and two related decisions by the Court 
of Claims comprise a rather frail foundation upon which to 
predicate the certainty of court access in this regard, 
especially in view of the significant case law to the contrary. 
See p . 6 , supra. Second, this same conclusion was reached by
both congressional committees; furthermore, it was a conclusion 
which their respective reports make clear was reached despite 
an awareness of the decisions relied on by appellant. Obviously, 
then, contrary to appellant's assertion, it cannot be doubted 
that section 717 was meant to grant "mere 'access'" to the 
courts where final agency action had been taken on a discrimin
ation complaint.

Appellant has also invited this Court's attention to the 
case of Small v. United States, 470 F.2d 1020 (Ct. Cl. 1972). 
While Small may support the general proposition that a federal

(Footnotes continued on next page.)



33

45/ continued;

employee is able to pursue a remedy for invidious (Title VII) 
discrimination without reliance on section 717, it clearly 
cannot lend any support to the proposition for which appellant 
cites it, jL.e. , "that the 1972 amendments were meant to grant 
far more than mere 'access' to the federal courts (Brief for 
Appellant at 31). Indeed, Small was not decided until over 
eight months after the passage of the 1972 Act, supra note 1; 
thus that decision could provide no evidence probative of 
congressional intent in enacting section 71/.

46/ See note 10, supra.



34

doing so it has served to alleviate two interrelated congress

ional concerns. It increases the confidence of the employee in 

the fairness of the CSC-administered complaint processes, the

adjudications of which may now be required to survive judicial 
47/

scrutiny. It also necessarily encourages the CSC to insure

that those procedures are fair and impartial and that complaints
48/

are processed fairly. Nor is it surprising that Congress

47/ See Senate Report, supra note 34, at 14, Legislative 
History, supra note 23, at 423. See also House Report, supra 
note 24, at 24; Legislative History, supra note 23, at 84.

48/ The testimony of the CSC representatives at both the House 
and Senate Hearings reflected that agency's deep concern over 
the prospect of losing responsibility for the Title VII aspects 
of personnel relations. See Senate Hearings, supra note 18, at 
292-293; House Hearings, supra note 18 at 316-317. The CSC was 
able to win the confidence of first the Senate Committee and 
finally the entire Congress in its ability to administer Title 
VII responsibility fairly, but not without additional and 
specific directives to carry out an affirmative equal employ
ment program as well.

The Civil Service Commission's primary 
responsibility over all personnel matters in 
the Government does create a built-in conflict 
of interest for examining the Government's 
equal employment opportunity program for 
structural defects which may result in a lack 
of true equal employment opportunity. Yet, 
the Committee was persuaded that the Civil 
Service Commission is sincere in its dedica
tion to the principles of equal employment 
opportunity enunciated in Executive Order 
11478 and that the Commission has the will

(Footnote continued on next page.)



- 35

chose the same avenue of judicial recourse which is afforded to 

federal employees who are aggrieved by government conduct in 

personnel matters of a non-Title VII nature. See Polcover v. 

Secretary of the Treasury, 155 U.S. App. D.C. 338, 477 F.2d 

1223 (1973).

The other purpose to be served by section 717 (c) is also

clear from the legislative history of the 1972 Act. Testimony

before the House and Senate Committees established that the

sheer delay of the administrative process, without more, often
49/

prevented a just resolution of discrimination complaints.

While neither committee noted this factor in the parts of their

48/ continued;

and desire to overcome any such conflict of 
interest. In order to assist the Commission 
in accomplishing its goals and to make clear 
the Congressional expectation that the Com
mission will take those further steps which 
are necessary in order to satisfy the goals 
of Executive Order 11478, the Committee 
adopted in Section 707 (b) of the bill 
specific requirements under which the Com
mission is to function in developing a com
prehensive equal employment opportunity pro
gram. Senate Report, supra note 34, at 15,
Legislative History, supra note 23, at 424.

49/ Senate Hearings, supra note 18, at 212; House Hearings, 
supra note 18, at 155.



-36-

re spec tive reports dealing with federal employees, delay of this

nature did play a prominent role in their consideration of plac-
50/

ing private sector enforcement responsibility with the EEOC.

50/ The Senate Report, supra note 34, was quite explicit in
this regard:

The bill contains a provision . . . that 
if the Commission [EEOC] dismisses a charge, 
or, within 180 days of its filing has neither 
issued a complaint nor entered into a counci - 
liation or settlement agreement which is accept
able to the Commission and the aggrieved party, 
it shall so notify the aggrieved party. Within 
60 days after such notification the person ag
grieved, or, in the case of a charge filed by 
an officer or employee of the Commission, the 
person or persons named in such charge, shall 
have the right to commence a private civil 
action in the appropriate U.S. district court.

The committee is aware that in recent years 
regulatory agencies have been submerged in in
creasing workloads which strain their resources 
to the breaking point. The EEOC is no exception 
to this problem. As it indicated in testimony, 
its caseload has increased at a rate which sur
passes its own projections. The result has 
been increasing backlogs in making determinations, 
and the possibility of occasional hasty decisions, 
made under the press of time, which have unfairly 
prejudiced complaints. Accordingly, where the 
Commission is not able to pursue a complaint 
with satisfactory speed, or enters into an 
agreement which is not acceptable to the aggrieved 
party, the bill provides that the individual shall 
have an opportunity to seek his own remedy, even 
though he may have originally submitted his 
charge to the Conmission. < " f ' r ‘

(Footnote continued on next page.)



-37-
M o re o v e r ,  s in c e  the  f o r e r u n n e r  of s e c t io n  717 con ta in ed  a p ro v is io n  id e n tic a l  

to  the  one u sed  to  avo id  a d m in i s t r a t io n  d e la y  in the  p r iv a te  s e c to r ,  i t  i s  c l e a r  

th a t  the  p u rp o s e  of th a t  p r o v is io n  w as  the  s a m e :  to  a llow  a  f e d e r a l  em p lo y e e  

v ic t im iz e d  by  T i t le  VIII d i s c r im in a t io n  to  s te p  o u ts id e  the  a d m in i s t r a t iv e  p r o c e s s  

when h is  c o m p la in t  w as  not b e in g  t r e a t e d  e x p ed i t io u s ly .  E q u a l ly  c l e a r  f ro m  

the  c o m m it te e  r e p o r t s ,  h o w e v e r ,  w a s  C o n g re s s '  e x p e c ta t io n  and in ten tio n  tha t

50/ (F o o tn o te  con tinued  f r o m  p r e c e d in g  page)

It i s  ex p ec te d  tha t  r e c o u r s e  to  th is  r e m e d y  
w ill be  the  excep tio n  and not the  ru le ,  p a r 
t i c u l a r ly  once the  C o m m is s io n 's  e n f o r c e 
m e n t  p r o c e d u r e s  a r e  fu lly  o p e ra t io n a l .  In 
the  m e a n t im e ,  h o w e v e r ,  th e  c o m m it te e  b e l ie v e s  
th a t  the  a g g r ie v e d  p e r s o n  should  b e  g iven  an 
o p p o r tu n i ty  to  e s c a p e  the  a d m in i s t r a t iv e  p r o c e s s  
when he f e e l s  h is  c la im  h a s  not b e en  g iven  a d e 
qua te  a t te n t io n .

■ * * ■ * ■ *

The c o m m it te e  b e l ie v e s  tha t  a g g r ie v e d  p e r s o n s  
a r e  en ti t led  to  have  t h e i r  c a s e s  p r o c e s s e d  p r o m p t 
ly and th a t  the  C o m m is s io n  should  develop  i t s  c a p a 
c i ty  to  p ro c e e d  ra p id ly  w ith  the h e a r in g  and d e c is io n  
on c h a r g e s  once the  c o m p la in t  h a s  i s su e d .  Six m o n th s  
is  a  su f f ic ie n t  p e r io d  of t im e  fo r  the  n o r m a l  c a s e  to  
be p r o c e s s e d  f ro m  c o m p la in t  to  o r d e r ,  and the  
C o m m is s io n  should  be  r e q u i r e d  to  ex p la in  to the  
s a t i s f a c t io n  of the  c o u r t  why it  n e e d s  a d d it io n a l  
t im e .  A c co rd in g ly ,  when a  p r iv a te  a c t io n  is  f iled  
a f t e r  the  180 day  p e r io d  h a s  e la p s e d  f r o m  the  i s s u a n c e  
of the  C o m m is s io n 's  c o m p la in t ,  the  c o u r t  o r d e r e d  d e la y  
th a t  i s  p ro v id e d  f o r  by  th is  s e c t io n  should  be the  
ex ce p t io n  r a t h e r  than  the  ru le ,  and would not be 
(F oo tno te  con tinued  on n ex t page)



-38-

r e s o r t  to  th is  p ro v is io n  be the  e x ce p t io n  r a t h e r  than  the  ru le .
51/

507 (F oo tno te  con tinued  f r o m  p r e c e d in g  page)

ju s t i f ie d  s im p ly  b e c a u s e  b a c k lo g s  and in a d e 
qua te  r e s o u r c e s  have  s low ed  the C o m m is s io n 's  
w o rk . The p r i m a r y  c o n c e rn  should  be  to  p r o te c t  
the  a g g r ie v e d  p e r s o n 's  option  to  s e e k  a  p r o m p t  
r e m e d y .  Sena te  R e p o r t ,  s u p r a  no te  34sa t  2 3 -2 4 , 
L e g is la t iv e  H is to ry ,  s u p r a  no te  23, a t  4 3 2 -4 3 3 .

The Hawkins B ill  r e p o r te d  out by  the  H ouse C o m m it te e  co n ta in ed  a  s i m i l a r  
p ro v is io n ;  i t s  r e a s o n  fo r  b e in g  w a s  id e n t ic a l :

In r e c e n t  y e a r s  r e g u la to r y  a g e n c ie s  have  
b een  s u b m e r g e d  w ith  i n c r e a s in g  w o rk lo a d s  w hich  
s t r a i n  t h e i r  r e s o u r c e s  to  the  b r e a k in g  po in t.
The C o m m is s io n  h a s  s ta t e d ,  in  te s t im o n y  b e f o r e  
th is  c o m m it te e ,  th a t  i t s  c a s e lo a d  h a s  i n c r e a s e d  
e v en  m o re  r a p id ly  th a n  i t s  p r o je c t io n s  had 
a n t ic ip a te d .  The r e s u l t  of th is  i n c r e a s in g  u se  
of m an y  of the  F e d e r a l  r e g u la to r y  a g e n c ie s  h a s  
f r e q u e n t ly  a f fe c te d  th o se  a g e n c ie s '  a b i l i t i e s  to  
r e m a in  c u r r e n t  on a l l  of the  m a t t e r s  fo r  w hich 
they  a r e  r e s p o n s ib le .  T h is  h a s  led  to  len g th y  
d e la y s  in  th e  a d m in i s t r a t iv e  p r o c e s s  and h a s  
f r e q u e n t ly  f r u s t r a t e d  the  r e m e d ia l  r o le  of the  
ag en cy . In the  c a s e  of the  C o m m is s io n ,  the  
b u rg e o n in g  w o rk lo a d ,  a c c o m p a n ie d  by in 
su f f ic ie n t  funds and  a  s h o r ta g e  of s ta f f ,  h a s ,  in 
m a n y  in s ta n c e s ,  fo rc e d  a  p a r ty  to  w a i t  2 to  
3 y e a r s  b e fo re  fina l  c o n c i l ia t io n  p r o c e d u r e s  can  
be  in s t i tu te d .  T h is  s i tu a t io n  le a d s  th e  c o m m it te e  
to  b e l ie v e  th a t  the  p r iv a te  r ig h t  of a c t io n ,  bo th  
u n d e r  the  p r e s e n t  A ct and in  the  b i l l ,  p ro v id e s  
the  a g g r ie v e d  p a r ty  a  m e a n s  by  w hich  he m ay  
be ab le  to  e s c a p e  f r o m  the a d m in i s t r a t iv e  q u a g m ire  
w hich  o c c a s io n a l ly  s u r r o u n d s  a  c a s e  caugh t 
in an  o v e r lo a d e d  a d m in i s t r a t iv e  p r o c e s s .

(Footnotes continued on next page)



-39-

“ 50/ (F o o tn o te s  con tinued  f r o m  p re c e d in g  page)

S ec tion  715 (a) p ro v id e s  th a t  an  a g g r ie v e d  
p e r s o n  m a y  b r in g  an  in d ep en d en t a c t io n  
a g a in s t  the  r e s p o n d e n t  if  the  C o m m is s io n  
h a s  n o t  i s s u e d  i t s  o r d e r  w ith in  180 d a y s .
T he  c o m m it te e  b e l ie v e s  th a t  a g g r ie v e d  
p e r s o n s  a r e  e n t i t le d  to  have  t h e i r  c a s e s  
p r o c e s s e d  p ro m p t ly  and  th a t  the  C o m m is s io n  
should  d ev e lo p  i t s  c a p a c i ty  to  p ro c e e d  
ra p id ly  to  h e a r in g  and  d e c i s 'o n  once the  
c o m p la in t  i s  i s s u e d .  The c o m m it te e  r e c o g 
n iz e s  that i t  w ill  no t be p o s s ib le  to  r e n d e r  a  
d e c is io n  in  a l l  c a s e s  w ith in  the  t im e  l im i t  
p r e s c r i b e d .  The c o m p le x i ty  of m any  of 
th e  c h a r g e s ,  and th e  t im e  r e q u i r e d  to  dev e lo p  
the  c a s e s ,  i s  w e ll  r e c o g n iz e d  by  the  c o m m it te e .  
I t  i s  a s s u m e d  th a t  in d iv id u a l  c o m p la in a n ts ,  
who a r e  a p p r i s e d  of the  need  fo r  the  p r o p e r  
p r e p a r a t i o n  of a c o m p lex  c o m p la in t  in 
vo lv ing  m u lt ip le  i s s u e s  and  e x ten s iv e  i s s u e s  
and  d is c o v e r y  p r o c e d u r e s ,  would no t cut 
s h o r t  the  a d m in i s t r a t iv e  p r o c e s s  m e r e l y  to  
e n c o u n te r  the  s a m e  kind of d e la y s  in a 
c o u r t  p ro c e e d in g .  It w ould , h o w e v e r ,  be 
a p p r o p r ia t e  fo r  the  in d iv id u a l  to  in s t i tu te  
a  c o u r t  a c t io n  w h e re  the  d e lay  i s  o c c a s io n e d  
by  a d m in i s t r a t iv e  in e f f ic ie n c ie s .  The 
p r i m a r y  c o n c e rn  m u s t  be  p ro te c t io n  
of the  a g g r ie v e d  p e r s o n 's  op tion  to  s ee k  

a  p ro m p t  r e m e d y  in  the  b e s t  m a n n e r  
a v a i la b le .  It should  be n o ted ,  h o w e v e r ,  
th a t  i t  i s  no t the  in te n t io n  of the  c o m m it te e  
to  p e r m i t  an  a g g r ie v e d  p a r ty  a  chance  
to  r e t r y  h i s  c a s e  m e r e l y  b e c a u s e  he is  
d i s s a t i s f i e d  w ith  the  C o m m is s io n 's  a c t io n .  
O nce th e  C o m m is s io n  h a s  i s s u e d  an 
o r d e r ,  f u r th e r  p r o c e e d in g s  m u s t  be 
in  the  c o u r t s  of a p p e a ls  p u r s u a n t  to  s u b 
se c t io n  706 (1) of the  b i l l .  H ouse R e p o r t ,  
s u p r a  no te  24, a t  12-13, L e g is la t iv e  
H is to ry ,  s u p ra  no te  23, a t  72 -73 .

51/ Id.



- 40

O nce it is  u n d e rs to o d  tha t  C o n g r e s s  s p e c i f ic a l ly  in tended  th a t  s e c t io n  

717 (c) s e r v e  two s e p a r a t e  fu n c tio n s ,  it is  a p p a r e n t  th a t  an in te r p r e ta t io n  

of th a t  p ro v is io n  n eed  not be  s t r a i t j a c k e t e d  by a c o n s t r u c t io n  th a t  would 

p ro d u ce  a s a m e n e s s  of m ean in g  o r  r e s u l t  fo r  i t s  s e e m in g  a l t e r n a t iv e s .  W hile 

agency  ac t io n  and in ac t io n  a r e  a l t e r n a t iv e s ,  t h e i r  a l t e r n a t iv e  n a tu r e  goes  

only to  the  ju r i s d ic t io n a l  p r e r e q u i s i t e s  fo r  f i l ing  a c i / i l  a c t io n .  S u b s ta n 

t iv e ly ,  the  p u r p o s e  of the  c iv il  a c t io n s  p e r m i t t e d  in e i t h e r  in s ta n c e  a r e  

the  a n t i th e s e s  of one a n o th e r .  C o n se q u e n t ly ,  we su b m it ,  th e  m e an in g  and 

in tended  e ffec t  of the w o rd s  " c iv i l  a c t io n "  co n ta in ed  in s e c t io n  717 (c) 

h inge  on the  p a r t i c u l a r  type of c iv i l  a c t io n  invo lved , i. e . , the  p u rp o s e  

w hich tha t  p a r t i c u l a r  c iv i l  ac t io n  s e r v e s .  W hen t h e r e  h a s  b e en  final agen cy  

ac t io n ,  i t s  p u rp o s e  is  p la in  - -  to  in s u r e  th a t  such  a d m in i s t r a t iv e  ac t io n  

is  c o n s is te n t  w ith  the  d ic ta te s  of T i t le  VII. S ec tio n  717 a s  a w hole  and 

the  le g is la t iv e  h i s to r y  of the  1972 Act c l e a r ly  d e m o n s t r a t e  th a t  C o n g r e s s  

h a s  d e te r m in e d  th a t  tha t  p u rp o se  can  be e f fe c t iv e ly  s e r v e d  by a l im i te d  

re v ie w  b a se d  on the a d m in i s t r a t iv e  r e c o r d .

As no ted  e a r l i e r ,  the  W il l ia m s  and C o m m it te e  B i l l s ,  w hich  w e re  the  

f o r e r u n n e r s  of S ec tion  717, p la ce d  T i t le  VII e n fo rc e m e n t  r e s p o n s ib i l i t i e s  

fo r  p r iv a te  s e c to r  e m p lo y e e s  w ith th e  E E O C . T ha t agency  w as  to  be a u th o r 

ized , in t e r  a l ia ,  to  i s s u e  c e a s e  and d e s i s t  o r d e r s  and to  d i r e c t  r e i n s t a t e 

m en t o r  h ir in g .  F in a l  d e te r m in a t io n s  by the  EEO C w e re  su b jec t  to  l im i te d  

re v ie w ,  i. e . , a p p l ic a t io n  of the  s u b s ta n t ia l  ev id en ce  t e s t ,  in the  U nited



- 41

S ta te s  C o u r ts  of A p p ea ls .  A p r iv a te  s e c to r  em p lo y ee  w as p e r m i t te d  to  file  

a c iv i l  ac t io n  in a United  S ta te s  D is t r i c t  C o u r t  only when th e  EEOC had 

fa i led  to  a c t ,  e i th e r  c o m p le te ly  o r  in a t im e ly  fa sh io n . T hus  a p r iv a te  

s e c t o r  em p lo y e e  u n d e r  bo th  the  W Tlliam s B il l  and the  C o m m it te e  B ill w as 

a ffo rd ed  only one de novo h e a r in g .

T h is  r e s u l t  w as  no c r e a t u r e  of h a p p e n s ta n c e .  The S ena te  C o m m it te e  

had a n t ic ip a te d  the  m y r ia d  of p ro b le m s  posed  by p r o c e e d in g s  in two d if

f e r e n t  fo r u m s .  W hile  it felt tha t  each  fo ru m  w as  n e c e s s a r y  to s e r v e  a

s e p a r a t e  and le g i t im a te  i n t e r e s t ,  th e  C o m m it te e  le ft  no doubt th a t  the  fo ru m s
52/

w e re  to be  m u tu a l ly  e x c lu s iv e ;  a p r iv a te  s e c to r  em p lo y e e  w as  not to

be p e r m i t t e d  to  r e t r y  h is  c a s e  in one fo ru m  m e r e ly  b e c a u s e  he w a s  d i s 

s a t i s f i e d  w ith  i t s  o u tco m e  in a n o th e r .

T he c o m m it te e  is  c o n c e rn e d ,  h o w e v e r ,  about the  i n t e r 
p lay  b e tw een  the new ly c r e a t e d  e n fo rc e m e n t  p o w e rs  of ihe  
C o m m is s io n  [E EO C l and the e x is t in g  r ig h t  of p r iv a te  a c tion .
It conc luded  tha t  dup lica t io n  of p ro c e e d in g s  should  be av o id ed .
The b il l  t h e r e f o r e  c o n ta in s  a p ro v is io n  fo r  cu toff of the  C o m 
m i s s i o n 's  ju r i s d ic t io n  once  the  p r iv a te  ac tio n  h a s  b een  f i led  - -

52/ The C o m m it te e  B ill  con ta in ed  a n u m b e r  of p ro v is io n s  th a t  r e f l e c te d  
a”d e ta i le d  e f fo r t  to  avoid  d u p lic ity .  If the  EEOC is su e d  a c o m p la in t  o r  
e n te r e d  an a g re e m e n t  a cc e p ta b le  to  the a g g r ie v e d  ind iv id u a l ,  th e  r ig h t  
to  a c iv i l  ac t io n  te r m in a te d .  If a co m p la in t  w as  fo llow ed by a long  p e r io d  
of in ac tion  o r  if th e  a g re e m e n t  w as  not a c c e p ta b le  to h im , the  a g g r ie v e d  
p a r ty  could  file  a c iv i l  ac t io n .  H o w ev er ,  even  if the  EEOC had not ac ted  
in t im e ly  fa sh io n  and a c iv i l  ac tion  w as  f i led , the  EEOC could  s o m e t im e s  
r e t a in  ju r i s d ic t io n  in the  c o u r t ' s  d i s c r e t i o n .  A su b se q u e n t  o r d e r  by the  
EE O C  would then  t e r m in a t e  the  c iv il  ac tion . T h e se  p ro v is io n s  of the  C o m 
m i t te e  B ill  a r e  s e t  fo r th  in the  L e g is la t iv e  H is to ry ,  s u p r a  note  23, at 
390-393 .



42

ex cep t  fo r  the  p o w er  to  in te rv e n e  - - a s  w ell a s  cu toff of the 
r ig h t  of p r iv a te  ac t io n  once  th e  C o m m is s io n  i s s u e s  a c o m 
p la in t  o r  e n t e r s  into a  c o n c i l ia t io n  o r  s e t t l e m e n t  a g r e e m e n t  
w hich is  s a t i s f a c to r y  to  the  C o m m is s io n  and the  a g g r ie v e d  
p a r ty .

*  *  *  #

It should  be  n o ted , h o w e v e r ,  tha t  it i s  no t the  in te n tio n  
of the  c o m m it te e  to  p e r m i t  an a g g r ie v e d  p a r ty  to  r e t r y  h is  
c a s e  m e r e ly  b e c a u s e  he i s  d i s s a t i s f i e d  with the  C o m m is -  
s i o n 's  a c t io n .  O nce th e  C o m m is s io n  h a s  i s s u e d  an o r d e r ,  
f u r th e r  p ro c e e d in g s  m u s t  be  in the  c o u r t s  of a p p e a ls  . . . .
S en a te  R e p o r t ,  s u p r a  no te  34, at 24, L e g is la t iv e  H is to ry ,  
s u p r a  no te  23, a t 433 (e m p h a s is  added).

With r e s p e c t  to  f e d e r a l  e m p lo y e e s ,  the  W il l ia m s  B il l  had p la ce d  e n 

fo r c e m e n t  r e s p o n s ib i l i ty  w ith  the  E E O C . H o w ev e r ,  r e v ie w  of fina l agen cy  

ac t io n  w as  to be had  in a  c iv i l  ac tio n  in a U nited  S ta te s  D is t r i c t  C o u r t ,  

the  s a m e  avenue by w hich  a f e d e r a l  e m p lo y e e  c i r c u m v e n te d  agen cy  in t r a n 

s ig en c e .  T h u s ,  un like  the  p r iv a te  s e c t o r  e m p lo y ee  w hose  c o m p la in t  p o s tu re  

d e te r m in e d  the p a r t i c u l a r  c o u r t  of r e c o u r s e  (which in tu r n  d e te r m in e d  

the b re a d th  of the  ju d ic ia l  function), a f e d e r a l  e m p lo y e e  w as  a lw ay s  to  seek  

ju d ic ia l  r e l i e f  th ro u g h  the  D i s t r i c t  C o u r t ,  r e g a r d l e s s  of the  d e g re e  of p r i o r  

agency  ac t io n  (o r  inac tion ).

