Brown v. Frontier Airlines, Inc.

• Decision Date: 03 November 1969
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. C-1484.
• Parties: William F. BROWN, Plaintiff, v. FRONTIER AIRLINES, INC., a Nevada corporation, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Colorado

305 F. Supp. 827

William F. BROWN, Plaintiff, v. FRONTIER AIRLINES, INC., a Nevada corporation, Defendant.

Civ. A. No. C-1484.

United States District Court D. Colorado.

November 3, 1969.

Theodore M. Smith, Denver, Colo., for plaintiff.

James E. Hautzinger, Denver, Colo., for defendant.

David Copus, Washington, D. C., for Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

CHILSON, District Judge.

This action was brought seeking relief for alleged discriminatory employment practices in violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e-2(a) which declares certain employment practices unlawful. Section 2000e-5(a) states:

"Whenever it is charged in writing under oath by a person claiming to be aggrieved * * * that an employer * * * has engaged in an unlawful employment practice, the Commission shall furnish such employer * * * with a copy of such charge and shall make an investigation of such charge, provided that such charge shall not be made public by the Commission. If the Commission shall determine, after such investigation, that there is reasonable cause to believe that the charge is true, the Commission shall endeavor to eliminate any such alleged unlawful employment practice by informal methods of conference, conciliation, and persuasion."

Section 2000e-5(e) provides in pertinent parts:

"If, within thirty days after a charge is filed with the Commission * * * the Commission has been unable to obtain voluntary compliance * * *, the Commission shall so notify the person aggrieved and a civil action may, within thirty days thereafter, be brought against the respondent named in the charge * * * by the person claiming to be aggrieved * * *."

The defendant has moved to dismiss the complaint for its failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Briefs have been filed in support of and in opposition to the motion.

From the briefs, the complaint and the records in this case, it appears the plaintiff filed a complaint with the Commission as required by Section 2000e-5(a). After investigation, the Commission wrote the plaintiff:

"Based upon a full investigation of your case, the Commission has determined that the facts upon which your charge is based, do not constitute a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and has issued the enclosed decision. Your charge was dismissed on the date on which the decision was signed.

"Enclosed is a notification which, if you so desire, you may use as a basis for suit in the U. S. District Court."

The plaintiff instituted this action within the 30-day period provided by Section 2000e-5(e).

In support of its motion, plaintiff contends that one of the jurisdictional requirements to maintain this action is a determination by the Commission:

"* * * that there is reasonable cause to believe that the charge is true * * *."

and since the Commission found that the facts on which plaintiff based his charge do not constitute a...