But it canno t be doubted  th a t  th is  d i s p a r a t e  t r e a tm e n t  w as  m e r e ly  p r o 

c e d u r a l .  C le a r ly  it w as  n e v e r  in tended  u n d e r  the  W il l ia m s  B ill tha t the  

find ings  of the  EEOC be a c c o rd e d  s u b s ta n t ia l  w eigh t in a p r iv a te  s e c to r  

s e t t in g  and a b so lu te ly  no w eigh t when the c o m p la in t  w as  th a t  of a f e d e ra l  

e m p lo y ee .  F u r t h e r m o r e ,  it is  in co n ce iv a b le  tha t  the  t r a n s f e r  of e n f o r c e -



43

m en t a u th o r i ty  f ro m  the  EEO C to  the  CSC, w hich w as  r e f le c te d  in th e

C o m m it te e  B il l ,  c a r r i e d  with it a change  in the  m e an in g  of the  p ro v is io n

a ffo rd in g  a f e d e r a l  e m p lo y ee  a c iv i l  ac tion  r e m e d y ,  a p ro v is io n  w hich e s -
53 /

s e n t ia l ly  r e m a in e d  u n ch an g ed , e s p e c ia l ly  when the  Sena te  R e p o r t

is  s i le n t  on th is  a s p e c t  of the  t r a n s f e r .  S u re ly  tha t  p ro v is io n  w as  not 

m e a n t  s im p ly  by r e a s o n  of th a t  t r a n s f e r  of a u th o r i ty ,  to  a w ard  a de novo 

h e a r in g  to  a f e d e ra l  em p lo y e e  in c i r c u m s t a n c e s  in w hich  a h e a r in g  of 

s i m i l a r  m ag n itu d e  w as  s p e c i f ic a l ly  den ied  to  an em p lo y e e  in the  p r iv a te  

s e c t o r .  Such an i n te r p r e ta t io n  would be doubly in a p p ro p r ia te  h e r e  b e c a u s e  

o th e r  p ro v is io n s  in the  b i l l  r e f le c te d  such  obvious a t te m p ts  to  avoid  d u p li

c i to u s  p ro c e e d in g s .

It is  th u s  ev id en t  th a t  the  C o m m it te e  B ill  w as  in tended  to  a ffo rd  a f e d e ra l  

em p lo y e e  a  fu ll h e a r in g  in the  D i s t r i c t  C o u r t  only w hen he w as  not a f fo rd ed  

an o p p o rtu n i ty  f o r  a full h e a r in g  b e fo re  the  ag en cy , i. e . , only w hen the  

ju r i s d ic t io n a l  p r e r e q u i s i t e  fo r  h is  c iv i l  ac t io n  w as  ag en cy  in ac t io n  fo r  180 

d a y s .  W hen a f e d e r a l  em p lo y ee  had b een  g iven  an o p p o r tu n i ty  fo r  a h e a r in g  

and the  agency  had tak en  final ac t io n  in a t im e ly  fa sh io n , the  c iv i l  ac tio n  

w as  m e a n t  to p ro v id e  an avenue fo r  re v ie w  of th a t  a c t io n ,  a  re v ie w  id e n t ic a l  

to  the  kind a ffo rd ed  to  a p r iv a te  s e c t o r  em p lo y ee  w hose  co m p la in t  w as  the

5 3 /  C o m p a re  the  p ro p o se d  s u b se c t io n  co n ta in ed  in the  W il l ia m s  B ill ,  lo c a ted  
in L e g is la t iv e  H is to r y ,  s u p r a  no te  23, at 186-187 , with the  p ro p o se d  (and 
u l t im a te ly  en ac ted )  su b se c t io n  of the  C o m m it te e  B il l ,  lo c a ted  in L e g is la t iv e  
H is to r y ,  s u p r a  no te  23, at 408.



44

su b je c t  of fina l ac tio n  by  the  E E O C . T h is  c o n s t ru c t io n  of s e c t io n  717 (c)

is  c l e a r ly  s u p p o r te d  by the  r e p o r t  w hich  a c c o m p a n ie d  the  C o m m it te e  B ill:

The p ro v is io n s  adopted  by th e  c o m m it te e  w ill en ab le  the  
[C iv il  S e rv ic e |  C o m m is s io n  to  g ra n t  full r e l i e f  to  a g g r ie v e d  
e m p lo y e e s ,  o r  a p p l ic a n ts ,  in c lu d in g  b ack  pay and im m e d ia te  
a d v an c e m en t  a s  a p p r o p r ia te .  A g g r ie v e d  e m p lo y e e s  o r  a p 
p l ic a n ts  w ill  a lso  hav e  the  full r ig h t s  a v a i la b le  in th e  c o u r t s  
as  a r e  g ra n te d  to in d iv id u a ls  in the  p r iv a te  s e c to r  u n d e r  
t i t l e  VII. S ena te  R e p o r t ,  s u p r a  no te  34, at 16, L e g is la t iv e  
H is to ry ,  s u p r a  no te  23, at 425. 54 /

5 4 / A p pe llan t h a s  co u ch ed  p a r t  of h is  a rg u m e n t  in t e r m s  of a c o n g r e s s io n a l  
in ten tion  to  a ffo rd  a ll  e m p lo y e e s ,  f e d e r a l  and p r iv a te  s e c to r ,  id e n t ic a l  
t r e a tm e n t  even  to the  d e g re e  of e x a c t  s a m e n e s s  of r e m e d ie s .  We a d d r e s s  
th a t  a rg u m e n t  m o r e  fully  at p a g e s  63-67, i n f r a . We no te  h e r e ,  h o w e v e r ,  
tha t  he r e l i e s  on the  f ina l  s e n te n c e  of the  e x c e r p t  f ro m  the  Sena te  R e p o r t  
w hich we quote h e r e  in su p p o r t  of h is  co n ten t io n  tha t  s in c e  u n d e r  e x is t in g  
law  a p r iv a te  s e c t o r  em p lo y e e  is  e n t i t le d  to  a p le n a r y  h e a r in g  in the  D is 
t r i c t  C o u r t ,  a f e d e ra l  e m p lo y ee  is  l ik e w ise  so  e n t i t le d .  S ig n if ic an tly ,  how
e v e r ,  he does  not p lace  th is  s ta t e m e n t  in i t s  c o n tex tu a l  s e t t in g .  (See 
B r i e f  fo r  A p pe llan t at 21. ) The con tex t d e m o n s t r a t e s  th a t  the  S en a te  C o m 
m it te e  w as  m o r e  c o n c e rn e d  w ith g u a ra n te e in g  c o u r t  a c c e s s  than  a p le n a r y  
h e a r in g  in D is t r i c t  C o u r t .  The full p a r a g r a p h  r e a d s  a s  fo llow s:

The te s t im o n y  of the  C iv il  S e rv ic e  C o m m is s io n  no t
w ith s tan d in g ,  the c o m m it te e  found th a t  an a g g r ie v e d  F e 
d e r a l  e m p lo y ee  d o es  not have  a c c e s s  to  th e  c o u r t s .  In 
m any  c a s e s ,  the  e m p lo y ee  m u s t  o v e rc o m e  a U. S. G o v e rn 
m en t d e fe n se  of s o v e re ig n  im m u n ity  o r  f a i lu re  to  ex h au s t  
a d m in i s t r a t iv e  r e m e d ie s  with no c e r t a in ty  a s  to  the  s te p s  
r e q u i r e d  to e x h au s t  such  r e m e d ie s .  M o re o v e r ,  the 
r e m e d ia l  a u th o r i ty  of the  C o m m is s io n  and the c o u r t s  
h a s  a l so  b een  in doubt. The p r o v is io n s  adop ted  by the 
c o m m it te e  w ill en ab le  the  C o m m is s io n  to  g ra n t  full 
r e l i e f  to a g g r ie v e d  e m p lo y e e s ,  o r  a p p l ic a n ts ,  inc lud ing  
b ack  pay and im m e d ia te  a d v an c e m en t  as  a p p r o p r ia te .
A g g rie v e d  e m p lo y e e s  o r  a p p l ic a n ts  w ill a lso  have  the  
full r ig h t s  a v a i lab le  in the  c o u r t s  a s  a r e  g ra n te d  to  
in d iv id u a ls  in the  p r iv a te  s e c to r  u n d e r  t i t le  VII.
S ena te  R e p o r t ,  s u p r a  no te  34, at 16, L e g is la t iv e  H is 
to ry ,  s u p r a  no te  23, at 425.

M o re o v e r ,  ap p e llan t  e r r o n e o u s ly  r e a d s  th is  e x c e rp t  in co n junc tion  w ith  then  
e x is t in g  law , in s te a d  of the  C o m m it te e  B ill  w hich  it a c c o m p a n ie d  and to  
w hich  it r e f e r r e d .



45

The "fu ll  r ig h t s  available [to  a p r iv a te  em ployee! in the  c o u r t^ '  s p e c if ic a l ly  

did not inc lude  a r ig h t  to a de novo h e a r in g  at the  c o n c lu s io n  of fina l  agency  

ac t io n .

A s it  l a t e r  t u r n e d  out, the  S ena te  p a s s e d  w ithout r e s e r v a t io n  the  p r o 

v is io n s  of the  C o m m it te e  B il l  d ea l in g  w ith  f e d e ra l  e m p lo y e e s .  On the  o th e r  

hand , it r e j e c te d  the  C o m m i t t e e 's  e f fo r t s  to a r m  the EEOC with c e a s e  

and d e s i s t  a u th o r i ty .  In s te a d ,  it c a s t  th a t  agency  in the  ro le  of an ad 

v o c a te ,  e m p o w e r in g  the EEOC to  sue fo r  T i t le  VII c o m p lia n ce  in the  p r i 

v a te  s e c to r .  It a l s o  r e ta in e d  a p r iv a te  r ig h t  of ac t io n  fo r  e m p lo y e e s  in 

the  p r iv a te  s e c t o r  bu t s c ru p u lo u s ly  p re v e n te d  i t s  r e s u l t in g  in d u p lica t io n  

of p ro c e e d in g s .  C le a r ly ,  h o w e v e r ,  th e se  ch an g e s  in th e  T i t le  VII e n f o r c e 

m en t a p p ro a c h  adopted  in the  p r iv a te  s e c to r  le f t  u n a ffec ted  the  m ean in g
55 /

of the  s e p a r a t e  p ro v is io n s  d ea lin g  with T i t le  VII r ig h t s  in the  f e d e ra l  em p loy .

55 / The h i s to r y  of the  H ouse  b i l l s  p ro p o s in g  a m e n d m e n ts  t o  T i t le  VII a lso  
s u g g e s ts  th a t  a f e d e ra l  e m p lo y ee  is  not to be a ffo rd ed  two c h a n c e s  to 
a s s e r t  h is  c la im  in the  f i r s t  in s ta n c e .  The H aw kins  B il l  w as  v e ry  s i m i l a r  
to the  W il l ia m s  B il l ;  i. e. , it p laced  all T i t le  VII e n fo rc e m e n t  r e s p o n s ib i l i ty  
w ith  the E E O C . W hile  a p r iv a te  s e c to r  em p lo y ee  w a s  p e rm i t te d  to  t e s t  
EEO C d e te r m in a t io n s  in a  United  S ta te s  C o u r t  of A p p ea ls  w h e re  ju d ic ia l  
r e v ie w  w as  l im i te d ,  a f e d e ra l  em p lo y ee  w as  r e q u i r e d  to  ch a llen g e  fina l 
d is p o s i t io n  of h is  c o m p la in t  in a U nited  S ta te s  D is t r i c t  C o u r t .  C iv il  a c t io n s  
by p r iv a te  s e c to r  e m p lo y e e s  w e re  p e r m i t t e d  only when the EEOC fa iled  
to  a c t  in t im e ly  fa sh io n . The r e p o r t  a cco m p an y in g  the  H aw kins  B ill  h ig h 
l ig h te d  the  C o m m i t t e e 's  in ten tion  tha t  d u p lic i ty  be avoided:

The c o m m it te e  w as  c o n c e rn e d  about th e  i n te r r e l a t io n s h ip  
be tw een  the newly c r e a te d  c e a s e  and d e s i s t  e n fo rc e m e n t  p o w ers  
of the C o m m is s io n  [E E O C | and the  e x is t in g  r ig h t  of p r iv a te  

(F oo tno te  con tinued  on fo llow ing page)



46

T h is  c o n c lu s io n  is  f u r th e r  b u t t r e s s e d  by  the  e x p la n a to ry  r e m a r k s  of Sena te

W il l ia m s ,  the  f lo o r  m a n a g e r  of the  C o m m it te e  B il l ,  a s  he in tro d u c e d  to

the  Senate  the  p r o v is io n s  w hich l a t e r  b e c a m e  se c t io n  717.

F in a l ly ,  w r i t t e n  e x p r e s s ly  in to  th e  law  is  a p ro v is io n  
enab ling  an a g g r ie v e d  F e d e r a l  e m p lo y e e  to  fi le  an ac tion

5 5 / (F oo tno te  con tinued  f r o m  p r e c e d in g  page)

ac tion . It co n c lu d ed  th a t  d u p l ic a t io n  of p ro c e e d in g s  should  
be avo ided . T he b i l l ,  t h e r e f o r e ,  c o n ta in s  a  p ro v is io n  fo r  
t e r m in a t io n  of C o m m is s io n  jurisdiction once  a  p r iv a te  
ac tio n  h a s  b een  f i led  (excep t fo r  the  p o w er  of the  C o m 
m is s io n  to  in te rv e n e  in the  p r iv a te  a c t io n s ) .  It c o n ta in s  
a s  w ell a s  a p ro v is io n  fo r  t e r m in a t io n  of the  r ig h t  of 
p r iv a te  ac tio n  once  the  C o m m is s io n  i s s u e s  a c o m p la in t  
o r  e n t e r s  into a c o n c i l ia t io n  o r  s e t t l e m e n t  a g re e m e n t  
w hich is  s a t i s f a c to r y  to  the  C o m m is s io n  and to the  
p e r s o n  a g g r ie v ed .

. . .  It should  be no ted , h o w e v e r ,  th a t  it i s  not the  
in ten tion  of the  c o m m it te e  to p e r m i t  an a g g r ie v e d  
p a r ty  a ch an ce  to r e t r y  h is  c a s e  m e r e ly  b e c a u s e  he is 
d i s s a t i s f i e d  w ith  the  C o m m is s io n 's  a c t io n .  O nce the  
C o m m is s io n  h a s  i s s u e d  an o r d e r ,  f u r th e r  p ro c e e d in g s  
m u s t  be  in the  c o u r t s  of a p p e a ls .  . . . H ouse  R e p o r t ,  
s u p r a  no te  24, at 12-13 , L e g is la t iv e  H is to ry ,  s u p r a  
note  23, at 82 -83 .

Like the S en a te ,  the  H ouse  r e j e c t e d  c e a s e  and d e s i s t  a u th o r i ty  fo r  the  
E E O C ; T i t le  VII e n fo rc e m e n t  a u th o r i ty  w as  p laced  in the  United  S ta te s  
D is t r i c t  C o u r t s ,  and d u p l ica t io n  of p ro c e e d in g s  w as  p re c lu d e d .  W hile  the  
fina l  v e r s io n  of H. R. 1746 adopted  by the H ouse  did not apply to f e d e ra l  
e m p lo y e e s ,  the  fo reg o in g  h i s to r y  is  n o n e th e le s s  he lp fu l h e r e .  It d e m o n 
s t r a t e s  c l e a r ly  tha t  the  H ouse  C o m m it te e  a l s o  in tended  to  deny any e m 
p loyee  a c h an ce  to  t r y  h is  c a s e  a s eco n d  t im e  if the  r e s u l t s  of h is  f i r s t  
e f fo r t  w e r e  not to  h is  l ik ing .



47

in the  U. S. D i s t r i c t  C o u r t  fo r  a  re v ie w  of th e  a d m in i s t r a t iv e  
p ro c e e d in g  r e c o r d  a f t e r  a f ina l  o r d e r  by h is  ag en cy  o r  by 
the C iv il  S e rv ic e  C o m m is s io n ,  if he i s d i s s a t i s f i e d  with 
th a t  d e c is io n .  P r e v io u s ly ,  t h e r e  have  been  u n r e a l i s t i c a l l y  
h igh  b a r r i e r s  w hich  p re v e n te d  o r  d is c o u r a g e d  a  F e d e r a l  
em p lo y e  f ro m  tak in g  a c a s e  to  c o u r t .  T h is  w ill  no lo n g e r  
be the  c a s e .  T h e r e  is  no r e a s o n  why a F e d e r a l  e m p lo y ee  
should  not h av e  th e  s a m e  p r iv a te  r ig h t  of ac t io n  en joyed  
by  in d iv id u a ls  in the  p r iv a te  s e c to r ,  and I b e l ie v e  th a t  
the  c o m m it te e  h a s  a c te d  w ise ly  in th is  r e g a r d .  118 Cong.
R ec . S 2280 (daily  ed. F e b .  22, 1972), L e g is la t iv e  H is 
to ry ,  s u p r a  no te  23, at 1727 ( e m p h a s is  added). 56 /

T he S e n a to r  a l so  i n s e r t e d  into the  C o n g re s s io n a l  R e c o rd  a " m o re  d e ta i le d  

a n a ly s i s "  of the  p ro v is io n s  d ea l in g  w ith f e d e ra l  e m p lo y e e s .  Id. In p e r 

t in e n t  p a r t ,  th a t  a n a l y s i s  p ro v id ed :

An im p o r ta n t  ad junc t to th e  s t r e n g th e n e d  C iv il  S e rv ic e  
C o m m is s io n  r e s p o n s ib i l i t i e s  i s  the  s ta tu to ry  p ro v is io n  of

56 / A pp e llan t  l i f t s  f r o m  con tex t the  l a s t  s e n te n c e  in th is  quoted e x c e rp t  
and in so  doing , we su b m it ,  m i s c o n s t r u e s  i ts  m e an in g  (see  B r ie f  fo r  Ap
p e l la n t  at 24). Indeed , the  v e ry  se n te n c e  in w hich  the  language  h ig h 
l ig h te d  by ap p e l lan t  o c c u r s  s u g g e s ts  tha t  l im i te d  re v ie w  of fo r m a l  agency  
ac t io n  w as  in tended . W hile  th e  S ena te  C o m m it te e  m ay  have  "ac te d  w ise ly "  
in a f fo rd in g  all e m p lo y e e s  " the  s a m e  p r iv a te  r ig h t  of ac t io n ,  " the  Sena te  
e le c te d  not to a cc e p t  the C o m m i t t e e 's  r e c o m m e n d a t io n  in to to . The Sena te  
e l im in a te d  E E O C 's  c e a s e  and d e s i s t  a u th o r i ty  but left unchanged  the  s i m i l a r  
a u th o r i ty  g ra n te d  to  th e  CSC. P r e s u m a b ly ,  the  S ena te  a lso  le ft  unchanged  
the  in tended  p a r a m e t e r s  of the  c iv il  ac tion  fo llow ing  a d m in i s t r a t iv e  d e t e r 
m in a t io n s  u n d e r  CSC a u s p ic e s  a s  w e ll .  M o re o v e r ,  we h a rd ly  th ink  th a t  
" r ig h t  of a c t i o n ,"  as  u s e d  in th is  co n tex t ,  can  m ean  m o re  than  a r ig h t  to  
ta k e  o n e 's  c la im  to c o u r t .

E ven  if a p p e l l a n t 's  in t e r p r e ta t io n  w e re  a r e a s o n a b le  one, we doubt th a t  
S e n a to r  W i l l ia m s '  c o m m e n t  could  n e u t r a l i z e ,  by "put[ting l in c o n tex t"  (B r ie f  
fo r  A p pe llan t at 24 n. 11), the  s ta t e m e n t  inc luded  in what the  S e n a to r  h im 
s e l f  c h a r a c t e r i z e d  as  a " m o r e  d e ta i led  a n a ly s is "  of the  p ro v is io n s  d ea l in g  
w ith  f e d e ra l  e m p lo y e e s .



- 48

a p r iv a te  r ig h t  of ac t io n  of re v ie w  of the  agen cy  p r o 
c e e d in g s  in the  c o u r t s  by F e d e r a l  e m p lo y e e s  who a r e  
not s a t i s f i e d  w ith  the  A gency  o r  C o m m is s io n  d e c is io n .

. . . M o re o v e r ,  the  r e m e d ia l  a u th o r i ty  of the  
C o m m is s io n  and the  c o u r t s  h a s  a l so  b e e n  in doubt.
The p ro v is io n s  adop ted  by  th e  C o m m it te e  w ill  enab le  
the  C o m m is s io n  to  g ra n t  full r e l i e f  to a g g r ie v e d  e m 
p lo y e e s ,  o r  a p p l ic a n ts ,  in c lu d in g  b ack  pay and im 
m e d ia te  a d v an c e m en t  a s  a p p r o p r ia t e .  A g g r ie v e d  
e m p lo y e e s  o r  a p p l ic a n ts  w ill  a l s o  have  the  full 
r ig h t s  of re v ie w  a v a i la b le  in the  c o u r t s .  118 Cong. 
R ec . S 2281 (daily  ed. F eb . 22, 1972), L e g is la t iv e  
H is to ry ,  s u p r a  no te  23, at 1730.

T h u s ,  in view the  l e g i s la t iv e  h i s to r y  of the  e n t i r e  1972 Act and e s p e c ia l ly  

of s ec t io n  717, it  is  c l e a r  tha t  C o n g r e s s  n e v e r  in tended  to  a ffo rd  a f e d e ra l  

em p lo y e e ,  w hose  c o m p la in t  w as  expedLtdnusly and f ina lly  d isp o se d  of in 

the  a d m in is t r a t iv e  p ro c e e d in g s ,  a de novo h e a r in g  in a United  S ta te s  D is 

t r i c t  C o u r t .



49

T h e  o p e ra t iv e  e f fe c t  of s e c t io n  717 is  a l so  r e f l e c t iv e  of th is  in te n tio n  on 

the p a r t  of C o n g r e s s .  T he  CSC is  d i r e c te d  to c r e a t e  an e f fe c t iv e  c o m p la in t  

p r o c e s s ;  the  f e d e r a l  em p lo y e e  is  r e q u i r e d  to u s e  th a t  p r o c e s s  b e fo re  he can  

f i le  a c iv il  a c t io n .  I t  s t r a i n s  c r e d u l i ty  ev en  to s u g g e s t  th a t  C o n g r e s s  would 

d e le g a te  the  d e g re e  of a u th o r i ty  g iven to the  CSC u n d e r  s e c t io n  717 w ithout 

in s u r in g  th a t  i t  be  e x e r c i s e d .  I t  can  h a rd ly  b e ,  a s  a p p e l la n t  h a s  su g g e s te d ,  

th a t  C o n g r e s s ,  h av in g  d i r e c te d  the  CSC to develop  a c o m p re h e n s iv e  T i t le  

VII p r o g r a m ,  in c lu d in g  an  e f fec t iv e  a d ju d ic a to ry  p r o c e s s ,  and h av ing  r e 

q u ire d  th a t  th o se  a d m in i s t r a t iv e  p r o c e s s e s  be u t i l iz e d ,  a t  the s a m e  t im e  

in ten d ed  to a llow  an e m p lo y ee  w hose  c o m p la in t  w as e x p e d i t io u s ly  c o n s id e re d  

and d is p o se d  of th ro u g h  th o se  ch an n e ls  to c a s t  th a t  a d m in i s t r a t iv e  r e c o r d  by 

the  w ay sid e  and  beg in  anew  s im p ly  b e c a u s e  the  r e s u l t s  of the  a d m in i s t r a t iv e  

p r o c e s s  w e re  no t to h is  l ik ing . S u re ly  C o n g r e s s  n e v e r  in tended  such  an 

a b s u r d  r e s u l t .  Indeed , a s  the  Sena te  R e p o r t  m a k e s  c l e a r ,  the  ju d ic ia l  r e 

c o u r s e  p ro v id e d  u n d e r  s e c t io n  717 w as in tended  to be 'an  im p o r ta n t  ad ju n c t

to the s t r e n g th e n e d  . . . r e s p o n s ib i l i t i e s "  g ra n te d  to the  CSC (e m p h a s is  
57/

supplied!?

M o re o v e r ,  as  the D i s t r i c t  C o u r t  r e c o g n iz e d ,  q u e s t io n s  of d i s c r im in a t io n  

in the f e d e r a l  em p lo y  a r e  in e x t r ic a b ly  bound up w ith " the  u n d e r ly in g  i n t r i -

57/ Sena te  R e p o r t ,  s u p r a  no te  34, a t  16, L e g is la t iv e  H i s t o r y , s u p ra  no te  23, 
at" 425.



50

c a c ie s  of c iv i l  s e r v i c e  r e g u la t io n s  g o v e rn in g  job q u a l i f ic a t io n ,  s e le c t io n  fo r
58/ ip59/

p ro m o t io n ,  t r a in in g  and the l ik e .  " The " p r e - i m i n e n t  e x p e r t i s e  of 

the  CSC in th is  r e g a r d  i s  y e t  a n o th e r  r e a s o n  why the  c o n c lu s io n s  r e a c h e d  

u n d e r  i t s  gu idance  ought no t to be d i s c a r d e d  out of hand . See K eim  v.

U nited  S ta te s , 177 U .S .  290 (1900); P o w e ll  v. B ra n n a n , 9 1 U .S .  App. D .C .  

16, 196 F .  2d 871 (1952). In d eed , to ig n o re  th a t  e x p e r t i s e  w il l  r e s u l t  in  the  

s a m e  p e r s o n n e l  o p e ra t io n s  p r o b le m  th a t  the  Sena te  C o m m it te e  a t te m p te d  

to avoid  when i t  t r a n s f e r r e d  T i t le  VII r e s p o n s ib i l i ty  in  f e d e r a l  e m p lo y m e n t  

c a s e s  f r o m  the  EEO C to the  CSC.

E ven  m o r e  im p o r ta n t ly ,  h o w e v e r ,  to p e r m i t  a  p le n a r y  h e a r in g  in the 

s i tu a t io n  p r e s e n te d  h e r e ,  a s id e  f r o m  be in g  c o n t r a r y  to the  w ill  of C o n g r e s s ,  

would s e r io u s ly  im p e d e  the e ffe c tu a t io n  of c o n g r e s s io n a l  in te n t  in o th e r  r e 

s p e c t s .  U n d e r  s e c t io n  717 the CSC h as  b een  c h a r g e d  w ith  the  im p le m e n ta 

tion of a c o m p re h e n s iv e  equal e m p lo y m e n t  o p p o r tu n i ty  p r o g r a m ,  of w hich  

the  a d ju d ica tio n  p r o c e d u r e s  a r e  an  in te g r a l  p a r t .  The  d e v e lo p m e n t  by the 

CSC of e ffec t iv e  c o m p la in t  m a c h in e r y  a t tu n e d  to the  i n t r i c a c i e s  of d i s c r i 

m in a t io n  in the  f e d e r a l  em p lo y  and the sh ap in g  of r e m e d ie s  r e s p o n s iv e  to 

the n eed s  of the v ic t im s  of d i s c r im in a t io n  can  h a rd ly  be a c c o m p l is h e d  if 

no p r e m iu m  i s  p la c e d  on the  fu l l  u t i l iz a t io n  of th a t  m a c h in e r y  b e c a u s e  i t s  

f ina l  r e s u l t s  a r e  m e a n in g le s s .  Indeed , w e r e  de nova  h e a r in g s  p e r m i t t e d

58/ H ack ley  v. Jo h n so n , s u p r a  note  2, 360 F .  Supp. a t  12 52.

59 / Id.



51

b e fo re  the  D i s t r i c t  C o u r t ,  a g g r e s s iv e  p ro s e c u t io n  of c o m p la in ts  w ould be 

r e s e r v e d  f o r  th a t  fo r u m ,  i .  e . , the  fo ru m  w hose  f in a l  d e te r m in a t io n s  would 

be  b ind ing . N o r  w ould the  a d v e r s e  a f fe c ts  of h a p h a z a rd  u t i l iz a t io n  of the  

a d ju d ic a t io n  p r o c e s s e s  be  l im i te d  to th a t  p a r t i c u l a r  a s p e c t  of CSC r e s p o n 

s ib i l i t i e s .  I t  c an n o t be  doubted  th a t  th o se  p r o c e s s e s  p ro v id e  the  m o s t  e f 

f e c t iv e  m e th o d  of en ab lin g  the  CSC to id en tify  d i s c r im in a t io n  a s  s ee n  th ro u g h  

the  e y e s  of i t s  v ic t im s ;  th o se  p r o c e d u r e s  a l so  p ro v id e  an  in v a lu a b le  m e a n s  

of in s t r u c t io n .  A c co rd in g ly ,  a g g r e s s iv e  u t i l iz a t io n  of th o se  p r o c e s s e s  n e c e s 

s a r i l y  s e r v e s  to h e ig h te n  the  s e n s i t iv i ty  of the  CSC to the  p r e s e n c e  of d i s 

c r im in a t io n  in  f e d e r a l  e m p lo y m e n t .  To d e p r iv e  the  CSC of th is  s o u rc e  of 

in fo rm a t io n  and e x p e r t i s e  i s  to d e p r iv e  i t  of the  on ly  s u r e  m e a n s  i t  h a s  of 

fu lf i l l in g  i t s  T i t le  VII o b l ig a t io n s .

S ti l l  a n o th e r  w eigh ty  c o n s id e ra t io n  m i l i t a t in g  a g a in s t  a  c o n c lu s io n  th a t  

s e c t io n  717 (c) w as  in te n d e d  to p ro v id e  a p le n a r y  h e a r in g  to a  f e d e r a l  e m p lo y ee  

a s  a m a t t e r  of r ig h t  i s  the  v e ry  p r a c t i c a l  one of d u p l ica t io n  of r e s o u r c e s  and 

e f fo r t  th a t  su ch  an a p p ro a c h  would e n ta i l .  N o r w ould  the  m a s s iv e  w a s te  of 

t im e  and e f fo r t  be  l im i te d  to the  p a r t i e s  to the  a d ju d ic a to r y  p r o c e s s .  D oub t

l e s s  the  m a jo r i t y  of w i tn e s s e s  to a c la im  of T i t le  VII d i s c r im in a t io n  in  the  

f e d e r a l  g o v e rn m e n t  w ill  be  f e d e r a l  e m p lo y e e s ,  and  d o u b t le s s  th o se  e m 

p lo y e e s  w ill  have  te s t i f i e d  u n d e r  oa th  d u r in g  the a d m in i s t r a t iv e  h e a r in g .

W hile we do n o t  c o n s id e r  a T i t le  VII c o m p la in t  to be  of l i t t l e  s ig n if ic a n c e ,  

we do th ink  th a t  the  g o v e r n m e n t 's  i n t e r e s t  in  co n tinu ing  and  e f f ic ie n t  o p e r a 

tion i s  one w hich  ought no t to be d i s m i s s e d  a  s e c o n d  t im e  w ithou t good r e a s o n .  

M o r e o v e r ,  we s u b m it ,  th a t  the  su f f ic ien cy  of th a t  r e a s o n  can  b e s t  be in s u r e d



52

th ro u g h  a  r e v ie w  of the  a d m in i s t r a t iv e  p ro c e e d in g s  by the  D i s t r i c t  C o u r t ,
60 /

a s  C o n g re s s  h a s  in te n d e d .

6 0 / A p p e llan t  a t te m p ts  to m in im iz e  the  im p a c t  of the  m a s s iv e  w a s te  of 
t im e ,  e n e rg y  and r e s o u r c e s  of the  CSC by a n a lo g iz in g  i t s  c o m p la in t  
m a c h in e ry  and  f in a l  a d ju d ic a t io n s  to the  p r o c e d u r e s  and r e s u l t s  of d i s 
c o v e ry  n o r m a l  to " m a jo r  . . . c iv i l  l i t ig a t io n "  (B r ie f  f o r  A pp e llan t  
a t  32). H is  ana logy  i s  a  f a l s e  one . The d i s c o v e r y  m e c h a n i s m s  do no t 
p ro v id e  a c o m m e r c i a l  l i t ig a n t  w ith  a  fo r u m  in  w hich  to p r e s e n t  e v id e n c e .  
N o r  is  d is c o v e ry  c o n d u c ted  b e fo re  a  s in g le  i m p a r t i a l  a r b i t e r  who i s  
e m p o w e re d  to m a k e  f ind ings  of fa c t ,  d ra w  a p p r o p r ia t e  c o n c lu s io n s  and 
o r d e r  c o m p u ls o ry  r e l i e f .  C o n t r a r y  to a p p e l l a n t ’s f u r t h e r  a s s e r t i o n ,  the  
ch ie f  p u rp o s e  of ag en cy  h e a r in g s  is  to p r e p a r e  f a c tu a l  r e c o r d s  w hich  
fo r m u la te  the  b a s i s  of c o m p u ls o ry  r e l i e f  ( s e e  B r ie f  f o r  A p p e l lan t  a t  32). 
Such c o m p u ls o ry  r e l i e f  i s  h a rd ly  c o n s i s t e n t  w ith  the  k ind  of r e l i e f  g a in ed  
th ro u g h  the  E E O C  c o n c i l ia t io n  p r o c e d u r e s  ( s e e  B r ie f  fo r  a p p e l la n t  a t  34). 
And w hile  the  h e a r in g  i t s e l f  m a y  be  op tio n a l  on the  p a r t  of an  e m p lo y e e ,
the  e x e r c i s e  of th a t  op tion  i s  n o t  u n co n d it io n a l .  See p . ____ i n f r a .
F u r t h e r m o r e ,  w h ile  c e r t a i n  a s p e c t s  of the  a d m in i s t r a t i v e  p r o c e s s  a r e  
d e s ig n e d  to a llow  the  f e d e r a l  g o v e rn m e n t  to s e t  i t s  h o u se  in  o r d e r ,  th o se  
p r o c e s s e s  a r e  e x h a u s te d  lo n g  b e fo re  the  e m p lo y e e  i s  a f fo rd e d  an  o p p o r 
tun ity  to have  a h e a r in g ,  a s  the  a p p l ic a b le  r e g u la t io n s  d e m o n s t r a t e .

E a c h  agency  h a s  an  e q u a l  e m p lo y m e n t  o p p o r tu n i ty  c o u n s e lo r  w hose  
p r im e  func tion  i s  in fo r m a l  r e s o lu t io n  of T i t l e  VII p r o b le m s .  In p u r s u i t  
of th a t  func tion , he i s  a u th o r iz e d  to m ak e  w h a te v e r  in q u iry  he d e e m s  
a p p r o p r ia t e .  He i s  r e q u i r e d  to  a d v ise  an  a g g r ie v e d  e m p lo y e e  of h is  
r ig h t  to f i le  a c o m p la in t ;  he  i s  a lso  r e q u i r e d  to s u b m it  a  w r i t t e n  r e p o r t  
in  co n n ec tio n  w ith  a l l  c o m p la in ts .  5 C . F . R .  § 713. 213 (1973). W hen a 
c o m p la in t  i s  f i led ,  the  c h a r g e  m u s t  be  in v e s t ig a te d  by an in d iv id u a l  
who is  no t inv o lv ed  w ith  the  s e c t io n  o r  u n it  in  w h ich  the  c o m p la in t  h a s  
a r i s e n .  S ta te m e n ts  a r e  ta k en  u n d e r  oa th ; c o o p e ra t io n  in  th a t  i n v e s t i 
ga tion  of a l l  a g en cy  e m p lo y e e s  is  r e q u i r e d .  5 C . F . R .  § 713. 216 (1973).
A t the  co n c lu s io n  of the  in v e s t ig a t io n  the  a g g r iv e d  e m p lo y e e  is  g iven  a 
copy of the  in v e s t ig a t iv e  f i le  and an o p p o r tu n i ty  to d i s c u s s  the  m a t t e r  
w ith  a p p r o p r ia t e  o f f ic ia l s .  If the  m a t t e r  r e m a i n s  u n re s o lv e d ,  the 
em p lo y e e  is  a p p r i s e d  of h is  r ig h t  to a h e a r in g ;  he is  a lso  a d v ise d  of 
the  p ro p o s e d  d is p o s i t io n  of h is  c o m p la in t .  5 C . F . R .  § 713. 217 (1973).
In add ition  to the  in v e s t ig a t iv e  f i l e ,  the  e m p lo y e e  m u s t  be given  a  copy 
of e v e ry th in g  c o n ta in ed  in  the  c o m p la in t  f i le ,  w hich  in c lu d e s  a l l  the 
m a t e r i a l  m a d e  a v a i la b le  to the  h e a r in g  e x a m i n e r .  In v iew  of th e se  
p r o c e d u r e s ,  a  f e d e r a l  e m p lo y e e  can  h a r d ly  be h e a r d  to c o m p la in  th a t  
he  had  no o p p o r tu n i ty  to m a k e  d i s c o v e ry .



53

And even  f u r t h e r ,  we s u b m it  th a t  the  c o u r t s  w il l  be h a rd  p r e s s e d  

to find a su f f ic ie n t  r e a s o n  fo r  r e p e t i t io n  when the a d m in i s t r a t iv e  m a c h i 

n e r y  i s  u t i l iz e d  in  a c c o rd a n c e  w ith  CSC g u id e l in e s .  Indeed , an e x a m i 

n a t io n  of the  CSC ad ju d ic a t io n  p r o c e d u r e s  e s ta b l i s h e d  fo r  T i t le  VII c o m 

p la in ts  r e v e a l s  th a t  they  a r e  a s  f a i r  and  i m p a r t i a l  a s  any w hich  m ay  be 

p ro v id e d  in the  D i s t r i c t  C o u r t .  T he  h e a r in g  e x a m in e r ,  e x c e p t  in  u n 

u s u a l  c i r c u m s t a n c e s ,  m u s t  be  an e m p lo y ee  f r o m  a n o th e r  agen cy ; co n -
61/

s e q u e n t ly ,  he i s  in s u la te d  f r o m  the  p a r t i e s  and the  ag en cy  inv o lv ed .

P r i o r  to s ch e d u l in g  the  h e a r in g ,  the  e x a m in e r  i s  r e q u i r e d  to r e v ie w  the

c o m p la in t  f i le  to i n s u r e  th a t  a l l  the  n e c e s s a r y  in v e s t ig a t io n  h a s  b e en  c o m -  
62 /

p le te d .  He co n d u c ts  the  h e a r in g  and is  r e q u i r e d  to apply  the  r u l e s  of
63/

ev id en c e  l i b e r a l ly .  The e m p lo y e e  i s  e n t i t le d  to r e p r e s e n t a t i o n  of h is
64 /

own c h o o s in g  a t  a l l  t im e s .  A ll te s t im o n y  i s  tak en  u n d e r  o a th ,  and a l l
65/

w i tn e s s e s  a r e  su b je c t  to c r o s s - e x a m in a t io n .  F e d e r a l  e m p lo y e e s  a r e

m a d e  a v a i la b le  a s  w i tn e s s e s  a t  the  e x a m i n e r ' s  r e q u e s t ;  h is  r e a s o n s  fo r

deny ing  an e m p lo y e e 's  r e q u e s t  fo r  the  a p p e a ra n c e  of a p a r t i c u l a r  p e r s o n
66 /

a s  a w i tn e s s  m u s t  b e  m a d e  a  p a r t  of the  r e c o r d .  All te s t im o n y  m u s t

61/ 5 C . F . R .  § 713. 218 (a)(1973).

62 / 5 C . F . R .  § 713.218 (b)(1973).

6 3 / 5 C . F . R .  §713 .218  ( c )(2)(1973); s e e  5 C . F . R .  §713 .218  (d)(1973).

64 / 5 C . F . R .  § 713.214 (b)(1973). Both the  em p lo y e e  and h is  r e p r e s e n t a 
t iv e ,  if a l so  an  a g en cy  e m p lo y e e ,  a r e  e n t i t le d  to a r e a s o n a b le  a m o u n t of 
o f f ic ia l  w o rk in g  t im e  in  w hich to p r e s e n t  the  a g g r ie v e d  p a r t y ' s  c la im .  Id.

65 / 5 C . F . R .  § 713.218 (c)(2)(1973).

66 / 5 C . F . k .  § 713.218 (e)(1973).



54

be r e c o r d e d  and  t r a n s c r i b e d  v e r b a t im .  F in d in g s  of fa c t ,  an a n a ly s i s

and  a  r e c o m m e n d e d  d e c is io n ,  in c lu d in g  p ro p o s e d  r e m e d ia l  a c t io n ,  m u s t
68 /

be p r e p a r e d .  M o re o v e r ,  we s u b m it ,  the  e x a m in e r  b e c a u s e  of h is  p r i o r

e x p e r ie n c e  in  the  a r e a  w ill  b r in g  to th a t  a n a ly s is  a  m o r e  th o ro u g h  and

d e e p e r  u n d e rs ta n d in g  of the  c o m p l ic a te d  and d e l ic a te  i s s u e s  and  the  c o n -
69 /

te x t  in w hich  they a r i s e .

67/

67 / 5 C . F . R .  § 713.218 (f)(1973).

68 / 5 C . F . R .  § 713.218 (g)(1973). If the  h ead  of the  a g en cy  fails  to 
Issue  h is  d e c is io n  in  t im e ly  fa s h io n ,  the  e x a m i n e r ' s  d e c is io n  b e c o m e s  
b ind ing  on the a g en cy .  See 5 C . F . R .  § 713. 220 (d)(1973).

69 / A p pe llan t l ik e n s  the  CSC c o m p la in t  p r o c e d u r e s  to th o se  of the  E E O C . 
He a rg u e s  th a t  a  p r iv a te  e m p lo y e e  i s  no t con fined  to the  EE O C  a d m in i 
s t r a t i v e  r e c o r d  in  p r e s e n t in g  h is  c o m p la in t  in  the  D i s t r i c t  C o u r t  and 
th a t  a  f e d e r a l  em p lo y e e  shou ld  be s i m i l a r l y  t r e a t e d .  W hile  i t  i s  c l e a r  
th a t  a s  a  ju r i s d ic t io n a l  m a t t e r  a  p r iv a te  e m p lo y e e  i s  no t bound by a 
p r i o r  f ind ing  of no " r e a s o n a b le  c a u s e "  by the  E E O C , 29 C . F . R .  § 1601.
19 (b)(1973), M cD onnell D oug las  C o r p . v. G r e e n , 411 U .S .  792 (1973), we 
th ink  th a t  the  e f fe c t  of te s t im o n y  tak en  a t  a h e a r in g  u n d e r  the  a u s p ic e s  of 
the  EE O C  is  by no m e a n s  n o n - e x is te n t .  H o w ev e r ,  a s s u m in g  a rg u e n d o  
th a t  a p r iv a te  s e c t o r  e m p lo y e e  i s  a lw ay s  e n t i t le d  to a fu ll  h e a r m g  in  open  
c o u r t ,  the  e s s e n t i a l  and  e x te n s iv e  d i f f e r e n c e s  e x is t in g  b e tw ee n  the  EE O C  
and the CSC d e m an d  th a t  t h e i r  r e s p e c t iv e  a d m in i s t r a t iv e  r e c o r d s  be a f 
fo rd e d  d i s p a r a t e  t r e a tm e n t .

C o n g re s s  h a s  ch o se n  to c a s t  the  E E O C  in  the r o l e  of an ad v o ca te ;  i t  
h a s  c a s t  the  CSC a s  an  a r b i t e r .  As a p p e l la n t  p o in ts  out, (B r ie f  fo r  
A p p e l lan t  a t  26), EE O C  i s  a u th o r iz e d  to ho ld  h e a r in g s ,  bu t i t s  h e a r in g  
p r o c e s s  i s  d e s ig n e d  only  to m e e t  the  n e e d s  of the  E E O C ; i .  e . , when 
a  p r iv a te  s e c to r  e m p lo y e e  f i l e s  a  c h a r g e ,  the  E E O C  is  r e q u i r e d  to  m a k e  
a  f ind ing  w h e th e r  th e r e  e x i s t s  " r e a s o n a b le  c a u s e "  to b e l ie v e  the  c h a r g e  
i s  t r u e .  The h e a r in g  p r o c e s s  is  an in te r n a l  o p e ra t io n  w hich  f a c i l i t a t e s  
th a t  d e te r m in a t io n .  I t  a l so  a c t s  a s  a fo r c ib le  d i s c o v e r y  m e c h a n is m  
th a t  e n a b le s  the  EE O C  to e v a lu a te  m e r i t o r io u s  c o m p la in t s .  C e r ta in  of 
th o se  c o m p la in ts  w ill  r e q u i r e  only  m in o r  c o n c i l i a to r y  e f fo r t s ;  o th e r s  m ay  
c a l l  fo r  c o n s id e ra b le  e f fo r t  in th a t  r e g a r d ;  and s t i l l  o th e r s  m ay  w a r r a n t  
the  fu ll  t h r u s t  of E E O C  m ig h t ,  the  f i l in g  of a c iv i l  a c t io n .  In any  ev en t ,  
the  h e a r in g ,  conducted  a s  i t  is  by the  p o te n t ia l  p la in t i f f ,  i s  f a r  d i f f e r e n t  
f r o m  the a d v e r s a r y - l i k e  p ro c e e d in g  th a t  o c c u r s  b e fo re  a CSC e x a m in e r .  
The a g g r ie v e d  p a r ty  m ay  no t even  be a p a r ty  to the  EE O C  p ro c e e d in g .

(F O O T N O T E  C O N T IN U E D  ON N E X T  P A G E . )



55

A p p e l la n t 's  f e a r  th a t  the  a d m in is t r a t iv e  h e a r in g  w ill  be d e f ic ie n t  b e 

c a u s e  the  fo ru m  la c k s  the  p r e s t i g e  of a f e d e r a l  c o u r t  i s  m is p la c e d .  We 

do not d isp u te  th a t  the  im p r i m a t u r  of a f e d e r a l  c o u r t  on the  f in a l  d i s p o s i 

tion  of a  T i t le  VII c o m p la in t  w ill  i n s p i r e  con fidence  in  th a t  r e s o lu t io n .  

H o w ev e r ,  we do no t th ink  th a t  th a t  i m p r i m a t u r ,  to be  e f fe c t iv e ,  m u s t  be 

r e n d e r e d  on the b a s i s  of a  f i r s th a n d  view  of the  te s t im o n y ;  a  c o n sc ie n t io u s  

r e v ie w  of agency  ac t io n  w ill  s e r v e  th a t  p u rp o s e  a s  w e ll .  C o n g r e s s  a p 

p a r e n t ly  though t a s  m uch ; s e c t io n  706 p e r m i t s  the  judge to w hom  a c o m -

69 / (FO O T N O TE CONTINUED FRO M  PREV IOU S PA G E )

T h e r e  e x is t s  no r i g h t  of r e p r e s e n t a t i o n .  T h e r e  i s  no g u a ra n te e d  r ig h t  
of c r o s s - e x a m in a t io n .  T r a n s c r i p t s  of EEO C p ro c e e d in g s  a r e  no t r e 
q u ire d .  The f a i r n e s s  and a c c u ra c y  of the p ro c e e d in g  is  no t i n s u r e d  by 
the  r e q u i r e m e n t  of w r i t t e n  f a c t - f in d in g  and a n a ly s i s .  M o st  im p o r ta n t ly ,  
the  EEO C h e a r in g  r e s u l t s  do no t and canno t u n d e r  the  law  p ro v id e  a  b a s i s  
f o r  c o m p u ls o ry  'c o m p l ia n c e '  w ith  T i t le  VII. S u re ly ,  su ch  d i f f e r e n c e s  
w a r r a n t  d i f f e r e n t  t r e a tm e n t .

In s h o r t ,  the  a u th o r i ty  g iven  the CSC is  c o n s i s te n t  w ith  i t s  r e s p o n 
s ib i l i t i e s .  The  s a m e  i s  t r u e  of the  E E O C . The d i f f e r e n c e s  in  th a t  
a u th o r i ty ,  we s u b m it ,  r e v e a l  the  la ck  of m e r i t  in  a p p e l l a n t 's  c la im .



56

p la in t  i s  a s s ig n e d  to ap po in t a m a s t e r  u n d e r  R ule  53, F e d  R . C iv . P .
7 0 /

7 0 / The D i s t r i c t  C o u r t ' s  r e c o g n i t io n  of th is  f a c t  and  i t s  r e f e r e n c e  to the 
a d m in is t r a t iv e  r e c o r d  a s  a " m a s t e r ' s  r e p o r t "  i s  c h a l len g e d  by a p p e l la n t .  
H is  con ten tion  th a t  the  s t r i c t u r e s  of R u le  53, F .  R. C iv. P . ,  u n d e r  
e x is t in g  law would p re c lu d e  r e s o r t  to a  m a s t e r  in  m o s t  T i t le  VII s i t u a 
t ions  m is a p p re h e n d s  the m e a n in g  and  p u rp o s e  of th a t  p ro v is io n .  O r ig in 
a l ly ,  i t  r e q u i r e d  th a t  the  judge ap p o in t  a m a s t e r  if he fa i le d  to c a le n d a r  
the  c a s e  w ith in  c e r t a in  t im e  l i m i t s .  See P r o p o s e d  A m e n d m en t  to S. 2 515 
No. 909, L e g is la t iv e  H is to ry ,  s u p r a  note  23, a t  1683. T h is  m a n d a to ry  
d i r e c t iv e  w as  r e l a x e d  s im p ly  to le a v e  the  m a t t e r  w ith in  the  d i s c r e t i o n  
of the c o u r t .  118 Cong. Rec'. § 2281-2282 (da ily  ed .  F e b .  22, 1972)(re -  
m a r k s  of S e n a to r  J a v i t s ) ;  L e g is la t iv e  H is to r y ,  s u p r a  no te  23, a t  1731. 
O bv iously  R ule  53 is  to p ro v id e  only the f r a m e w o r k  f o r  su ch  a p p o in tm e n ts .  
And ju s t  a s  o b v io u s ly ,  the  p u rp o s e  of the  p ro v is io n  be in g  ex p ed it io u s  
t r e a tm e n t  of c o m p la in ts ,  C o n g r e s s  cou ld  h a rd ly  have  in te n d e d  th a t  the 
l im i t s  p la c e d  on the u se  of R ule  53 app ly  h e r e ,  w h e re  they  would d e fe a t  
the  v e ry  p u rp o s e  of i t s  e x i s t e n c e  u n d e r  s e c t io n  706. M o re o v e r ,  w hile  
a p p e l la n t  o b je c ts  to the  c o m p a r i s o n  m ad e  by the D i s t r i c t  C o u r t ,  he  do es  
no t a r t i c u la te  the  e s s e n t i a l  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  of a  m a s t e r ' s  r e p o r t  th a t  a r e  
la ck in g  in  the  a d m in i s t r a t iv e  r e c o r d  b e fo re  the  c o u r t .  We can  co n ce iv e  
of none th a t  would d ic ta te  d i f f e r e n t  t r e a tm e n t .

A p p e llan t ,  g r a s p in g  fo r  s t r a w s ,  then n o te s  th a t  in any ev en t  no c o u r t  
would appo in t a d e fen d an t  to be  a f a c t - f in d e r  in h is  own c a s e .  T h a t  i s  n o t 
w hat happened  h e r e .  A p p e llan t  h a s  a l le g e d  d i s c r i m i n a t o r y  con d u c t on the  
p a r t  of a  n u m b e r  of h is  s u p e r v is in g  o f f ic ia ls  a t  the  V e te r a n s  A d m in is 
t r a t io n .  The h e a r in g  e x a m in e r  w as  an  e x p e r ie n c e d  e x a m in e r  and an e m 
p loyee  of the  CSC. T he id e n t i t ie s  of th o se  two a g e n c ie s  a r e  h a rd ly  so 
p ro x im a te  a s  to w a r r a n t  the  o n e n e s s  w hich  a p p e l la n t  a t t r i b u t e s  to th e m . 
Indeed , im p l ic i t  in  a p p e l l a n t 's  su g g es t io n  i s  th a t  no C S C -ap p o in ted  
e x a m in e r ,  if  a g o v e rn m e n t  e m p lo y e e ,  cou ld  be f a i r  and im p a r t i a l .  I t  
i s  a p p a r e n t  th a t  C o n g r e s s  co n c lu d ed  o th e rw is e  w hen i t  e n a c te d  s e c t io n  
717.



57
A p p e llan t  m a k e s  e s s e n t i a l ly  two a rg u m e n ts  in s u p p o r t  of h is

_71/
in te r p r e ta t io n  of s e c t io n  717 (c). W hile  we th ink  tha t we have  a l r e a d y  

re s p o n d e d  to m uch  of what he a s s e r t s ,  we fee l c o m p e l le d  to a d d r e s s  

b r ie f ly  h is  two m a jo r  co n ten t io n s  at th is  ju n c tu re .

A p pe llan t c o n ten d s  tha t  the p la in  language  of the  1972 Act e n t i t l e s  one

in h is  p o s i t io n  to  a h e a r in g  de novo b e fo re  the  D i s t r i c t  C o u r t .  A p p a ren t ly

he fa i ls  to u n d e r s ta n d  tha t:

It is  a lw ays  an u n sa fe  way of c o n s t r u in g  a 
s ta tu te  . . .  to  d iv ide  by a p r o c e s s  of 
e ty m o lo g ic a l  d i s s e c t io n ,  and to  s e p a r a t e  
w o rd s  and then  apply  to each , thus  s e p a 
r a te d  f ro m  i ts  c o n tex t ,  som e p a r t i c u l a r  
d e fin it io n  given  by l e x ic o g r a p h e r s  and 
then  r e c o n s t r u c t  the  in s t ru m e n t  b a s i s  of 
th e s e  d e f in i t io n s .  An in s t ru m e n t  m u s t  
a lw ays  be c o n s t r u e d  as  a w hole , and the 
p a r t i c u l a r  m ean in g  to be a t ta ch ed  to  any 
w ord  o r  p h r a s e  is u s u a l ly  to be a s c r ib e d  
f r o m  the  con tex t ,  the  n a tu re  of the  su b jec t  
m a t t e r  t r e a te d  of, and the  p u rp o se  o r  in
ten tio n  . . .  of the  body which en ac te d  o r  
f r a m e d  the  s ta tu te  . . . .  72/

71/ A p p e l la n t 's  p r e s e n ta t io n  on th is  i s s u e  is d iv ided  in to  five p a r t s ;  in the  
f ina l  th r e e  p a r t s ,  h o w e v e r ,  he m e r e ly  s u g g e s ts  to th is  C o u r t  r e a s o n s  why 
h is  in t e r p r e ta t io n  should  not be r e j e c te d .  See B r i e f  fo r  A p pe llan t at 
32-40 .

7 2 / 2A S u th e r lan d ,  s u p ra ,  § 4 6 .0 5  at 56; see  M a s t ro  P l a s t i c s  C o rp .  
v. N L R B , s u p r a  no te  11; A ddison  v. H o lly  Hill F r u i t  P r o d u c t s ,  Inc. ,
s u p ra .



58

Consequently, his argument rests in part on a misapprehension 

of the options available to a federal employee in section 717 

(c). Were appellant to read that provision with an under

standing of the two unrelated purposes it was intended to 

serve, he would quickly see that it does not present contem

poraneous options of different effect and magnitude, i»e, the
the

type of options that would give rise to/kind of inference he 

attempts to draw from section 717 (c). That provision merely 

affords a federal employee a series of two-choice options, 

each providing an opportunity to seek relief in the adminis

trative process or an equivalent opportunity to seek similar 

relief in a United States District Court. For example, a 

federal employee is required to file his Title VII complaint 

with the agency. However, if the agency fails to act in 

timely fashion, he is presented with an option. His choices 

are two —  to await agency action or to file a civil action 

in the District Court. Either choice presents the same 

opportunity -- a forum of first instance in which to present 

his claim. A second option becomes available to a federal 

employee after final agency action. The choices are again 

limited: to appeal to the CSC or to file a civil action in

the District Court. But again, the opportunity presented by 

either alternative is obviously the same --  review of final



- 59 -

agency action. A third option also presents equivalent 

alternatives when the CSC fails to act on an appeal in timely 

fashion.

Significantly, only exercise of the first option (created

by agency inaction) will permit a federal employee to enter

District Court without final agency action. But the agency,

by rendering final action on a complaint in expeditious

fashion, can insure that a complete administrative record will
73/

accompany that complaint through the court system. Thus the

differing postureSof complaints upon which appellant relies

so heavily to support an inference of a totally unrestricted
74/

"civil action" reduce to basically two at best, hardly the 

foundation for an inference of much probative force. Even 

more importantly, when the intent of Congress as manifested 

in section 717 is considered, i.e., that complaints be re

solved under the auspices of the CSC, and when effectuation

717 By a complete administrative record, we mean only the 
full record of the proceedings in the forum of first instance.

74/ It is true that when an employee processes an appeal 
Fefore the Board of Appeals and Review of the CSC, the 
administrative record would include the Board's determination 
as well. However, only in unusual circumstances, we submit, 
would that determination contain additional facts not included 
in the record on the basis of which final agency action was 
rendered.



60

of that intent is assumed, it is clear beyond peradventure

that the very basis of appellant's argument falls to nothing,

because all complaints enter the courthouse in basically the 
75/

same posture.
Appellant also seeks suport for his contention in a

different section of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, section 
76/ 77/

706. Section 717 (d) provides that subsections (T) through (k)

737 Appellant compounds the error of his approach when he 
Tails to recognize the significance of his ability to control 
the posture of his claim within the administrative processes. 
He suggests that, because an employee can choose to have the 
merits of his complaint determined with or without a hearing, 
he can always insure himself a plenary hearing before the 
District Court by waiving the adjudicatory hearing before the 
agency (Brief for Appellant at 40). Such a suggestion is 
absurd. Congress hardly directed the CSC to develop effective 
complaint machinery and at the same time required that all 
employees process their complaints through those channels, so 
that people like appellant could toy with that system by hold
ing back valuable evidence. Indeed, appellant's contention 
runs directly counter to the theory behind the doctrine of 
exhaustion of administrative remedies as well as the rule in 
favor of finality of judgments. In any event, appellant's 
suggestion is far from legally sound. Williams v. Zuckert,
372 U.S. 765 (1963). The employee who knowingly waives such 
a hearing before the agency can hardly turn around and demand 
one before the District Court. Cf. Sampson v. Murray, 42 
U.S.L.W. 4221 (U.S. Feb. 19, 197SJ.

76/ 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5 (Supp. II, 1972).

77/ 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-l6(d) Supp. II, 1972).



61

of section 706 shall govern federal employee civil actions 

"as applicable." Appellant notes that these provisions are 

unrestricted; he also points to certain language contained in 

section 706 (f), i.e., the words "hearing" and "trial" appear 

once each (Brief for Appellant at 17, 30). He concludes, 

therefore, that a section 717 (c) civil action must always 

necessarily be unrestricted as well.
First of all, we note that section 717 is the only section 

of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, that deals directly with 

federal employees; it also deals exclusively with federal 

employees. Appellant's contention, based as it is on section 

706, is thus bottomed on a piecemeal interpretation of pro

visions only tangentially relevant to the main provisions 

dealing with federal employees, i.e., section 717. Since his 

interpretation completely ignores the intent of Congress

manifested in section 717, it ought to be dismissed out of 
78/

hand. Second, appellant's argument ignores the fact that the 

referenced provisions of section 706 are mainly concerned with 

very general matters such as jurisdiction, venue, assignment of

7%7 Appellant's approach, as we have noted earlier, is con
trary to a well-recognized rule of statutory construction:

A statute is passed as a whole and not in 
parts or sections and is animated by one 
general purpose and intent. Consequently, 
each part or section should be construed in 
connection with every other part or section 
so as to produce a harmonious whole. 2A 
Sutherland, supra, § 46.06.



62 -

cases, expeditious treatment of cases, appeals and the like. 

Consequently, the words "as applicable" in section 717 (d) 

cannot fairly be read to refer to anything more specific than 

matters of that nature. Indeed, section 706 makes no attempt 

to define the parameters of a civil action filed under its 

provision. Third, since the primary funciton of section 706 

is to govern civil actions constituting initial efforts to 

assert Title VII rights, that section must necessarily allow 

for actions of an unrestricted nature. That it does so allow, 

however, in no way compels a conclusion that all federal 

employee civil actions must necessarily entail full hearings 

before the District Court.

79/

797 The provisions of section 706 originally referenced by 
section 717 (d), as proposed in both the Williams Bill and 
the Committee Bill, support this conclusion. At the time, 
those referenced provisions did not contain the words "hearing" 
and "trial" to which appellant attaches such great significance. 
See Legislative History, supra note 23, at 187, 172, 174.



63

A p p e l la n t 's  s eco n d  m a jo r  con ten t io n  is  th a t  the  le g i s la t iv e  h i s to r y  d e m o n 

s t r a t e s  tha t f e d e ra l  e m p lo y e e s  a r e  to  have  the  full equal e m p lo y m e n t  

r ig h t s  a c c o rd e d  to  p r iv a te  e m p lo y e e s .  C o n seq u e n t ly ,  he a r g u e s ,  s in c e  a 

p r iv a te  s e c to r  em p lo y e e  is  e n t i t le d  to  a p le n a r y  h e a r in g  b e fo re  the  D i s t r i c t  

C o u r t ,  a f e d e ra l  em p lo y e e  m u s t  be p e rm i t te d  a s i m i l a r  h e a r in g .

A s we have  a l r e a d y  d e m o n s t r a t e d ,  a n u m b e r  of the  s ta t e m e n ts  in the  

le g i s l a t i v e  h i s to r y  upon w hich  a p p e l lan t  r e l i e s ,  when p laced  in v e r b a l  and 

in h i s to r i c a l  co n tex t ,  m i l i t a te  s t ro n g ly  a g a in s t  h is  c la im  h e r e .  It is  u n lik e ly  

th a t ,  had  th e  b i l l s  w hich  th o s e  s ta t e m e n ts  d e s c r ib e d  been  en ac te d  in to  law, 

a p p e l la n t  would be  f r a m in g  h is  a rg u m e n t  in t e r m s  of id e n t ic a l  t r e a tm e n t .  

See n o te s  42, 54 and 56, s u p r a , and acco m p a n y in g  te x t .

A p p e l la n t 's  r e l i a n c e  on o th e r  such  s t a t e m e n t s ,  we su b m it ,  is  eq u a lly  
80 /

u n av a i l in g .  Only the  v a r io u s  r e m a r k s  of S e n a to r  D om in ick  need  de ta in

8 0 /  A p p e llan t  s e e k s  s u p p o r t  fo r  h is  th e o r y  in a  s ta t e m e n t  co n ta in ed  in the  
H ouse  R e p o r t  tha t a c c o m p a n ie d  the  H aw kins  B il l ,  w hich at the  t im e  p r o 
p o sed  to  p lace  T i t le  VII e n fo rc e m e n t  r e s p o n s ib i l i ty  fo r  f e d e ra l  e m p lo y e e s  
in the  h an d s  of the  E E O C . As a  ju s t i f ic a t io n  fo r  th a t  p ro p o s a l ,  the  H ouse  
C o m m it te e  looked  to  a  p r e s id e n t i a l  m e m o ra n d u m  w hich  a c c o m p a n ie d  the  
i s s u a n c e  of E x e c u t iv e  O r d e r  11478 and d is c o v e re d  in it a s ta te m e n t  of the  
P r e s i d e n t  w hich the  C o m m it te e  fe lt s u p p o r te d  i ts  e n d e a v o r .  The s t a t e 
m e n t  r e l i e d  on by  a p p e l lan t  is  no th ing  m o re  than  a r e f le c t io n  of th e  H ouse  
C o m m i t t e e 's  e f fo r t  to  a cco u n t fo r  i ts  d e c is io n  to e m p o w e r  th e  EEO C in 
the  f e d e r a l  e m p lo y m e n t  a r e a .  The fu ll p a s s a g e  of the  r e p o r t  in w hich 
th e  s ta t e m e n t  a p p e a r s  m a k e s  th is  c l e a r :

The p r i m a r y  r e s p o n s ib i l i ty  fo r  im p le m e n t in g  th is  s ta te d  
na tio n a l  po licy  h a s  r e s t e d  w ith the  C iv il S e rv ic e  C o m m is s io n ,  
p u rs u a n t  to E x e c u t iv e  O r d e r  11246 (1964) a s  c la r i f i e d  by E x 
e c u t iv e  O r d e r  11478.

(F oo tno te  con tinued  on follow ing page)



64

8 0 /  (F oo tno te  con tinued  f ro m  p re c e d in g  page)

In h is  m e m o ra n d u m  acco m p a n y in g  E x e c u t iv e  O r d e r  11478, 
P r e s id e n t  Nixon s ta te d  th a t  " d i s c r im in a t io n  of any kind b a s e d  
on f a c to r s  not r e le v a n t  to job p e r f o r m a n c e  m u s t  be e r a d ic a te d  
c o m p le te ly  f ro m  F e d e r a l  e m p lo y m e n t .  " A c co rd in g ly  th e r e  can  
e x is t  no ju s t i f ic a t io n  fo r  any th ing  but a v ig o ro u s  e f fo r t  to  a c 
c o r d  F e d e r a l  e m p lo y e e s  the  s a m e  r ig h t s  and im p a r t ia l  t r e a t 
m e n t  w hich  the  law  s e e k s  to a ffo rd  e m p lo y e e s  in the  p r iv a te  
s e c to r .  H ouse  R e p o r t ,  s u p r a  no te  24, at 22 -2 3 , L e g is la t iv e  
H is to ry ,  s u p r a  n o te  23, at 82 -83 .

A ppellan t a lso  r e l i e s  on the  te s t im o n y  of R e p r e s e n ta t iv e  B e l la  Abzug 
b e fo re  the  H ouse  C o m m it te e .  H ouse  H e a r in g s ,  s u p r a  note  18, at 289. 
We no te  tha t  h e r  t e s t im o n y  w as  g iven  on M a rc h  18, 1971, in su p p o r t  of
H. R. 1746 when th a t  b i l l  c a l le d  fo r  p la c in g  f e d e ra l  e m p lo y e e  T i t le  VII 
e n fo rc e m e n t  r e s p o n s ib i l i ty  w ith  the  E E O C . W hile  R e p r e s e n ta t i v e  Abzug 
m ay  have  "added  h e r  vo ice  to  the  c h o ru s  r e q u e s t in g  C o n g r e s s  ' to  give F e d 
e r a l  e m p lo y e e s  the  s a m e  e n fo rc e m e n t  a d v a n ta g e s  w hich  p r iv a te  e m p lo y e e s  
w ill now en joy  . . . (B r ie f  fo r  A p pe llan t at 25), it is a p p a re n t  th a t  h e r  
song  w as  not to  th e  l ik in g  of the  H ouse  of R e p r e s e n ta t i v e s ;  the  H ouse  
r e j e c t e d  the  H aw kins  B il l  w hich co n ta in ed  the  p ro v is io n  fo r  w hich  she 
te s t i f i e d .  H e r  t e s t im o n y  shou ld  be d i s r e g a r d e d  in any e v en t .  See 2A 
S u th e r la n d ,  s u p r a , §§ 48. 10, 48. 16.

A ppe llan t a l so  r e f e r s  to  a s ta t e m e n t  m ad e  by S e n a to r  C r a n s to n  on 
th e  f lo o r  of the  S en a te  d u r in g  d eb a te .  O r ig in a l ly  tha t  s ta t e m e n t  a p p e a re d  
in the  C o n g re s s io n a l  r e c o r d  a s  fo llow s: 
a s  fo llows:

As w ith  the  o th e r  c a s e s  b ro u g h t u n d e r  T i t le  VII of the  C iv il 
R ig h ts  A ct of 1914, F e d e r a l  d i s t r i c t  c o u r t  re v ie w  would be 
b a se d  on the  agency  a n d / o r  CSC r e c o r d  and w ould not be 
a t r i a l  de novo. 118 Cong. R ec . S 2287 (daily  ed. F eb . 22,
1972), L e g is la t iv e  H is to r y ,  s u p r a  no te  23, at 1744.

Nine m o n th s  a f t e r  the  b i l l  w as  e n ac te d  in to  law , S e n a to r  C ra n s to n  c o m 
p la ined  th a t  he had b een  m is q u o te d ,  and c h an g ed  the  po s i t io n  of the  w ord  
"no t, " r e s u l t in g  in the  fo llow ing m o d if ica t io n :

[R ]ev iew  would not be b a se d  on th e  a g en cy  a n d /o r  CSC r e c o r d  
and would be a  t r i a l  de: novo . 119 Cong R ec . S 1219 (da ily  ed. 
J a n u a r y  23, 1973).



6581/
u s ,  and th o se  ju s t  b r ie f ly .

P r e l i m i n a r i l y ,  it should  not go un n o ticed  th a t  the  m a jo r i ty  of the  c o m 

m e n ts  to w hich  a p p e llan t  h a s  r e f e r r e d  a r e  not e s p e c ia l ly  in s t ru c t iv e  on

the  p r e c i s e  q u e s t io n  p r e s e n te d  h e r e ,  i. e . , the  n a tu r e  of the  c iv i l  ac t io n  to
82/

w hich  an a g g r ie v e d  f e d e ra l  e m p lo y e e  is  e n t i t le d .  T h is  i s  not s u r p r i s in g

80/ (F o o tn o te  co n tinued  f r o m  p re c e d in g  page)
O bv io u s ly ,  the  C o n g r e s s  n e v e r  had  the b en e f i t  of h is  c l a r i f i c a t io n  p r i o r  
to  the  e n a c tm e n t  of the  1972 A ct. See 2A S u th e r lan d ,  s u p r a , § 48. 13. 
M o re o v e r ,  w e s u b m it ,  s tan d in g  alone  a s  it m u s t ,  S e n a to r  C r a n s t o n 's  c o m 
m en t cou ld  h a r d ly  outw eigh  the  ev id en ce  in the  le g i s la t iv e  h i s to r y  of a co n 
t r a r y  n a tu re .

81/ A p p e l la n t 's  d e c is io n  to p lace  r e l i a n c e  on the  r e m a r k s  of S e n a to r  Do
m in ic k  b e t r a y s  the  t r a n s p a r e n c y  of h is  b a s ic  c la im ,  i. e . , th a t  he is  e n t i t le d  
to  a de novo h e a r in g  b e fo re  the  D i s t r i c t  C o u r t .  In e ffec t ,  ap p e llan t  s e e k s  
su p p o r t  fo r  h is  c la im  in the  r e m a r k s  of th e  c h ie f  p ro p o n e n ts  of co n f l ic t in g  
p o s i t io n s ,  e ach  of whom  a rg u e d  th a t  a l l  e m p lo y e e s ,  f e d e ra l  and p r iv a te ,  
would be t r e a t e d  s i m i l a r l y  u n d e r  h is  p ro p o s a l .  We su b m it  tha t  ap p e llan t  
canno t have  it bo th  w ay s .  He canno t a rg u e  th a t  the  s ta t e m e n ts  of the  p r o 
ponent of one fo r m  of p r iv a te  s e c t o r  e n fo rc e m e n t  eq u a tin g  h is  p ro p o s a l  
w ith  the  m e th o d  of e n fo rc e m e n t  s e t  out fo r  f e d e r a l  e m p lo y e e s  s u p p o r ts  
by  ana logy  a p p e l l a n t 's  in t e r p r e ta t io n  of the  p ro v is io n s  d ea l in g  w ith fe d e ra l  
e m p lo y e e s ,  and at the  s a m e  t im e  a rg u e  th a t  a s i m i l a r  s ta te m e n t  m ad e  by 
a  p ro p o n en t of a c o n t r a r y  fo rm  of p r iv a te  s e c to r  e n fo rc e m e n t  also- s u p p o r ts  
h is  i n t e r p r e ta t io n  of th o se  p r o v is io n s .

8 2 /M o st  of the  S e n a to r ' s  c o m m e n ts  c o n s is te d  of g e n e r a l  p h ra se o lo g y .  T h u s ,  
w hile  f r a m in g  a p a r t  of h is  appea l to r e j e c t  the  p r in c ip le  of EEOC c e a s e  
and d e s i s t  a u th o r i ty  in t e r m s  of p la c in g  p r iv a te  s e c to r  e m p lo y e es  on a p a r  
w ith  f e d e ra l  e m p lo y e e s ,  he no ted  the  r ig h t  of " F e d e r a l  e m p lo y e e s  to seek  
r e d r e s s  of t h e i r  g r i e v a n c e s  to  [ s ic  I F e d e r a l  D is t r i c t  C o u r t s , "  118 Cong. 
R ec .  S 177 (da ily  ed. J a n .  20, 1972), L e g is la t iv e  H is to ry ,  s u p r a  note  23, 
at 683; the  r ig h t  [of f e d e ra l  e m p lo y ees ]  to go th ro u g h  th e i r  agency  and then  
go e i th e r  to  the  [CSC] B o a rd  of R eview  o r  to  the  c o u r t , "  118 Cong. R ec .
S 387 (daily  ed. J a n .  24, 1972), L e g is la t iv e  H is to ry ,  s u p r a  no te  23, at 
833; the  r ig h t  of an a g g r ie v e d  e m p lo y e e ,  " a f t e r  exhau ting  h is  agency  r e m e 
d ie s  of e i th e r  in s t i tu t in g  a c iv i l  su i t  in F e d e r a l  d i s r i c t  c o u r t  o r  con tinu ing  
th ro u g h  the  [CSC| to  d i s t r i c t  c o u r t , "  118 Cong. R ec . S 221 (daily  ed. J a n .  
21, 1972), L e g is la t iv e  H is to r y ,  s u p r a  no te  23 at 695; and a r ig h t  to " r e d r e s s  
. .  . g r ie v a n c e s  in the  F e d e r a l  d i s t r i c t  c o u r t .  " 118 Cong. R ed. S 387 (daily
ed . J a n .  24, 1972), L e g is la t iv e  H is to ry ,  s u p r a  note  23, at 835.



in view of the fac t  tha t  e ac h  of the  r e m a r k s  w as  d e l iv e re d  in the  c o u r s e

of s t r e n u o u s  d eb a te  on a c o m p le te ly  d i f f e r e n t  i s su e :  the  S e n a to r  w as  a rg u in g

in fav o r  of h is  a m e n d m e n t  w hich re m o v e d  f ro m  the  EEOC and p laced  with

the D is t r i c t  C o u r t  all T i t le  VII e n fo rc e m e n t  a u th o r i ty  in the  p r iv a te  s e c to r .

W hile  we do not co n ced e  tha t  th o se  r e m a r k s  a r e  n e c e s s a r i l y  in c o n s is te n t

w ith out in t e r p r e ta t io n  of the p ro v is io n  e n t i t l in g  a f e d e ra l  e m p lo y e e  to file

a c iv i l  ac tio n  a f t e r  fina l a d m in i s t r a t iv e  d isp o s i t io n  of h is  c o m p la in t ,  we

do think tha t  b e c a u s e  of the  a rg u m e n ta t iv e  and ta n g e n t ia l  con tex t in which

they  w e re  m a d e ,  th ey  ought not to be a c c o rd e d  the d ign ity  of e x p la n a to ry

r e m a r k s .  A s h a s  b een  r e c o g n iz e d ,  " in  the  c o u r s e  of o r a l  a rg u m e n t  on

the S ena te  f lo o r ,  the  c h o ice  of w o rd s  by a S e n a to r  is not a lw ay s  a c c u r a te
8 3 /

o r  e x ac t .  "

It i s f o r t h a t  r e a s o n ,  and a lso  b e c a u s e  the  S e n a to r ' s  c o m m e n ts  a r e  " e x 

p r e s s iv e  of [h is  p e rso n a l!  v iew s and m o t i v e s , "  th a t  they  " a r e  not a sa fe  

guide, and hence  m ay  not be r e s o r t e d  to , in a s c e r t a in in g  the  m ean in g  and 

p u rp o se  of the  la w -m a k in g  b o d y ."  Duplex P r in t in g  P r e s s  C o . v. P e e r i n g ,

- 66 -

8 3 / In r e  C a r l s o n ,  292 F . Supp. 778, 783 (C .D . C a l .  1968). S e n a to r  Do
m in ic k 's  r e m a r k s  i l l u s t r a t e  the  a c c u r a c y  of th is  o b s e r v a t io n .  On two o c 
c a s io n s  when he m ade  r e f e r e n c e s  to  the  f e d e ra l  e m p lo y e e  r ig h t s  se t  fo r th  
u n d e r  the  C o m m it te e  B il l ,  he e r r o n e o u s ly  a t t r ib u te d  so m e  a sp e c t  of th e i r  
a s s e r t i o n  to  the  A tto rn e y  G e n e ra l .  See 118 Cong. R ec . S 1546 (da ily  ed. 
F eb . 9, 1972), L e g is la t iv e  H is to ry ,  s u p r a  no te  23, at 1440-1441; 118 Cong. 
R ec . S 1655 (daily  ed. F e b .  14, 1972), L e g is la t iv e  H is to ry ,  s u p r a  no te  
23, at 1482.



67

254 U .S . 443, 474 (1921). Indeed , th e  r a t io n a le  b eh ind  th is  ru le

a p p l ie s  even  m o re  fo rc e fu l ly ,  we su b m it ,  w h e re  the  p r e c i s e  c o m m e n ts  

e x a m in e d  a r e  ta n g e n t ia l  to the  p r i m a r y  focus  of the  d e b a te ,  as  w as  the  

c a s e  h e r e .  W hile  we r e a l i z e  tha t  the  t r a d i t io n a l  view a g a in s t  r e ly in g  on 

r e m a r k s  d e l iv e re d  d u r in g  the  c o u r s e  of l e g i s la t i v e  d eb a te  to  d e te r m in e  

c o n g r e s s io n a l  intent h a s  b een  r e la x e d  to  a c c o m m o d a te  the  r e a l i t i e s  of 

p r e s e n t - d a y  l e g i s la t i v e  p r o c e s s e s ,  we su b m it  th a t  the  c i r c u m s t a n c e s  s u r 

ro u n d in g  S e n a to r  D o m in ic k 's  r e m a r k s  p re c lu d e  a r e la x a t io n  of th a t  ru le
8 5 /

h e r e .  A c c o rd in g ly ,  we su b m it ,  t h e r e  is  l i t t l e  su p p o r t  fo r  a p p e l la n t 's

i n te r p r e ta t io n  in the  le g i s la t iv e  h i s to r y .

In e s s e n c e ,  a p p e l lan t  h a s  t r i e d  to  r e a d  s e c t io n  717 (c) w ithout r e g a r d  to  

th e  o th e r  p ro v is io n s  of the  e n t i r e  s e c t io n  in w hich it a p p e a r s  and w ithout 

r e g a r d  to  the  in ten t of C o n g r e s s .  He canno t do so  w ithout doing v io le n c e  to 

the  im p o r t  of s e c t io n  717.

84/ T h is  d o c t r in e  w as  o r ig in a l ly  expounded by the S u p re m e  C o u r t  in A l- 
d r ig e  v. W il l ia m s ,  s u p r a  no te  44, 44 U .S . (3 H ow .) at 24, in w hich the  
C o u r t  o b se rv e d :

In expounding  th is  law , the  ju d g m en t of th e  c o u r t  
can n o t,  in any d e g re e ,  be in f lu en ced  by the  c o n s t ru c t io n  
p laced  upon it by ind iv idua l m e m b e r s  of C o n g r e s s  in the  
d eb a te  w hich  took  p la ce  on i ts  p a s s a g e ,  n o r  by the  m o t iv e s  
o r  r e a s o n s  a s s ig n e d  by  th e m  fo r  su p p o r t in g  o r  opposing  
a m e n d m e n ts  th a t  w e r e  o ffe re d .  The law  as  it p a s s e d  is 
the  w il l  of the  m a jo r i ty  of both  h o u s e s ,  and the  only mode 
in w hich  th a t  w ill  is  spoken  is  in the  ac t  i t s e l f  . . . .

85/ G e n e ra l ly ,  e x c e p t io n s  have  been  re c o g n iz e d  to  allow e x p la n a to ry  s t a t e 
m e n ts  o r  q u e s t io n s  and a n s w e r s  of the  s p o n s o r  o r  the c o m m it te e m a n  in 
c h a r g e  of the  b i l l .  W h ere  the r e m a r k s  ev id en ce  a co m m o n  a g re e m e n t  
of the  1 :g is la t iv e  a s  to  the  m ean in g  of an am biguous  p ro v is io n ,  they  have  
a l s o  b e en  c o n s id e r e d .  See 2A S u th e r lan d ,  s u p ra ,  §§ 48. 14, 48. 15.

84/



68

III. The  D i s t r i c t  C o u r t  p r o p e r ly  conc luded  
on the  b a s i s  of the  a d m in i s t r a t iv e  r e 
c o rd ,  in c lu d in g  a  t r a n s c r i p t  of a p p e l 
l a n t ' s  s e v e n -d a y  h e a r in g ,  th a t  h is  c la im  
w a s  to ta l ly  w ithou t m e r i t . _____________

W hile  we th ink  it m a k e s  l i t t l e  d i f f e r e n c e  w ith  r e s p e c t  to  the  d is p o s i t io n

of the  in s ta n t  c a s e ,  we r e s p e c t f u l ly  s u b m it  th a t  the  only a p p r o p r ia t e  s ta n d a rd

of r e v ie w  fo r  c a s e s  of th is  n a tu r e  is  the  s a m e  a s  th a t  sp e c if ie d  in  d e c is io n s

fo r  the  re v ie w  of d i s c h a r g e  f r o m  e m p lo y m e n t .

The le g i s la t iv e  h i s to r y  of the  1972 A ct, w h ich  c l e a r l y  d e m o n s t r a t e s  th a t

a  f e d e r a l  em p lo y e e  is  no t en  i t le d  to  a de novo h e a r in g  b e fo re  the  D i s t r i c t

C o u r t ,  e s ta b l i s h e d  w ith  eq u a l  fo rc e  th a t  a d m in i s t r a t i v e  d e te r m in a t io n s  w e re

su b je c t  to  only l im i te d  re v ie w .  A p p lica t io n  of the  " s u b s ta n t i a l  e v id en c e "

t e s t  to f ina l d e te r m in a t io n s  by the  EE O C  w a s  r e q u i r e d  by bo th  the  W il l ia m s

B ill  and the  C o m m it te e  B ill ,  w hich  t r a n s f e r r e d  f e d e ra l  e m p lo y e e  ju r i s d ic t io n
8 6 /

f ro m  the EE O C  to the  CSC. M o re o v e r ,  a  s p e c if ic  e f fo r t  to  b ro a d e n

th a t  re v ie w  to the  p re p o n d e ra n c e  of the  ev id en ce  s ta n d a rd  adop ted  by the

D i s t r i c t  C o u r t  in  the  in s ta n t  c a s e  w as  r e j e c te d  by the  Senate  a f t e r  m in o r  
£ 7 /

d e b a te .  A s we have shown, the  C o m m it te e  B il l  a f fo rd e d  c o m p a r a b le

86 / See the  W il l ia m s  B il l ,  L e g is la t iv e  H is to ry ,  s u p ra  note  23, a t  157, 
168-171; the  C o m m it te e  B il l ,  L e g is la t iv e  H is to ry ,  s u p r a  note  23, 344,
386-3 87. The H awkins B ill  in the  H ouse of R e p r e s e n ta t i v e s  a l s o  p ro v id e d  
fo r  l im i te d  re v ie w  of a g en cy  f ind ings. See the  H aw kins B ill ,  L e g is la t iv e  
H is to ry ,  s u p r a  no te  23, a t  40-41.

87/ See the  d i s c u s s io n  a t  118 Cong. R ec . S 686 -690  (daily  ed. J an .  28, 1972), 
L e g is la t io n  H is to ry ,  s u p r a  note  23, a t  1026-1038.



69

r ig h t s  to  a l l  e m p lo y e e s  in bo th  the  f e d e ra l  g o v e rn m e n t  and the  p r iv a te  s e c to r .  

A c c o rd in g ly ,  i t  c anno t be doubted  th a t  C o n g r e s s  in ten d ed  th a t  the  a d m i n i s 

t r a t i v e  d e te r m in a t io n s  m ad e  u n d e r  the  a u s p ic e s  of the  CSC a s  w e ll  be  upheld  

w h e re  su p p o r te d  by s u b s ta n t ia l  e v id en ce .

T h is  c o n c lu s io n  of l im i te d  re v ie w a b i l i ty  f in d s  su p p o r t  in the  c o n g r e s s io n a l  

d e c is io n  to d e le g a te  T i t le  VII r e s p o n s ib i l i ty  in th e  f e d e ra l  em p lo y  to  the  CSC 

in s te a d  of the  E E O C . The p r i m a r y  c o n c e rn  of C o n g r e s s  w as  th a t  to  do o t h e r 

w ise  would p la c e  a fo re ig n  a u th o r i ty  d i r e c t ly  in the  m id d le  of the  g o v e r n m e n t 's

p e r s o n n e l  o p e r a t io n s ,  the  b a i l iw ic k  of the  CSC, so  th a t  s e r io u s  c o n f l ic ts
88/

would n e c e s s a r i l y  r e s u l t .  T h a t  s a m e  c o n c e rn  is  of s i m i l a r  im p o r t  h e re .

I s s u e s  r a i s e d  in T i t le  VII c o m p la in ts  a r e  in e x t r ic a b ly  bound up w ith  s ta n d a rd  

p e r s o n n e l  o p e r a t io n s ,  and  D i s t r i c t  C o u r t  r e v ie w  w ithou t a p p r o p r ia t e  r e g a r d  fo r  

the  d e te r m in a t io n s  of the  CSC in i t s  a r e a  of e x p e r t i s e  would s u b je c t  the  d a ily  

o p e ra t io n s  of the  f e d e r a l  g o v e rn m e n t  to  an undue a m o u n t of s t r e s s .  M o re o v e r ,  

to  p e r m i t  a  b ro a d  sco p e  of r e v ie w  would a l s o  c r e a t e  s e r io u s  p r o b le m s  r e s p e c t 

ing u n i fo r m i ty  and  p r o p r ie ty  of re v ie w  of CSC d e te r m in a t io n s  when bo th  T i t le  

VII and  n o n -T i t le  VII i s s u e s  a r e  r a i s e d .

A p p e l lan t  h a s  po in ted  to  no th ing  w hich  would ju s t i fy  a d e p a r tu r e  f ro m  

the t r a d i t io n a l  s co p e  of re v ie w  of fina l agency  ac t io n .  A c co rd in g ly ,  we s u b 

m it ,  th e  only p r o p e r  s ta n d a rd  of re v ie w  is  th a t  r e c e n t ly  e n u n c ia ted  by th is

88 / See Senate  H e a r in g s ,  s u p ra  no te  18, a t 293; House H e a r in g s ,  s u p ra  
no te  18, a t  316-317.



Court:
70

C o m p a ra b le  w ith  ju d ic ia l  re v ie w  of the 
a c t io n s  of o th e r  a g e n c ie s ,  the b a se  of
s p e c if ic  sco p e  of r e v i e w ---- th a t  of re v ie w
of f ina l  e m p lo y e e  a d v e r s e  a c t io n  ta k e n  by 
C iv il  S e rv ic e  C o m m is s io n  [h e re in a f te r
" C o m m is s io n " ] ---- h a s  b ro a d e n e d  o v e r
the  p a s t  tw en ty  y e a r s ,  f ro m  re v ie w  l i m i t 
ed to  in s u r in g  s t a t u to r y  c o m p lia n c e  . . . 
to  th a t  r e q u i r in g  a t l e a s t  the e x e r c i s e  
of d i s c r e t i o n  by  the  a g en c y  o ff ic ia l  . . . 
to  f in a l ly  the  m o re  c u r r e n t  " r a t io n a l  b a s i s  
t e s t "  . . . .  R e g a r d l e s s  of w h e th e r  the  
t e s t  of to d ay  is  f r a m e d  in the  lan g u ag e  of 
d e te r m in in g  w h e th e r  the  C o m m is s io n  
a c te d  in an a r b i t r a r y  o r  c a p r i c io u s  m a n n e r ,  
o r  w h e th e r  s u b s ta n t ia l  ev id en ce  in  the  
r e c o r d  s u p p o r ts  i t s  d e te r m in a t io n ,  . . . 
the fac t  r e m a in s  th a t  the  d i s t r i c t  c o u r t  
is  engaged  in  l im i te d  ju d ic ia l  r e v ie w ,  
and  th a t  i t s  d e te r m in a t io n  i s  b a se d  upon 
the a g en c y  r e c o r d  s u b m it te d  to  it .  No 
de novo e v id e n t ia r y  h e a r in g  i s  p e r m i t t e d .
P o lc o v e r  v. S e c r e t a r y  of the  T r e a s u r y ,  
s u p ra ,  115 U .S .  App. D. C. 340-341, 477 
F .  2d a t  1225-1226 (1973M cita tions  and  fo o t
note  o m itted ) .

H ow ever , e v en  if th is  C o u r t  w e re  to  r e j e c t  o u r  p o s i t io n ,  a p p l ic a t io n

of the  m o re  r ig o r o u s  s ta n d a r d  of r e v ie w  ado p ted  by the  D i s t r i c t  C o u r t  does

not a s s i s t  a p p e l lan t .  Indeed , the  a d m in i s t r a t iv e  r e c o r d ,  in c lu d in g  the 985-

page  t r a n s c r i p t  of the  s e v e n -d a y  h e a r in g  a t w hich  a p p e l la n t  w as  r e p r e s e n t e d
89/

by  c o u n se l ,  c l e a r ly  show s th a t  h is  c la im  is  to ta l ly  devoid  of m e r i t .

The ev id en c e  is  u n c o n t ra d ic te d  th a t  a t  the  t im e  a p p e l la n t  b eg an  w o rk in g

a t  the VA, h is  p r i o r  in v e s t ig a t iv e  e x p e r ie n c e  w as  c o n s id e r a b ly  l e s s  than  th a t

89/ A p p e llan t  d o es  not con tend  th a t  the  CSC fa i le d  to  co m p ly  w ith  any  a p p l i 
c ab le  r e g u la t io n s .



71

of the  a v e r a g e  in d iv id u a l h i r e d  a s  a  C e n e r a l  In v e s t ig a to r  a t  ISS (R ec. 92; T r .

10, 13, 26, 333, 529, 912). C o n seq u en tly ,  w h ile  h is  a s s ig n m e n t  of c a s e s  

m a y  not have  p a r a l l e l e d  th a t  of o th e r  new ly h i re d  G e n e ra l  I n v e s t ig a to r s ,  the  

r e c o r d  c l e a r ly  show s th a t  the  p a t t e r n  of h is  a s s ig n m e n ts  h a s  b een  b a s e d  on 

no th ing  o th e r  than  h is  e x p e r ie n c e  le v e l  and h is  a b i l i ty  in the  ju d g m en t of 

h is  s u p e r v i s o r s  (Rec. 3 6 -3 7 , T r .  343-344).

M o re o v e r ,  i t  i s  a l s o  u n c o n t ra d ic te d  th a t  un like  p ro m o t io n s  to  GS-11 and 

GS-12 w hich  a p p e a r  to  be  a  m a t t e r  of c o u r s e ,  p ro m o t io n  to  the  GS-13 le v e l  

a t  ISS h a s  n e v e r  b een  a u to m a t ic  (Rec. 125-126, 129; T r .  147-149, 556- 

557). T h u s  a  f a i lu r e  to  r e c e iv e  su ch  a p ro m o tio n ,  w ithou t m o r e ,  can  h a r d l \  

g ive r i s e  to  an  in fe re n c e  of r a c i a l  d i s c r im in a t io n .  T h is  i s  e s p e c ia l ly

t r u e  h e r e ,  w h e re ,  a s  the  D i s t r i c t  C o u r t  noted:

The s a m e  m id d le le v e l  s u p e r v i s o r s  
su p p o se d ly  d i s c r im in a t in g  a g a in s t  
[appe llan t]  p ro m o te d  [appellan t]  to  
GS-12, p ro m o te d  a  M e x ic a n -A m e r ic a n  
to  GS-13 w ith  only 14 m o n th s '  e x 
p e r ie n c e  and den ied  p ro m o t io n s  to  
w h ite s  w ith  f a r  g r e a t e r  e x p e r ie n c e  
th a t  [appe llan t] .  H ack ley  v. J o h n so n , 
s u p r a  no te  2, 360 F .  Supp. a t  1254.

The r e c o r d  a l s o  d e m o n s t r a t e s  th a t  a  GS-13 in v e s t ig a to r  a t  ISS is  c o n s id e re d

c a p a b le  of hand ling  any  and a l l  k in d s  of in v e s t ig a t io n s  and th e i r  a t te n d a n t  p ro b le m s  

(T r .  236, 451-452, 378). The r e c o r d  is  r e p le te  w ith  ev id en ce  th a t ,  in the  ju d g 

m e n t  of h is  s u p e r v i s o r s ,  a p p e l la n t  had not y e t  a t ta in e d  the  n e c e s s a r y  p ro f ic ie n c y  

c o n s i s te n t  w ith  th a t  le v e l  (Rec. 125-128, 133-134; T r .  119, 147, 236, 273,



72

361-362, 364, 378, 395, 675, 678 -679 , 688-690). T h a t  ju d g m e n t ,  w h ich  is  

c l e a r ly  one in  the  a r e a  of t h e i r  e x p e r t i s e ,  ought not to  be r e p la c e d  by  the 

ju d g m en t of th is  C o u r t  u n le s s  i t  i s  shown to  be b o tto m ed  on an  in v id io u s  

b a s i s .  T h a t  s im p ly  h a s  no t been  shown h e r e .

A p p e l la n t 's  r e l i a n c e  on an a l le g e d ly  d i s c r i m i n a t o r y  c l im a te  a t  ISS a t the 

t im e  he w as  f i r s t  h i r e d  is  m is p la c e d .  It  to ta l ly  ig n o r e s  the  ab u n d an ce  of 

te s t im o n y  a t  the  h e a r in g ,  e v en  f r o m  a p p e l l a n t ' s  own w i tn e s s e s ,  th a t  th e r e  

w as  no ev id en c e  of d i s c r im in a t io n .  In fac t ,  th e  te s t im o n y  e s ta b l i s h e d  the  

a f f i r m a t iv e  e f fo r t s  th a t  had b een  m ad e  to  r e c r u i t  m in o r i ty  e m p lo y e e s  s in ce  

b e fo re  th a t  t im e  (T r .  89 -90 , 121, 123, 130-131 182, 203, 239, 251, 264,

322, 336, 349-351, 440, 4 6 9 -4 7 0 , 475, 487, 500, 510, 527, 571, 587, 634, 

635, 843, 859, 880). E ven  a p p e l l a n t 's  a t to r n e y  c o m m e n te d  th a t  the  h e a r in g  

te s t im o n y  th a t  ISS has  m a d e  p o s i t iv e  e f f o r t s  to  r e c r u i t  b la c k s  w as  " o v e r 

w h e lm in g "  (T r .  635).

A p p e llan t  h a s  a l s o  s u g g e s te d  th a t  i t  w as  only th e  p r e s e n c e  of a b la ck  

d i r e c t o r  th a t  in s u r e d  h is  eq u a l  t r e a t m e n t  in p ro m o t io n s ,  and  he p o in ts  to  the  

ev id en ce  in the  r e c o r d  d e m o n s t r a t in g  the  i n t e r e s t  of th a t  d i r e c t o r  in h is  a d 

v a n c e m e n t .  But i t  i s  u n lik e ly  th a t  a p p e l la n t  would a t t r ib u te  h is  p r o m o t io n s  

to  r a c e ,  r a t h e r  than  to  m e r i t ,  and t h e r e  is  no m o re  r e a s o n  to p r e s u m e  th a t  

h is  fa i lu re  to be p ro m o te d  in N o v e m b e r  1970 w as  due to  r a c i a l  d i s c r im in a t io n  

than  th e r e  is  to  p r e s u m e  th a t  h is  p ro m o t io n s  b e f o r e  th a t  t im e  w e re  due to  

r a c i a l  d i s c r im in a t io n  in  h is  fa v o r .  F u r t h e r m o r e ,  the fac t  th a t  b e fo re  a p p e l -



73

la n t  w as  h i r e d  the  c u r r e n t  d i r e c t o r  of ISS w as  known to  have o c c a s io n a l ly  

r e f e r r e d  to  b la c k s  in a d e r o g a to r y  m a n n e r  can  h a rd ly  o v e rc o m e  th e  v a s t  

a m o u n t  of ev id en ce  in the  r e c o r d  a f f i r m a t iv e ly  e s ta b l i s h in g  the  a b s e n c e  of

d i s c r i m i n a t o r y  con d u c t a g a in s t  a p p e l la n t .

In the  end a p p e l la n t  s e e m s  to  r e c o g n iz e  th a t  the  c ru x  of the i s s u e  b e fo re  

th is  C o u r t  i s  h is  job p e r f o r m a n c e .  He c o n ten d s  th a t  h is  r e c o r d  w as  no d i f 

f e r e n t  f r o m  th a t  of o th e r  in v e s t ig a to r s  who have  been  p ro m o te d ,  and  he c r i t i c i z e s  

the  s t a n d a r d s  of e v a lu a t io n  u se d  by  h is  s u p e r v i s o r s .  We s u b m it  th a t  the  e v a l 

u a t io n  of a p p e l la n ts  job  p e r f o r m a n c e  i s  s t r i c t l y  a  m a t t e r  fo r  th o se  w ith  e x 

p e r t i s e  in m ak in g  such  e v a lu a t io n s :  h is  s u p e r v i s o r s .  In a sm u c h  a s  the  r e c o r d  

show s th a t  th e i r  ju d g m e n t  i s  b a se d  on f a c to r s  no t i m p e r m is s ib l e  u n d e r  the  

d ic t a t e s  of T i t le  VII, th a t  ju d g m e n t  ought not to  be d i s tu rb e d  by the  D i s t r i c t

C o u r t  o r  by th is  C o u rt .



-74-

CONCLUSION

W H E R E F O R E , i t  i s  r e s p e c t f u l ly  s u b m it te d  th a t  th is  c a s e  should  be r e 

m anded  to  the  D i s t r i c t  C o u r t  w ith  d i r e c t io n s  to  d i s m i s s  th e  c o m p la in t  fo r  

la c k  of j u r i s d ic t io n ,  o r  in  th e  a l t e r n a t iv e  th a t  th e  ju d g m e n t  of the  D i s t r i c t  

C o u r t  should be affirmed.

E A R L  J . S IL B E R T  
U nited  S ta te s  A tto rn e y

JOHN A. T E R R Y  
E L L E N  L E E  PA R K  
EDWARD D. ROSS, JR . ,
A s s i s t a n t  U nited  S ta te s  A t to rn e y s .



A D D E N D U M



76

ADDENDUM

(Pursuant to Rule 28 (f), Fed. R. App. P.)

Section 717 of 

42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16

the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 

(Supp. II, 1972), provides:

as amended,

§ 2C80e-16. _ _ _ _ _
(a) Discriminatory practices prohibited; employees 

or applicants for employment subject to coverage.
All personnel actions affecting’ employees or ap

plicants for employment (except with regard to 
aliens employed outside the limits of the united 
States) in military departments as defined in sec
tion 102 of Title 5, In executive agencies (other than 
the General Accounting Office) as defined In section 
105 of Title 5 (Including employees and applicants 
for employment who are paid from nonappropriated 
funds), In the United States Postal Service and the 
Postal Rate Commission, in those units of the Gov
ernment of the District of Columbia having positions 
in the competitive service, and in those units of the 
legislative and judicial branches of the Federal Gov
ernment having positions in the competitive service, 
and in the Library of Congress shall be made free 
from any discrimination based on race, color, reli
gion, sex, or national origin.
(b) Civil Service Commission; enforcement powers; 

issuance of rules, regulations, etc.; annual review 
and approval of national and regional equal em-

> ployment opportunity plans; renew and evalua
tion of equal employment opportunity programs 
and publication of progress reports; consultations 
with interested parties; compliance with rules, 
regulations, etc.; contents of national and re
gional equal employment opportunity plans; 
authority of Librarian of Congress,



77

(b) Civil Service Commission; enforcement powers; 
issuance of rules, regulations, etc.; annua) review 
and approval of national and regional equal em
ployment opportunity plans; review and evalua
tion of equal employment opportunity pro; rams 
and publication of progress reports; consultations 
with interested parties; compliance with rules, 
regulations, etc.; contents of national and re
gional equal employment opportunity plans; 
authority of Librarian of Congress.

Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, 
the Civil Service Commission shall have authority to 
enforce the provisions of subsection (a) of this sec
tion through appropriate remedies, including rein
statement or hiring of employees with or without 
back pay, as will effectuate the policies of this sec
tion, and shall issue such rules, regulations, orders 
and instructions as it deems necessary and appro
priate to carry out its responsibilities under this sec
tion. The Civil Service Commission shall—

(1) be responsible for the annual review and ap
proval of a national and regional equal employ
ment opportunity plan which each department 
and agency ond each appropriate unit referred to 
in subsection (a) of this section shall submit in 
order to maintain an affirmative program of equal 
employment opportunity for all such employees 
and applicants for employment ;

(2) be responsible for the review’ and evaluation 
of the operation of all agency equal employment 
opportunity programs, periodically obtaining and 
publishing (on at least a semiannual basis) prog
ress reports from each such department, agency, 
or unit; and

(3) consult with and solicit the recommenda
tions of interested individuals, groups, and organ
izations relating to equal employment opportunity.

The head of each such department, agency, or unit 
shall comply with such rules, regulations, orders, and 
instructions which shall Include a provision that an 
employee or applicant for employment shall be noti
fied of any final action taken on any complaint of 
discrimination filed by him thereunder. The plan 
submitted by each department, agency, and unit shall 
include, but not be limited to—



78

(1) provision for the establishment of training 
and education programs designed to provide a 
maximum opportunity for employees to advance 
so as to perform at their highest potential; and

(2) a description of the qualifications in terms 
of training and experience relating to equal em
ployment opportunity for the principal and oper
ating officials of each such department, agency, or 
unit responsible for carrying out the equal em
ployment opportunity program and of the alloca
tion of personnel and resources proposed by such 
department, agency, or unit to carry out its equal 
employment opportunity program.

With respect to employment in the Library of Con
gress, authorities granted in this subsection to the 
Civil Service Commission shall be exercised by the 
Librarian of Congress.
(c) Civil action by employee or applicant for employ

ment for redress of grievances; time for bringing 
of action; head of department, agency, or unit 
as defendant.

Within thirty days of receipt of notice of final 
action taken by a department, agency, or unit re
ferred to in subsection (a) of this section, or by 
the Civil Service Commission upon an appeal from a 
decision or order of such department, agency, or unit 
on a complaint of discrimination based on race, color, 
religion, sex or national origin, brought pursuant to 
subsection (a) of this section, Executive Order 11478 
or any succeeding Executive orders, or after one 
hundred and eighty days from the filing of the initial 
charge with the department, agency, or unit or with 
the Civil Service Commission on appeal from a deci
sion or order of such department, agency, or unit 
until such time ns final action may be taken by a 
department, agency, or unit, an employee or appli
cant for employment, If aggrieved by the final dis
position of his complaint, or by the failure to take 
final action on his complaint, may file a civil action 
as provided in section 2C00e-5 of this title, In which 
civil action the head of the department, agency, or 
unit, as appropriate, shall be the defendant.
(d) Section 2000c—5Cf) through (It) of this title appli

cable to civil actions.
The provisions of section 2000e-5 (f) through (k) 

of this title, as applicable, shall govern civil actions 
brought hereunder.
(c) Government agency or official not relieved of 

responsibility to assure nondiscrimination in em
ployment or equal employment opportunity. 

Nothing contained in this Act shall relieve any 
Government agency or official of its or his primary 
responsibility to assure nondiscrimination in em
ployment as required by the Constitution and 
statutes or of its or his responsibilities under Execu
tive Order 11478 relating to equal employment op
portunity in the Federal Government.



79

Section 706 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended,

42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5 (Supp. II, 1972), provides:

(■) Power of Commission to prevent unlawful em
ployment practices.The Commission is empowered, as hereinafter pro

vided, to prevent any person from engaging in any unlawful employment practice as set forth in sec
tion 2000e-2 or 2000e-3 of this title.
(b) Charges by persons aggrieved or member of Com

mission of unlawful employment practices by 
employers, etc.; filing; allegations; notice to re
spondent; contents of notice; investigation by 
Commission; contents of charges; prohibition on 
disclosure of charges; determination of reason
able cause; conference, conciliation, and persua
sion for elimination of unlawful practices; prohi
bition on disclosure of informal endeavors to end 
unlawful practices; use of evidence in subsequent 
proceedings; penalties for disclosure of informa
tion; time for determination of reasonable cause.
Whenever a charge is filed by or on behalf of a person claming to be aggrieved, or by a member of the Commission, alleging that an employer, employment agency, labor organization, or joint labor- management committee controlling apprenticeship or other training or retraining, including on-the-job training programs, has engaged in an unlawful employment practice, the Commission shall serve a notice of the charge (including the date, place and circumstances of the alleged unlawful employment practice) on such employer, employment agency, labor organization, or joint labor-management committee (hereinafter referred to as the “respondent”) 
within ten days, and shall make an investigation 
thereof. Charges shall be in writing under oath or 
affirmation and shall contuln such information and 
be in such form as the Commission requires. Charges 
shall not be made public by the Commission If the 
Commission determines alter such investigation that 
there is not reasonable cause to believe that the 
charge is true, it. shall dismiss the charge and 
promptly notify the person claiming to be aggrieved 
and the respondent of its Rct.ion. In deteimining 
whether reasonable cause exists, the Commission 
shall accord substantial weight to final findings and 
orders made by State or local authorities in proceed
ings commenced under State or local law pursuant 
to the requirements of subsections (c) and Cd) of 
this section. If the Commission determines after such 
investigation that there is reasonable cause to be
lieve that the charge is true, the Commi'siun shall 
endeavor to eliminate any such alleged unlawful



80

employment practice by Informal methods of con
ference, conciliation, and persuasion. Nothing said 
or done during and as a part of such informal en
deavors may be made public by the Commission, its 
officers or employees, or used as evidence in a sub
sequent proceeding without the written consent of 
the persons concerned. Any person who makes public 
Information in violation of this subsection shall be 
fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned for not 
more than one year, or both. The Commission shall 
make Its determination on reasonable cause as 
promptly as possible and. so far as practicable, not 
later than one hundred and twenty days from the 
filing of the charge or, where applicable under sub
section (c) or (d) of this section, from the date upon 
which the Commission is authorized to take action 
with respect to the charge.

(c) State or local enforcement proceedings; notifica
tion of State or local authority; time for filing 
charges with Commission; commencement of 
proceedings.

In the case of an alleged unlawful employment 
practice occurring In a State, or political subdivision 
of a State, which has a State or local law prohibiting 
the unlawful employment practice alleged and estab
lishing or authorizing a State or local authority to 
grant or seek relief from such practice or to insti
tute criminal proceedings with respect thereto upon 
receiving notice thereof, no charge may be filed un
der subsection (b) of this section by the person 
aggrieved before the expiration of sixty days after 
proceedings have been commenced under the State 
or local law, unless such proceedings have been ear
lier terminated, provided that such sixty-day period 
shall be extended to one hundred and twenty days 
during the first year after the effective date of such 
State or local law. If any requirement for the com
mencement of such proceedings Is imposed by a State 
or local authority other than a requirement of the 
filing of a written and signed statement of the facts 
upon which the proceeding is based, the proceeding 
shall be deemed to have been commenced for the 
purposes of this subsection at the time such state
ment is sent by registered mail to the appropriate 
State or local authority.



81

(d) Same; notification of State or local authority; 
time for action on charges by Commission.

In the case of any charge filed by a member of the 
Commission alleging an unlawful employment prac
tice occurring in a State or political subdivision of a 
State which has a State or local law prohibiting the 
practice alleged and establishing or authorizing a 
State or local authority to grant or seek relief from 
such practice or to institute criminal proceedings 
with respect thereto upon receiving notice thereof, 
the Commission shall, before taking any action with 
respect to such charge, notify the appropriate State 
or local officials and. upon request, afford them a 
reasonable time, but not less than sixty clays (pro
vided that such sixty-day period shall be extended 
to one hundred and twenty days during the first year 
after the effective day of such State or local law), 
unless a shorter period is requested, to act under 
such .State or local law to remedy the practice 
a lle g e d ._________________________  __
( c )  Time for filing charge: ; time for service of nolice 

of charge on respondent; filing of charge by Com
mission withr Si ate or local agency.

A charge under this section shall be filed within 
one hundred and eighty days after the alleged un
lawful employment practice occurred and notice of 
the charge (including the date, place and circum
stances of the alleged unlawful employment prac
tice) shall be served upon the person against whom 
such charge is made within ten days thereafter, ex
cept that in a case of an unlawful employment prac
tice with respect to which the person aggrieved lias 
initially instituted proceedings with a State or local 
agency with authority to grant or seek relief from 
such practice or to institute criminal proceedings 
with respect thereto upon receiving notice thereof, 
such charge shall be filed by or on behalf of the per
son aggrieved within three hundred days after the 
alleged unlawful employment practice occurred, or 
within thirty days after receiving notice that the 
State or local agency has terminated the proceedings 
under the State or local law, whichever is earlier, 
and a copy of such charge shall be filed by the Com
mission with the State or local agency.



82

(f) Civil action by Commission, Attorney General, 
or person aggrieved; preconditions; procedure; 
appointment of attorney; payment of fees, costs, 
or security; intervention; stay of Federal pro
ceedings; action for appropriate temporary or 
preliminary relief pending; final disposition of 
charge; jurisdiction and venue of United States 
courts; designation of judge to hear and deter
mine case; assignment of case for hearing; expe
dition of case; appointment of master.

(1) If within thirty days after a charge Is filed 
with the Commission or within thirty days after 
expiration of any period of reference under subsec
tion (c) or (d) of this section, the Commission has 
beat unable to secure from the respondent a concil
iation agreement acceptable to the Commission, the 
Commission may bring a civil action against any 
respondent not a government, governmental agency, 
or political subdivision named in the charge. In the 
case of a respondent which is a government, govern
mental agency, or political subdivision, if the Com
mission has been unable to secure from the respond
ent a conciliation agreement acceptable to the Com
mission, the Commission shall take no fur ther action 
and shall refer the case to the Attorney General who 
may bring a civil action against such respondent in 
the appropriate United States district court. The 
person or persons aggrieved shall have the right to 
intervene in a civil action brought by the Commis
sion or the Attorney General in a case involving a 
government, governmental agency, or political sub
division. If a charge filed with the Commission pur
suant to subsection (b) of this section, is dismissed 
by the Commission, or if within one hundred and 
eighty days from the filing of such charge or the 
expiration of any period of reference under subsec
tion (c) or (d) of this section, whichever is later, the 
Commission has not filed a civil action under this 
section or the Attorney General has not filed a civil 
action in a case involving a government, govern
mental agency, or political subdivision, or the Com
mission has not entered into a conciliation agree
ment to which the person aggrieved is a party, the 
Commission, or the Attorney General In a case in

volving a government, governmental agency, or 
political subdivision, shill so notify the person ag
grieved and within ninety days after the giving of 
such notice a civil action may be brought against the 
respondent named in the charge (A) by the person 
claiming to be aggrieved or (B) if such charge was 
filed by a member of the Commission, by any person 
whom the charge alleges was aggrieved by t he alleged 
unlawful employment practice. Upon application by 
the complainant and in such circumstances as the 
court may deem just, the court may appoint an at
torney for such complainant and may authorize the 
commencement of the action without the payment of 
fees, costs, or security. Upon timely application, the



- 83 -

court may, in its discretion, permit the Commission, 
or the Attorney General in a case involving a gov
ernment, governmental agency, or political subdivi
sion, to intervene in such civil action upon certifica
tion that the case is of general public importance. 
Upon request, the court may, in its discretion, stay 
further proceedings for not more than sixty days 
pending the termination of State or local proceed
ings described in subsection (c) or (d) of this sec
tion or further efforts of the Commission to obtain 
voluntary compliance.

(2) Whenever a charge is filed with the Commis
sion and the Commission concludes on the basis of 
a preliminary investigation that prompt Judicial ac
tion is necessary to carry out the purposes of this 
Act, the Commission, or the Attorney General in a 
case involving a government, governmental agency, 
of political subdivision, may bring an action for ap
propriate temporary or preliminary relief pending 
final disposition of such charge. Any temporary re
straining order or other order granting preliminary 
or temporary relief shall be issued in accordance 
with rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 
It shall be the duty of a court having jurisdiction 
over proceedings under this section to assign cares 
for hearing at the earliest practicable date and to 
cause such cases to be in every way expedited.

(3) Each United States district court and each 
United States court of a place subject to the jurisdic
tion of the United States shall have jurisdiction of 
actions brought under this subchapter. Such an ac
tion may be brought in any judicial district in the 
State in which the unlawful employment practice is 
alleged to have been committed, in the judicial dis
trict in which the employment records relevant to 
such practice are maintained and administered, or 
in the Judicial district in which the aggrieved person 
would have worked but for the alleged unlawful em
ployment practice, but if the respondent Is not found 
within any such district, such an action may be 
brought within the judicial district in which the 
respondent has his principal office. For purposes of 
sections 1401 and 1406 of Title 28, the judicial district 
in which the respondent has his principal office shall 
in all cases be considered a district in which the 
action might, have been brought.

(4) It shall be the duty of the chief judge of the 
district (or in his absence, the acting chief judge) in 
which the case is pending immediately to designate 
a judge in such district to hear and determine the 
case. In the event that no judge in the district is 
available to hear and determine the case, the chief



84

judge of the district, or the acting chief judge, as the 
case may be, shall certify this fact to the chief judge 
of the circuit (or in his absence, the acting chief 
judge) who shall then designate a district or circuit 
Judge of the circuit to hear and determine the case.

(5) It shall be the duty of the Judge designated 
pursuant to this subsection to assign the case for 
hearing at the earliest practicable date and to 
cause the case to be in every way expedited. If such 
judge has not scheduled the case for trial within 
one hundred and twenty days after issue has been 
Joined, that judge may appoint a master pursuant 
to rule 53 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

(g) Injunctions; appropriate affirmative action; equi
table relief; accrual of back pay; reduction of 
back pay; limitations on judicial orders.

If the court finds that the respondent has inten
tionally engaged in or is intentionally engaging in 
an unlawful employment practice charged in the 
complaint, the court may enjoin tire respondent 
from engaging in such unlawful employment prac
tice, and order such affirmative action as may be 
appropriate, winch may include, but is not limited 
to, reinstatement or hiring of employees, with or 
without back pay (payable by the employer, employ
ment agency, or labor organization, as the case may 
be, responsible for the unlawful employment prac
tice), or any other equitable relief as the court 
deems appropriate. Back pay liability shall not ac
crue from a date more than two years prior to the 
filing of a charge with the Commission. Interim 
earnings or amounts eamable with reasonable dili
gence by the person or persons discriminated against 
shall operate to reduce the back pay otherwise 
allowable. No order of the court shall require the 
admission or reinstatement of an individual as a 
member of a union, or the hiring, reinstatement, or 
promotion of an individual as an employee, or the 
payment to him of any back pay, if such individual 
was refused admission, suspended, or expelled, or was 
refused employment or advancement or was sus
pended or discharged for any reason other than dis
crimination on account of race, color, religion, sex, 
or national origin or in violation of section 2000e-3
(a) of this title.

(h) Provisions of sections 101 to 113 of Title 29 not ap
plicable to civil actions for prevention of unlaw
ful practices.

The provisions of sections 101 to 115 of Title 29 
shall not apply with respect to civil actions brought 
under this section.



85

(i) Proceedings by Commission to compel compliance 
with judicial orders.

In any case In which an employer, employment 
agency, or labor organization fails to comply with 
an order of a court issued in a civil action brought 
under this section, the Commission may commence 
proceedings to compel compliance with such order.
(j) Appeals.

Any civil action brought under this section and 
any proceedings brought under subsection (i) of this 
section shall be subject to appeal as provided in sec
tions 1291 and 1292, Title 28.



86

5 C.F.R. Part 713 (1973) provides:

Subjitirt A  [Reserved!

Subparl 3— Rquol Oppo~tur>ify W ith
out Regard to Race, Color, Religion,
Sex, or N ationa l O rig in

Sotrr.CE: T he p ro v isio n s o f th i s  P r.h p srt. B 
a p p e a r  a t  37 P .R . 22717, O ct, 21, 1972, V ib e 'S  
o th e rw ise  n c /.ra .

O f n e r a l  P r o v is io n s  

§ 713.201 IV'-pose and anjdicabililj.
(a) Purpose. This subpart sets forth 

the regulations under which an agency

shall establish a continuing affirmative 
program for equal opportunity in em
ployment and personnel operations 
without regard to race, color, religion, 
sex, or national origin and under which 
the Commission will review an agency’s 
program and entertain an appeal from 
a person dissatisfied with an agency's 
decision or other final action on his com
plaint of discrimination on grounds of 
race, color, religion, sex, or national 
origin.

(b) A p p l ic a b i l i t y .  (1) This subpart 
applies: (i) To military department as 
defined in section 102 of title 5, United 
States Code, executive agencies (other 
than the General Accounting Office) as 
defined in section 105 of title 5, United 
States Code, the U.S. Postal Sendee, 
and the Postal Rate Commission, and 
to the employees thereof, including em
ployees paid from nonappropriated 
funds, and (ii) to those portions of the 
legislative and judicial branches of the 
Federal Government and the govern
ment of the District of Columbia having 
positions in the competitive service and 
to the employees in those positions.

(2) This subpart does not apply to 
aliens employed outside the limits of tire 
United States.
§ 713.202  General policy.

I t Is the policy of the Government of 
the United States and of the government 
of the District of Columbia to provide 
equal opportunity in employment for all 
persons, to prohibit discrimination in 
employment because of race, color, re
ligion, sex, or national origin, and to 
promote the full realization of equal 
employment opportunity through a con
tinuing affirmative program in each 
agency.



87

§ 713.203 Agency program.
The head of each agency shall exer

cise personal leadership In establishing, 
maintaining, and carrying out a con
tinuing affirmative program designed to 
promote equal opportunity in every as
pect of agency personnel policy and 
practice in the employment, develop
ment, advancement, and treatment of 
employees. Under the terms of its pro
gram, an agency shall:

(a) Provide sufficient resources to ad
minister Its equal employment, oppor
tunity program in a positive and effec
tive manner and assure that the 
principal and operating officials respon
sible for carrying out the equal employ
ment opportunity program meet estab
lished qualifications requirements;

(b) Conduct a continuing campaign 
to eradicate every form of prejudice or 
discrimination based upon race, color, 
religion, sex, or national origin, from the 
agency's personnel policies and practices 
and working conditions, including dis
ciplinary action against employees who 
engage in discriminatory practices;

(c) Utilize to the fullest extent the 
present skills of employees by all means, 
including the redesigning of jobs where 
feasible so that tasks not requiring the 
full utilization of skills of incumbents are 
concentrated in jobs with lower skill 
requirements;

(d) Provide the maximum feasible op
portunity to employees to enhance their 
skills through on-the-job training, work- 
study programs, and other training 
measures so that they may perform at 
their highest potential and advance in 
accordance with their abilities;

(e) Communicate the agency’s equal 
employment opportunity policy and pro
gram and its employment needs to all 
sources of job candidates without regard 
to race, color, religion, sex, or national 
origin, and solicit their recruitment as
sistance on a continuing basis;

(f) Participate at the community level 
with other employers, with schools and 
universities, and with other public anu 
private groups in cooperative action 
to improve employment opportunities 
and community conditions that affect 
employability;



88

(g) Review, evaluate, and control 
managerial and supervisory performance 
in such a manner as to insure a con
tinuing affirmative application ana vig
orous enforcement of the policy of 'equal 
opportunity, and provide orientation, 
training, and advice to managers and 
supervisors to assure their understand
ing and implementation of the equal 
employment opportunity policy and 
program;

(h) Provide recognition to employees, 
supervisors, managers, and units demon
strating superior accomplishment in 
equal employment opportunity;

(i) Inform its employees and recog
nized labor organizations of the affirma
tive equal employment opportunity pol
icy and program and enlist their 
cooperation;

(j) Provide for counseling employees 
and applicants who believe they have 
been discriminated against because of 
race, color, religion, _sex, or national

origin and for resolving informally the 
matters raised by them;

(k) Provide for the prompt, fair, and 
impartial consideration and disposition 
of complaints involving issues of dis
crimination on grounds of race, color, 
religion, sex, or national origin; and

(l) Establish a system for periodically 
evaluating the effectiveness of the 
agency’s overall equal employment op
portunity effort.
§ 713.204 Im plem entation of agency 

program.
To implement, the program estab

lished under this subpart, an agency 
shall;

(a) Develop the plans, procedures, 
and regulations necessary to carry out 
its program established under this 
subpart;

(b) Appraise its personnel operations 
at regular intervals to assure their con
formity with the policy in § 713.202 and 
its program established in accordance 
with § 713.203;



89

(c) Designate a Director of Equal 
Employment Opportunity and as many 
Equal Employment Opportunity Officers, 
Equal Employment Opportunity Coun
selors, Federal Women's Program Co
ordinators, and other persons as may be 
necessary, to assist the head of the- 
agency to carry out the functions de
scribed in this subpart in all organiza
tional units and locations of the agency. 
The functioning and the qualifications of 
the persons so designated shall be sub
ject to review by the Commission. The 
Director of Equal Employment Opportu
nity shall be under the immediate super
vision of the head of his agency, and 
shall he given the authority necessary 
to enable him to cany out his responsi
bilities under the regulations in tins 
subpart;
' (d) Assign to the Director of Equal 
Employment Opportunity the functions of:
v t i l  Advising the head of his agency 
with respect to the preparation of na
tional and regional equal employment 
opportunity plans, procedures, regula
tions, reports, and other matters per
taining to the policy in j 713.202 and > he 
agency program required to be estab
lished under 5 713.203;

(2) Evaluating from time to time the 
sufficiency of the total agency program 
for equal employment opportunity a:..-! 
reporting thereon to the head of tire 
agency with recommendations as to any

----------------- ---- j ______
improvement or correction needed, in
cluding remedial or disciplinary action 
with respect to managerial or super
visory employees who have failed them 
responsibilities;

(3) When authorized by the head cf 
tlie agency, making changes in programs 
and procedures designed to e 1:ruinate 
discriminatory practices and improve- 
the agency’s program for equal employ
ment opportunity;

(4) Providing for counseling hv an 
Equal Employment Opportunity Coun
selor, of any aggrieved employee or ap
plicant for employment who beli----. es th rt 
he has been discriminated agahrsv be
cause of race, color, religion, sere, or na
tional origin and for attempting to re
solve on an informal basis the matter 
raised by the employee or applicant be
fore a complaint of discrimination c r  y 
be filed under 5 713.214;

(5) Providing for the receipt and in
vestigation of individual complmms :: 
discrimination in personnel matters 
within the agency subiect to 3; 7i3 i l l  
through 713.222:



90

(6) Providin'? for the receipt, investi
gation, a nr! disposition of general allega
tions by organizations or otb.-r ihrrd. 
parties of discrimination in personre": 
matters within the agency sue;r:s :?
§ 713.251;

(7) When authorized by the h-r.vi c; 
the agency, making the decisicr. under 
§ 713.221 for the head cf the ac-nry • n 
complaints of discrimination a”.:' : t ie r 
ing such coll ective measures as he may 
consider necessary, including the recom
mendation for such disciplinary action 
as is warranted by the circtunetances 
when an employee has been found to 
have engaged in a discriminatory prac
tice; and

(8) When not authorized to xr.cA o  the 
decision for the head of tlie agency on 
complaints of discrimination, re"., ving

* a t his discretion, the record on r.r; com
plaint before the decision is mao : under 
§ 713 221 end making such rcconur.: 
tions to the head of the agency cr hrs 
designee as he considers d e s i i i n 
cluding the recommendation f : such 
disciplinary action as is warrar .-d by 
the circumstances when an eirylryce ;s 
found to l'. 'X ' encaged In a dis : -
tory practice;

(c) Insure th r t  equal opportv-.V y for 
v omen is an integral part cf the *
Overall pro'ran; by a;.s;rr.inr to ' - -
cral Women's P. •. jn-r; Ct-orcli.r, : -i 
function of advising the Direct -r of
Equal Employment Opportunity on m at
ters affecting the employment and ad
vancement of women;

(f) Publicize to its employees and post 
permanently on official bulletin boards:

(1) The names and addresses of the 
Director of Equal Employment Oppor
tunity and the Federal Women’s Pro
gram Coordinators;

(2) The name and address of the ap
propriate Equal Employment Opportu
nity Officer;

(3) The name and address of the 
Equal Employment Opportunity Coun
selor and the organizational units he 
serves; his availability to counsel an em
ployee or applicant for employment who 
believes that he has been discriminated 
against because of race, color, religion, 
sex, or national origin; and the require
ment tha t an employee or applicant for 
employment must consult the Counselor 
as provided by § 713.213 about his al
legation of discriminalmn because of 
race, color, religion, sex, or national ori
gin before a complaint as provided by 
§ 713.214 may be filed; and

(4) Time limits for contacting an 
Equal Employment Opportunity Coun
selor;



-  91  -

(g) Make reasonable accommodations 
to the religious needs oX applicants and 
employees, including the needs of those 
who observe the Sabbath on other than 
Sunday, when those accommodations 
can be made (by substitution of another 
qualified employee, by a grant of leave, 
a change of a tour of duty, or other 
means) without undue hardship on the 
business of the agency. If an agency 
cannot accommodate an employee or 
applicant, it has a duty in a complaint 
arising under this m bpart to demonstrate 
its inability to do so;

(h) Make readily available to its em
ployees a copy of its regulations issued 
to carry out its program of equal em
ployment opportunity; and

(i) Submit annually for the review and 
approval of tho Commission written na
tional and regional equal employment 
opportunity plans of action. Plans shall 
be submitted in a format prescribed by 
the Commission and shall Include, but 
not be limited to—

(1) Provision for the establishim-nt of 
training and education programs de
signed to provide maximum opportu
nity for employees to advance so as to 
perforin at their highest potential;

(2) Description of the qualifications, 
in terms of training and experience re

lating to equal employment opportunity, 
of the principal and operating officials 
concerned with administration of the 
agency’s equal employment opportunity 
program; and

(3) Description of the allocation of 
personnel and resources proposed by the 
agency to carry out its equal employ
ment opportunity program.
|S7 FJt. 22717, Oct. 21. 1972, as amended at 
37 F.R. 26699. Dec. 2,1972]
§ 713 .205  Commission review and eval

uation o f  agency program operations.
The Commission shall review and 

evaluate agency program operations 
periodically, obtain such reports as it 
deems necessary, and report to the Presi
dent as appropriate on overall progress. 
When it finds that an agency’s program 
operations are not in conformity with 
the policy set forth in § 713.202 and the 
regulations in this subpart, the Commis
sion shall require improvement or cor
rective action to bring the agency’s 
program operations into conformity with 
this policy and the regulations in this 
subpart. The head of each department 
and agency shall comply with the rules, 
regulations, orders, and instructions is
sued by the Commission.



92

Agency Regulations for Processing Complaints of Discrimination
§ 7 ]3 .2 1 1  General.

An agency shall insure that its regula
tions governing the processing of com
plaints of discrimination on grounds of 
race, color, religion, sex, or national ori
gin comply with the principles and re
quirements in §§ 713.212 through 713.222.
§ 7 1 3 .2 1 2  Coverage.

(a) The agency shall provide in its 
regulations for the acceptance of a com
plaint from any aggrieved employee or 
applicant for employment with that 
agency who believes that he has been 
discriminated against because of race, 
color, religion, sex, or national origin. 
A complaint may also be filed by an or
ganization for the aggrieved person with 
his consent.

(b) Sections 713.211 through 713.722 
do not apply to the consideration by : n 
agency ot a general allegation of dis
crimination by an organization or other 
third party which is unrelated to an 
individual complaint of discrimination 
subject to 55 713.211 through 713.222. 
(Section 713.251 applies to general alle

gations by organizations or other third 
parties.)
§ 713 .213  Precompldint processing.

(a) An agency shall require that an 
aggrieved person who believes that he 
has been discriminated against because 
of race, color, religion, sex, or national 
origin consult with an Equal Employ
ment Opportunity Counselor when he 
wishes to resolve the mat ter. The agency 
shall require the Equal Employment Op
portunity Counselor to make whatever 
inquiry he believes necessary into the 
matter; to seek a solution of the matter 
on an informal basis; to counsel the ag
grieved person concerning the issues in 
the matter; to keep a record of his coun
seling activities so as to brief periodi
cally, the Equal Employment Opportu
nity Officer on those activities; and, 
when advised th a t a complaint of dis
crimination lias been accepted from an 
aggrieved person, to submit a written 
report to the Equal Employment Oppor
tunity Officer, with a copy to the ag
grieved person, summarizing his actions 
and advice both to the agency and the 
aggrieved person concerning the issues 
in tlie matter. The Equal Employment



93

Opportunity 'Counselor shall, insofar as 
is practicable, conduct his final inter
view with the aggrieved person not later 
than 21 calendar days after the date on 
which the matter was called to his atten
tion by the aggrieved person. If the final 
interview is not concluded within 21 days 
and the m atter has not previously been 
resolved to the satisfaction of the ag
grieved person, the aggrieved person 
shall be informed in writing at that time 
of his right to file a complaint of dis
crimination. The notice shall inform the 
complainant of his right to file a com
plaint a t any time after receipt of the 
notice up to 15 calendar days after the 
final interview (which shall be so identi
fied in writing by the Equal Employ
ment Opportunity Counselor) and the 
appropriate official with whom to file a 
complaint. The Counselor shall not a t
tempt in any way to restrain the ag
grieved person from filing a complaint. 
The Equal Employment Opportunity 
Counselor shall not reveal the identity 
of an aggrieved person who lias come to 
him for consultation, except when au
thorised to do so by the aggrieved per
son, until tlio agency has accepted a 
complaint of discrimination from him.

(h) The agency shall assure that full 
cooiierution Is provided by till employees

to the Equal Employment Opportunty 
Counselor in the performance of his 
duties under this section.

(c) The Equal Employment Opportuni
ty Counselor shall be free from restraint, 
interference, coercion, discrimination, or 
reprisal in connection with the perform
ance of his duties under this section.[37 F.lt. 21717, Oct. 21, 1972, as amended at 37 F.H. 85639, Dec. 2, 19721
§ 7 1 3 .2 1 4  Filing and presentation of

complaint.
(a) T im e  l im i ts .  (1) An agency shall 

require that a complaint be submitted in 
writing by the complainant or his repre
sentative and be signed by the com
plainant. The complaint may be de
livered in  person or submitted by mail. 
The agency may accept the complaint 
for processing in accordance with this 
subpart only if—

(i) The complainant brought to the 
attention of the Equal Employment Op
portunity Counselor the m atter causing 
him to believe he had been discriminated 
against within 30 calendar days of the 
date of that matter, or, if a personnel 
action, within 30 calendar days of its 
effective date: and

iii) Tiie complainant or his represent
ative submitted his written complaint 
to an appropriate official within 15 calen
dar days cf the date of his final interview 
with the Equal Employment Opportunity 
Counsclo".



94

(2) The appropriate officials to re
ceive complaints are the head of tire 
agency, the agency’s Director of Equal 
Employment Opportunity, the head of a 
Held installation, an Equal Employment 
Opportunity Officer, a Federal Women's 
Program Coordinator, and such other 
officials ns the agency may designate for 
that purpose. Upon receipt of the com
plaint, thi- agency official shall transmit 
it to tlie Director of Equal Employment 
Opportunity or appropriate Equal Em
ployment Opportunity Officer who shall 
acknowledge its receipt in accordance 
with subparagraph (3) of this paragraph.

(3) A complaint shall be deemed filed 
on the date it is received, if delivered 
to an appropriate official, or on the date 
postmarked if addressed to an appropri
ate official designated to receive com
plaints. The agency shall acknowledge to 
the complainant cr Iris representative in 
writing receipt of the complaint an-i 
advise the complainant in writing of ml 
ills administrative right., and of his right 
to file a civil action as set forth in

§ 713.281, including the time limits im
posed on the exercise of these rights.

( 4) The agency shall extend the time 
limits in this section: (i) When the com
plainant shows that he was not notified 
of the time limits and was ro t otherwise 
aware of them, or that he was prevented 
hy circumstances beyond his control 
from submitting the m atter within the 
time limits; cr (ii) for other reasons 
considered sufficient by the agency.

(b) P r e s e n ta t io n  o f  c o r :  p la in t .  At any 
stage in tlie presentation of a complaint, 
including the counseling stage under 
§ 713.213, the complainant shall have the 
right to be accompanied, represented, 
and advised by a representative of his 
own choosing. If the complainant is an 
employee of the agency, he shall have a 
reasonable amount, of official time to pre
sent his complaint if lie is otherwise in 
an active duty status. If the complainant 
is an employee of the agency and he des
ignates another employee of the agency 
as his representative, the representative 
shall have a reasonable amount of offi
cial time, if he is otherwise in an active 
duty status, to present the complaint.



95

§ 713.21.» Rejection or cancellation of 
complaint.

The head of the agency or his designee 
may reject a complaint which was not 
timely filed ai u shill reject those allega
tions in a complaint which arc not within 
the purview of § 713.212 or which set 
forth identical matters as contained in a 
previous complaint filed by the same 
complainant which is pending in the 
agency or has been decided by the 
agency. He may cancel a complaint be
cause of failure of tire complainant to 
prosecute the complaint. He shall trans
mit the decision to reject or cancel by 
letter to the complainant end hi:, repre
sentative. The decision letter shall in
form the complainant cf Iris right to ap
peal the decision of the agency to the 
Commission and of the time limit within 
which the appeal may be submitted and 
of his right to file a civil action as de
scribed in § 713.281.
§ 713.216 Iuvi-sligalior.

(a) The Equal Employment Opportu
nity Officer shall advise the Director of 
Equal Employment Opportunity of the 
acceptance of a complaint. The Director 
of Equal Employment Opportunity shall 
provide for the prompt imesUghion of 
the complaint. The person assigned to 
investigate the complain! shall occupy
a position in the agency which is not, 
directly or indirectly, under the juris
diction of the head of that p e t  of the 
agency in which the complaint arose. 
The agency shall authorize the investi
gator to administer oaths and require 
that statements of witnesses shall be 
under oath ov affirmation, \ ithout a 
pledge of confidence. The inwotigation 
shall include a thorough review of the 
circumstances under which the alleged 
discrimination occurred, the treatment 
of members of the complainant's group 
identified by his complaint as compared 
with the treatment of other etr ploycts in 
the organizational segment in v.hich the 
alleged discrimination occurred, and any 
policies and practices related to the work 
situation which may constitute, or appear 
to constitute, discrimination even 
though they have not been expressly 
cited by the complainant, l'n.'cvmation 
needed for an appraisal of the utiliza
tion of members of the com-fi,-.: mint’s 
group as compared to the util: mi ion of 
persons outside the complainant's group 
shall be recorded in statistical form in 
the investigative file, but specific infor
mation as to a person’s membership or 
nonmembership in the comph-j riant's



96

group needed to facilitate an ad iist'nent 
of toe complaint or to make an informed 
decision on toe complaint shall, if avail
able, be recorded by name In ihe in
vestigative file. (As used in this subpart, 
the term “investigative file” shall mean 
the various documents and information 
acquired during the investigation under 
this section—including affida'.its of the 
complainant, cf the alleged discriminat
ing official, and of the witnesses and c-cp- 
ie-. of. or extracts from, record:', policy 
statements, or regulations of the 
agency—organized to show their rele
vance to the complaint or the general 
environment out of which the comphdnt 
arose.) If necessary, the investigator may 
obtain information regarding the mem
bership or noninembership of a pa-son 
in the complainant’s group by asking 
each person concerned to provide the in
formation voluntarily: he shall not re
quire or coerce an employee to provide 
this information.

<b) The Director of Equal E aploy- 
ment Opportunity shall arrange to fur
nish to the person conducting the in 
vesfigation a written authorization: >1) 
To investigate all aspects of corn..’};.inis 
of discrimination, t,2i to require :•'! em
ployees of toe agency to cooperate with 
ldm in the conduct of the invest: u ion.
:and (3) to require employees of the 
.agency having any knowledge of the 
matter complained of to furnish testi
mony under oath or affirmation without 
a pledge of confidence.
,§ 713.217 Adjustment o f com plaint and 

offer o f  hearing.
(a) The agency shall provide an op

portunity for adjustment of the com
plaint on an informal basis after the 
complainant has reviewed the investiga
tive file. For this purpose, the agency 
shall furnish the complainant or Iris 
representative a copy of the investigative 
file promptly after receiving it from the 
investigator, and provide opportunity for 
.the complainant to discuss the investi
gative file with appropriate officials. If 
an adjustment of the complaint is a r
rived at. the terms of the adjustment 

■shall be reduced to wilting and made 
part of the complaint file, with a copy of 
the terms of the adjustment provided 
the complainant. If the agency does not 
carryout, or rescinds, any action specified 
by toe terms cf the adjustment for any 
reason not attributable to acts or con
duct of the complainant, the agency 
shall, upon the complainant’s written ic- 
quest, reinstate the complaint for further 
processing from the point processing 
ceased under ihe terms of the adjust
ment.



97

(b) if  an adjustment of the complaint 
Is not arrived at, the complainant shall 
be notified In writing: (1) Of the pro
posed disposition of complaint, (2) of 
his right to a hearing and decision by 
the agency head or his designee if he 
notifies the agency in writing within 15 
calendar days of the receipt of the notice 
tha t he desires a hearing, and (3) of his 
right to a decision by the head of the 
agency or his designee without a hear
ting.

to) If the complainant falls to notify 
the agency of his wishes within the 15- 
day period prescribed in paragraph (b) of 
this section, the appropriate Equal Em
ployment Opportunity Officer may adopt 

ithe disposition of the complaint proposed 
in the notice sent to the complainant uu- 

ider paragraph Co) of this section as Hie 
decision of the agency on the complaint 
when delegated the authority to make a 
decision for the head of the agency under 
those circumstances. When this is done, 
the Equal Employment Opportunity Of
ficer shall transmit the decision by k-tIn
to the complainant surd iris rcpieaem;'. - 

:tive which shall inform the complainant
of his right of appeal to the Commission 
and the time limit applicable thereto and 
of his right to file a civil action as de
scribed in § 713.281. If the Equal Em
ployment Opportunity Officer does not 
issue a decision under this paragraph, 
the complaint, together with the com
plaint file, shall be forwarded to the head 
of the agency, or his designee, for deci
sion under § 713.221.(37 F.R. 22717, Oct. 21 1972, as amended at 37 FJt. 25399, Dec. 2,1972)
§ 713.21 S Ilearing.

(a) C o m p la in t s  e x a m in e r . The hear
ing shall be held by a complaints exam
iner who must be an employee of {mother 
agency except when the agency in which 
the complaint arose is: (1) The govern
ment of the District of Columbia or, (2) 
an agency which, by reason of law, is 
prevented from divulging information 
concerning the matter complained of to 
a person who has not received the secu
rity clearance required by that agency, in 
which event the agency shall arrange 
with the Commission for the selection of 
an impartial employee of the agency to 
serve as complaints examiner. (For pur
poses of this paragraph, the Department 
of Defense is considered to be a single 
agency.) The agency in which the com
plaint arose shall request the CoT’.unis- 
sion to supply the name of a complaints 
examiner who has been certified by the 
Commission as qualified to conduct a 
hearing under this section.



98

(b) A r r a n g e m e n t s  j o r  h e a r in g .  The 
agency in  which the complaint arose 
shall transmit the complaint flic contain
ing all the documents described in 
|  713.222 which have been acquired up to 
that point in the processing ol the com
plaint, including the original copy of the 
investigative file (which shall ba con
sidered by the complaints examiner in 
making his recommended decision on the 
complaint), to the complaints examiner 
who shall review the complaint f its  to 
determine whether further investigation 
is needed before scheduling the hearing. 
When the complaints examiner deter
mines tha t further investigation is 
needed, he shall remand the complaint 
to the Director of Equal Employment Op-— 
pc: tunlty for further investigation or ar
range for the appearance of witnesses 
...ecssary to supply the needed infoimo
tion at the hearing. The requirements of 
5 713,21G apply to any further investiga
tion by the agency on the complaint. The

complaints examiner shall schedule the 
hearing for a convenient time and place.

(c) C o n d u c t  o l  h e a r in g . Cl) Attend
ance a t the hearing is limited to persons 
determined by the complaints examiner 
to have a direct connection with tire 
complaint.

(2) The complaints examiner shall 
conduct the hearing so as to bring out 
pertinent facts, including the production 
of pertinent documents. Rules of evi
dence shall not be applied strictly, hut the 
complaints examiner shall exclude irrele
vant or unduly repetitious evidence. In 
formation having a bearing on the com
plaint or employment policy or practices 
relevant to the complaint shall be re
ceived in evidence. The complainant, his 
representative, and the representatives of 
the agency at. the hearing shall be given 
the opportunity to cross-examine wit
nesses who appear and testify. Testimony 
shall be under oath or affirmation.

(d) P o u e r s  o f  c o m p la in t s  e x a m in e r .  
In addition to the other powers vested 
in-the complaints examiner by the agency- 
in accordance with this subpart, the 
agency shall authorize the complaints 
examiner to:

(1) Administer oaths or affirmations;
(2) Regulate the course of the 

hearing;
(3) Rule on oTers of proof;
(4) Limit the number of witnesses 

whose testimony would be unduly repe
titious; and



99

(5) Exclude any person front the hear
ing for contumacious conduct or misbe
havior that obstructs the hearing.

(o) W itn e s s e s  a t  h e a r in g . The com
plaints examiner shah request ary  agency 
subject to this sub; art to make avail
able as a witness at the hearing an em
ployee requested by the complainant 
when he determines that the testimony 
of the employee is necessary. lie may 
also request the appearance of an em
ployee ol any Federal agency whose tes
timony he determines is necessary to 
furnish information pertinent to the 
complaint under consideration. The com
plaints examiner shall give the com
plainant hi.-, reasons for the denial o." a 
request for the appearand or employees 
as witnesses and shall insert those iea- 
sons in the record of the hearing. An 
agency to whom a request is made sli <11 
make its employees available as wit
nesses a t  a  hearing on a complaint when 
requested to do so by the complaints 
examiner ond it is not administratively
impracticable to comply with the request. 
When it is administratively impracticable 
to comply with the request for a wit
ness, the agency to whom request is 
made shall provide an explanation to 
the complaints examiner. If the explana
tion is inadequate, the complaints ex
aminer shall so advise the agency and 
request it to make the employee avail
able as a witness at the hearing. If the 
explanation is adequate, the complaints 
examiner shall insert it in the record of 
the hearing, provide a copy to the com
plainant, and make arrangements to 
secure testimony from the employee 
through a written interrogatory. An em
ployee of an agency shall be in a duty 
status during the time he is made avail
able as a witness.

(f) R e c o r d  o l  h e a r in g . Tire hearing 
shall be recorded and transcribed ver
batim. All documents submitted to, and 
accepted by, the complaints examiner at 
the hearing shall be marie part of the 
record of tire hearing. If the agency sub
mits a document that is accepted, it shall 
furnish a copy of the document to the 
complainant. If the complainant submits 
a document that is accepted, he shall 
make the document available to the 
agency representative for reproduction.



100

(g) F in d in g s ,  a n a ly s i s ,  a n d  r e c o m 
m e n d a t io n s .  The complaints examiner 
shall transmit to the head of the agency 
or his designee: Cl) The complaint file 
(including the record of the hearing), 
(2) the findings and analysis of the com
plaints examiner with regard to the m at
ter which gave rise to the complaint and 
the general environment out of winch 
the complaint arose, and Cl) the recom
mended decision of the complaints ex
aminer on the merits of the complaint, 
including recommended remedial action, 
where appropriate, with regard to the 
matter which gave rise to the complaint 
end the general environment out of 
which the complaint arose. The com
plaints examiner shall notify the com
plainant of the date on which this was 
done. In addition, the complain!s ex
aminer shall transmit, by separate letter 
to the Director of Equal Employment 
Opportunity, whatever findings and rec
ommendations he considers appropriate 
with respect to conditions ift the 
agency which do not boar directly on the 
matter which gave rise to the complaint 
or which bear on the general environ
ment out of which the complaint arose.

§ 713 .219  Relationship to other agency 
appellate procedures.

(a) Except as provided in paragraphs
(b) and (c) of tins section, when an em
ployee makes a written allegation of dis
crimination on grounds of race, color, 
religion, sex, or national origin, in con
nection with an action that would other
wise be processed under a grievance or 
appeals system of tire agency, the agency- 
may process the allegation of discrimina
tion under that system when the system 
meets the principles and requirements 
in §§713.212 through 713.220 and the 
head of tire agency, or his designee, 
makes the decision of the agency on the 
issue of discrimination. That decision on 
tire issue of discrimination shall be in
corporated in and become a part of the 
decision on the grievance or appeal.

(b) An allegation of discrimination 
made in connection with an appeal under 
Subpart B of Part 771 of this chapter 
shall be processed under that subpart.

(c) An allegation of discrimination 
made in connection with a grievance 
under Subpart C of Part 771 of this 
chapter shall be processed under this 
part.



101

(a) The complaint shall be resolved 
promptly. To this end, both the com
plainant and the agency shall proceed 
with the complaint without undue delay 
so that the complaint is resolved within 
180 calendar days after it was filed, in
cluding time spent in the processing of 
the complaint by the complaints ex
aminer under 5 713.218.

(b) The head of the agency or Iris 
designee may cancel a complaint if the 
complainant fails to prosecute the com
plaint without undue delay. However, in
stead of canceling for failure to prose
cute, the complaint may be adjudicated 
if sufficient information for that purpose 
is available.

(c) The agency shall furnish the Com
mission monthly reports on all com
plaints pending within the agency in 
a form specified bv the Commission. If 
an agency has not issued a final decision, 
and has not requested the Commission 
to supply a complaints examiner, within 
75 calendar days from the date a com
plaint was filed, the Commission may 
leqi'ire the agency to take special meas
ures to insure prompt processing of the 
complaint or may assume responsibility

for processing the complaint, including 
supplying an investigator to conduct any 
necessary investigation on behalf of the 
agency. When the Commission supplies 
an investigator, the agency shall reim
burse the Commission for all expenses 
incurred in connection with the investi
gation and shall notify the complainant 
in writing of the proposed disposition of 
the complaint no later than 15 calendar 
days after Its receipt of the investigative 
report.

(d) When the complaints examiner 
has submitted a recommended decision 
finding discrimination and the agency 
has not issued a final decision within 
180 calendar days after the date the 
complaint was filed, the complaints 
examiner’s recommended decision shall 
become a final decision binding on the 
agency 30 calendar days after its sub
mission to the agency. In such event, the 
agency shall so notify the complainant 
of the decision and furnish to him a copy 
of the findings, analysis, and recom
mended decision of the complaints exam
iner under § 713.218(g) and a copy of 
the hearing record and also shall notify 
him in writing of his right of appeal to 
the Commission and the time limits ap
plicable thereto and of hi- right to file 
a civil action as described in § 713.281.

§ 713 .220  Avoidance o f delay.



102

g 713.221 Decision by head o f agency  
or designee.

(a) The head of the agency, or his 
designee, shall make the decision of the agency on a complaint based or. infor
mation in the complaint file. A person 
designated to make the decision for the 
head of the agency shall bo one who is 
fair, impartial, and objective.

(b) (1) The decision of the agency 
shill be in writing and shell be trans
mitted by letter to the complainant and 
nis representative. When there has been 
no hearing, the decision shall contain 
the specific reasons in detail for the agen
cy’s action, including any remedial ac
tion taken.

(?) When there has been a hcariiv 
on the complaint, tire decision letter shall 
transmit a copy of the findings, analysis, 
and recommended decision of the com
plaints examiner under section 7*3.218 
(g) and a copy of the homing record. The 
decision of the agency shall adopt, reject, 
or modify the decision recommended by 
the complaints examiner. If the decision 
is to reject or modify the recommends 1 
decision, the decision letter shall set forth

the specific reasons in detail for rejec
tion or modification.

(3) When there has been no hearing 
and no decision under § 713.217<c), the 
decision letter shall set forth the find
ings, analysis, and decision of the head 
of the agency or his designee.

(c) The decision of the agency shall 
require any remedial action authorized 
by law determined to be necessary or de
sirable to resolve the Issues of discrimi
nation and to promote the policy of equal 
opportunity, whether or not there is a 
finding of discrimination. When discrim
ination is found, the agency shall require 
remedial action to be taken in accordance 
with § 713.271, shall review the matter 
giving rise to the complaint to determine 
whether disciplinary action against 
alleged discriminatory officials Is appro
priate, and shall record the basis for its 
decision to take, or not to take, dis
ciplinary action but this decision shall 
not be included in the complaint file.

(d) The decision letter shall inform the 
complainant of his right to appeal the 
decision of the agency to the Commission, 
of his right to file a civil action in ac
cordance with § 713.281, and of the time 
limits applicable thereto.
[37 F .R . 22717, O ct. 21, 1972, a s  a m e n d e d  a t  
37 F .n , 25699, D ec. 2, 1972]



103

The agency shall establish a complaint 
file. Except as provided in ? 713.221(c), 
this file shall contain all documents per
tinent to the complaint. The complaint 
file shall include copies of: (a ' The 
notice of the Equal Employment Oppor
tunity Counselor to the aggrieved per
son under § 713.213(a), (b) the written 
report, of the Equal Employment Oppor
tunity Counsel under § 713.213 to tire 
Equal Employment Opportunity Officer 
on whatever precomplaint counseling ef
forts were made with regard to the com
plainant's esse, (c) the complaint, (d) 
the investigative file, (e) if the com
plaint is withdrawn by the complainant, 
a written statement of the complainant 
or his representative to that effect, (f) 
if adjustment of the complaint is ar
rived at under 5 713.217. the written rec
ord of the terms of the adjustment, (g) 
il no adjustment of tire complaint is ar
rived at under 5 713.217, a copy of tlie 
letter notifying ihc complainant of the 
pro)wed disposition of the complaint 
and of his right to a bearing, (b) if de
cision is made under 5 713.217(c). r copy 
of the letter to the complainant trans
mitting that decision, (i) If a hearing was 
held, the record of the hearing, together 
with the complaints examiner's findings, 
analysis, end recommended decision on 
the merits of the complaint, >j) if the 
Director of Equal Employment Oppor
tunity is not the designee, the recommen
dations, if any, made by him to the head 
of the agency or his designee, and (It) 
if decision is made under 5 713.221, a 
copy of the letter transmitting the de
cision of the head of the agency or his 
designee. The complaint file shall not 
contain any document that has not been 
made available to the complainant or to 
his designated physician under § 294.401 
of tills chapter.

§ 713.222  C om plain t file.



104

Appeal to the Com m issio n  
§713 .2 3 1  Entitlement.

(a) Except as provided by paragraph 
(b) of this section, ?. complainant may 
appeal to the Commission the decision of 
the head of the agency, or his designee:

(1) To reject his complaint, or a por
tion thereof, for reasons covered by 
5 713.215; or

(2) To cancel Iris complaint because of 
the complainant’s failure to prosecute 
his complaint; or

(3) On the merits of the complaint, 
under § 713.217(c) or §713.211. but the 
decision dees not restive the complaint 
to the complainant's satisfaction.

(b) A complainant may not appeal to 
the Comndssiou under paragraph <?.' 
of this section when the issue cl" discrimi
nation giving rise to the comolaint is 
being considered, or has beer, consid
ered, in connection with any ether ap
peal by the complainant to the Commis
sion.
§ 713.232 W here  to appeal.

The complainant shall file his appeal 
in writing, cither personally or by itr.il, 
with the Board of Appeals arid Revisx, 
U.S. Civil Service Commission, Wash
ington, D.C 20415.
§ 713.233 T im elim it.

(a) Except as provided in pr.raers.ph 
(b) of this section, a complainant nay 
file on appeal at an;, lime after receipt cf 
his agency 's notice of final decision or, his 
complaint but not later than 15 calender 
days after reccin' «f that noth.'

(b> The time lirmi in paragraph ’-A 
of this section may be extend'd in “he 
discretion of the Board of Apr:a!;, ar.d 
Review, upon a sho.'dr.r by the oom- 
plainant tha t he was net no tided cf the

prescribed time limit and was not. other
wise aware of it or that circumstances 
beyond his control prevented him from 
filing an appeal within the prescribed 
time limit.



105

The Board of Appeals and Review 
shall review the complaint file and all 
relevant written representations made lo 
the board. The beard may remand a 
complaint to the agency for further in
vestigation or a rehearing if it considers 
that action necessary or have additional 
investigation conducted by Commission 
personnel. This subpart applies to any 
further investigation or rehearing re
sulting from a remand from the board. 
There is no l ight to a hearing before the 
board. The board shall issue a written 
decision setting forth its reasons for the 
decision and shall send copies thereof to 
the complainant, his designated repre
sentative, and the agency. When cor
rective action is ordered, the agenr.y 
shall report promptly to the board that 
the corrective action has been taken. 
The decision of the board is final, but 
shall contain a notice of the right to hie 
a civil action in accordance with 
§ 713.282.
§ 713.235 Review by the Commissioners.

The Commissioners may. in their dis
cretion, reopen and reconsider any pre
vious decision when the party requesting 
reopening submits written argument or 
evidence which tends to estabii h that:

(1 ) New and material evidence is 
available that was not readily available 
when the previous decision was issued;

(2) The previous decision involves an 
erroneous interpretation of law or regu
lation or a misapplication of established 
policy; or

(31 The previous decision is of a prec
edential nature involving a new or un- 
rcviewed policy consideration that n w  
have effects beyond the actual cue at 
hand, or is otherwise of such tv . excep
tional nature as to merit the persons! 
attention of the Commissioners.
§ 713.236 R elationsh ip  to other appeals.

When the basis of the complaint of 
. discrimination because of race, color, 
religion, sex, or national origin, involves 
an action which is otherwise appealable 
to the Commission and the complainant 
having been informed by the agency of 
his right to proceed under this sub;.art 
elects to pioceed by appeal to the Com
mission, the case, including the issue of 
discrimination, will be processed under 
the regulations appropriate to that ap
peal when the complainant makes a 
timely appe'l to the Commission in ac
cordance with those regulations.

§ 7 1 3 .2 3 4  A ppella te  procedures.



106

REPORTS TO THE COMMISSION
§ 7 1 3 .2 1 1  Re ports lo the C om m ission on 

com plain ts.
Each agency shall report to the Com

mission information concerning precom
plaint counseling and the status and dis
position of complaints under this sub
part a t such times .and in such manner 
as the Commission prescribes.

T hird P arty Allegations 
§ 713.251 Third parly allegations of

d iscrim ination .
(a) C o v e ra g e . This section applies to 

general allegations by organizations or 
other third parties of d’serimination in 
personnel matters within the agency 
which are unrelated to an individual 
complaint of discrimination subject to 
§§ 713.211 through 713.222.

(b) A g e n c y  p r o c e d u r e . The organiza
tion or other third party shall state the 
allegation with sufficient specificity so 
that the agency may investigate the al
legation. The agency may require .addi
tional specificity as necessary to proceed 
with its investigation. The agency shall 
establish a file on each general allega
tion, and this file shall contain copies of 
all material used in making the decision 
on the allegation. The agency shall fur
nish a copy of this file to the party sub
mitting the allegation and shall make it 
available to the Commission for review 
on request. The agency shall notity the 
party submitting the allegation of its 
decision, including any corrective action 
taken on the general allegations, end 
shall furnish to the Commission on re
quest. a copy ol its decision.

(c) C o m m is s io n  p r o c e d u r e s . If the 
third parly disagrees with the agency de
cision, it may, within 30 days after rec ijr 
of the decision, request the Commission 
to review it. The request shall be in writ
ing and shall set forth with particula ity 
the basis for the request. When the Com
mission receives such a request, it shall 
make, or require the agency to make, any 
additional investigation, the Commi 
. ‘on deems rece'pary. The Ceiunh-von 
shall issue a decision on th • al'.-g>Mon 
ordering such corrective action, with or 
without back pay, as it deems appropri
ate.



107

F kiedok  F rom R eprisal or 
I nterferences

;§ 713.261 F reedom  from  rep risa l.
(si) Complainants, their representa

tives, and witnesses shall be free from re
straint, interference, coercion, discrimi
nation, or reprisal a t any stage in the 
presentation and processing of a com
plaint, including the counseling stage un
der section 713, or any time thereafter.
§ 713.262 Review o f  allegations o f  re

prisal.
(a) C h o ic e  o f  r e v ie w  p r o c e d u r e s . A 

complainant., his representative, or a wit
ness who alleges restraint, interference, 
coercion, discrimination, or reprisal In 
connection with the presentation of a 
complaint under this subpart, may, if an 
employee or applicant, have the allega
tion reviewed as an individual complaint 
of discrimination subject to §§ 713.21) 
through 713.222 or as a charge subject to 
paragraph (b) of this section.

(b) P r o c e d u r e  f o r  re v ieu ) o f  c h a r g e s .
(1) An employee or applicant may file 
a charge of restraint, interference, coer
cion, discrimination, or reprisal, in con
nection with the presentation of a com
plaint with an appropriate agency official 
as defined in § 713.214(a) (2> within 15 
calendar days of the dale of the alleged 
occurrence. The charge shall be in writ
ing and shall contain all pertinent facts. 
Except as provided In subparagraph (2' 
of this paragraph, the agency shall un 
dertake an appropriate inquiry into such 
a charge and shall forward to the Com
mission within 15 calendar days of the 
date of its receipt a copy of the charge 
and report of action taken. The agency 
shall also provide the charging party 
with a copy of the report of action taken. 
When the agency has not completed an 
appropriate inquiry 15 calendar days 
after receipt of such a  charge, the charg
ing party may submit a written state
ment wi! h all pertinent facts to tho t 'o:n • 
mission, and the Commission shell re
quire the agency to take whatever action 
is appropriate.

(2) When a complainant, after com
pletion of the investigot'on of his 
complaint under § 713.21t;, requests a 
hearing and in connection with that 
complaint, alleges restraint, interference, 
coercion, discrimination, or reprisal, tire 
complaints cjyunim r assigned to hold -h«* 
hearing shall consider the allegation 
an issue in tiro cor.•plaint r.t hand ev 
refer the matter to the agency for tin Hr .
processing under the procedure chosen 
by the complainant pursuant to para
graph (a) of this section.
(37 FJR. 22717, O ct. 21, 1972, as am e n d e d  a t  
37 F .R . 25C-99, Dec. 2 ,1972)



108

Remedial Actions 
§ 7 1 3 .2 7 1  Remedial actions.

(a) R e m e d ia l  a c t io n  involving a n  a p 
p l ic a n t . (1) When an agency, or the 
Commission, finds that an applicant for 
employment has been discriminated 
against and except for that discrimina
tion would have been hired, the agency 
shall offer the applicant employment of 
the type and grade denied him. The offer 
shall be made in writing. The individual 
shall have 15 calendar days from receipt 
of the offer within which to accept or 
decline the offer. Failure to notify the. 
agency of his decision within the 15-day 
period will be considered a declination of 
the offer, unless the individual can show 
that circumstances beyond his control 
prevented him from responding within 
the time limit. If the offer is accepted, 
appointment shall be retroactive to the 
date the applicant would have been hired, 
subject to the limitation in subparagraph 
(4> of this paragraph. Backpay, com
puted in the same manner prescribed by 
S 550.804 of this chapter, shall be awarded 
from the beginning of the retroactive pe 
riod, subject to the same limitation, until 
the date the individual actually enters 
on duty. The individual shall be deemed 
to have performed service for the agency 
during this period of retroactivity for all 
purposes except for meeting service re
quirements for completion of a proba
tionary or trial period that is required. 
If the offer is declined, the. agency shall 
award the individual a run' equal to the 
backpay he would have received, com
puted in the same manner prescribed by 
§ 550.804 of this chapter, from the date 
lie would have been appointed until tie- 
date the offer was made, subject to the 
limitation of subparagraph (4» of this 
paragraph. The agency shall inform the 
applicant, in its offer, of his right to this 
award in the event he declares the offer.

(?> when an agency, or the Commis
sion, finds that discrimination existed 
at- the time the applicant war, considered 
for cmploj, ment hut does not find that 
the individual is the one who would haw  
been hired except for discrimination, 
the agency shr.ll consider the individual 
for any existing vacancy of the type and 
grade for which ha had been considered
Initially and for which he is qualified 
before consideration is given to other 
candidates. If the individual is not se
lected, the agency shall record the rea- 
-sons for nonselection. If no vacancy 
exists, the agency shall give him this 
priority consideration for the next va
cancy for wiiich he is qualified. This pri
ority shall take precedence over priorities 
provided under other regulations in this 
-chapter.



109

(3) This paragraph shah be cited as 
the authority under which the above- 
described appointments or awards of 
backpay shall be made.

(4' A period oi retroactivity or a pe
riod for which backpay is awarded un
der this paragraph may not extend from 
a date earlier than 2 years prior to the 
date on which the complaint was ini
tially filed by the applicant. It a finding 
of discrimination was not based on a 
complaint, the period of retroactivity or 
period for which backpay is awarded 
this paragraph may not extend earlier 
than 2 years prior to the date the finding 
of discrimination was recorded.

(b) R e m e d ia l  a c t io n  in v o ic in g  a n  e m 
p loyee.. When an agency, or the Com
mission, finds that an employee of the 
agency was discriminated against and 
as a result of that discrimination was de
nied an employment benefit, or an ad
ministrative decision adverse to him v as 
made, the agency shad take remedial 
.actions which shall include one or more 
of the following, but need no*, be limited 
to these actions:

(1) Retroactive promotion, with back
pay computed in the same manner pre
scribed by 5 550.304 of this chapter, when 
the record clearly shows that but u>” ‘ho 
discrimination the employee would have 
been promoted or would have been em
ployed at a higher grade, except that 
the backpay liability may not accrue from 
a  date earlier than 2 years prior to the 
date the discrimination complain'- war 
filed, but, in any event, not to exceed 
the date lie would have been promoted 
If a finding ot discrimination was not 
based on a complaint. the backpay lia
bility may nut accrue from a date earlier 
than 2 ycais prior to the date the find
ing of discrimination was leeordod, l-ui, 
in any event, no' to exceed the date he 
would have been promoted.

(2) Consideration for promotion to a. 
position for which .he i:-. qualified bcfoie 
consideration is g-i's.n to other candi
dates when the lecord shows that db- 
.criinination existed at .lie time selection
for promotion was made but it is not 
clear that except for the discrimination 
the employee would have been promoted. 
If the individual is not selected, the 
agency shall record the reasons for non
selection. This priority consideration, 
shall take precedence over priorities un
der other regulations in this chapter.

(3) Cancellation of an unwarranted 
personnel action and restoration of the 
employee.



110

(4) Expunction from the agency’s rec
ords of any reference to or any record of
an unwarranted disciplinary action that 
is not a personnel action.

(5) Full opportunity to participate in 
the employee benefit denied him (e.g., 
training, preferential work assignments, 
overtime scheduling).

B i g h t  t o  F i l e  a C i v i l  A c t i o n  

§ 7 1 3 .2 8 1  Statutory right.
An employee or applicant is authorized 

by section 717(c) of the Civil Bights Act, 
as amended, 84 Stat. 112, to file a civil 
action in an appropriate IT.S. district 
court:

(a) Within thirty (30) calendar days 
of his receipt of notice of final action 
taken by his agency on a complaint.

(b) After one hundred-eighty 080) 
calendar days from the date of filing a 
complaint with Ills agency it there has 
been no decision.

(c) Within thirty (30) calendar days 
of his receipt of notice of final action 
taken by the Commission on his com
plaint, or,

(d) After one hundred-eighty 080) 
calendar clays from the date cf filing 
an appeal with the Commission h the e 
has been no Commission decision.
(37 P  R. 23699. Dec. 2, 1972)

§ 713.282  Notice o f  right.
An agency shall notify an c-my’oyce or 

applicant of his right to file a c’vil action, 
a id of the 30-day tune limit fo: f ling, !•> 
any final action on a compter. tm ’: 
§5 713,2)5, 713.257, 715.220, or f 7‘5 . '.  
The Commission shah notify y.t cmpl >: cc 
or applicant of his right to file r civd 
action, and of the 30-day time limit i.-.r 
filing, in any decision under 5 713.234.
[ 3 1 F .R . 22717, O t .  21, 1972, a s  a m e n d e d  f t  
37 J '.n .  2fiG99, Dec. 2, 1972]

§ 713.283 r.lTcct on adm inistrative j:u»c-
C S M Ilg .

The filing of a civil action by an em
ployee or applicant does not t rminate 
ncency processing ot a complaint or

Commission processing of an appeal 
under this subpart.



Ill

Subpart C— M inority  Group Statistics 
System

§ 713.301 Applicability.
(a) This subpart applies (1) to mili

tary departments as defined in section 
102* of title 5, United States Code, Execu
tive agencies (other than the General 
Accounting Office) as defined in section 
105 of title 5, United States Code, the 
U.S. Postal Service, and the Postal Rate 
Commission, and to the employees 
thereof, including employees paid from 
nonappropriated funds, and (2) to those 
portions of the legislative and judicial 
branches of the Federal Government and 
tire government of the District of Colum
bia having positions in the competitive 
service and to the employee in those 
positions.

(b) This subpart dees net apply to 
aliens employed outside the limits of the 
United States.
[34 F .R . 6371, M ar. 19, 1969, ns am ende.! a t  
84 F .R . 14024, Gept. 4, 1989; 36 F .E . 11999, 
J u n e  34, 1971)

§ 71 3.302 Agency systems.
(a) Each agency shall establish a 

system which provides statistical em
ployment information by race or national 
origin.

(b) Data shall be collected only by vis
ual identification and shall be disclosed 
only in the form of gross statistics. An 
agency shall not collect or maintain any 
information of the race or national or
igin of individual employees except when 
nn auto.: rated data processing system is 
used in accordance with standards n a i 
requirements prescribed by the Com
mission. to insure individual privacy and 
the separation of that information from 
personnel records.

(c) Each system Is subject to Uv- fol
lowing control^:

(!) Only those categories of race :•."<! 
national crU'.Jn prescribed by the Co; i- 
niis-'o "' nv.y be u. .';

(2) Only the specific prucrdmcs for 
tun collection and maintenance of dm.a 
that arc presnibed or npprov d by Urn 
Commission may be used;

c.») The Commission, shall review the 
operation of the agency system to in
sure adherence to Commission proce
dures and ! i e :in'ir,rnr . An evney  may 
make re: exception lo the prescrib'd pro
cedure. and requirements only with me

advance written approval of the
Commission.



112

(d) The agency may use the data only 
in studies and analyses which contribute 
affirmatively to achieving the objectives 
o f  the equal employment opportunity 
program. An agency shall not establish a 
quota for i!:e employment of persons on 
the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or 
national origin.

ie) An agency shall report to the Com
mission on employment by race and na
tional origin in the form and at such 
times as the Commission may require. 
[34 F .P . 6371, M ar. 19. 1969, as a m e n d e d  a t  
31 F .R . 14094, S e p t. 4. 19G9|

Subpart D — Equal O pportunity  W ith 
out Regard  to Politics, M arita!
Status, cr Physical H and icap

§ 713.401 E qual o p p o rtun ity  w ithout 
regard  to polities, m arita l stain.-', or 
physical iiand irap .

(a) I n  a p p o i n tm e n t s  a n d  p o s i t io n  
c h a n g e s . In determining the merit and 
fitness of a person for competitive ap
pointment or appointment by noncom
petitive action to a position in the com
petitive service, an appointing officer 
shall not discriminate on the basis of the 
person’s political affiliations, except when 
required ip statute, or marital status, nor 
shall he discriminate on the basis t f a 
physical handicap with respect to any 
position tin; duties of wlfich may be effi
ciently performed by a person with the 
physical huluheap.

lb! i n  m i v e r se  a c t io n s  o u t  t r r in i n a -  
tii a  o f  p r o b a t io n ! A n  seamy may nut
t. lie «:■ sd\ vac j  T .iu l it!', t-ri-
ploy, im v i'd by i 1 rt Veil of Libs c.:p.;>- 
ter. nor i fiVet ilia (■ ' u=1:...i i u of a ovo- 
bat-on; r uiuior 1 an 313 <«f this, chapter. 
(1) for j '.Utica! n  a sens, except when 
ivquhed by s*9tu! \  (2) that is based on 
df ennui.-, 'non h  :: arc m m arital. '. tv ,  
cr i"; for i>'■ ; *k&! edicap with r. :; 
t> any j—̂ tlc 'i the f'aths of •which y 
b y <u. : r. :y perfonv.ed by a pci son \ . r  h
i; . b.Y-! hendi'-.ip.
Copyright notice

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.
Hackley v. Johnson Brief for Appellee

Impact area

Topic

Matter

Case

Collection

Taxonomy

Identifier

Cite this item

Copyright notice

Additional info

You may also be interested in
