Fix v. Swinerton and Walberg Company, Civ. A. No. C-2266.
| Citation | 320 F. Supp. 58 |
| Decision Date | 13 November 1970 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. C-2266. |
| Parties | Louis FIX, Plaintiff, v. SWINERTON AND WALBERG COMPANY, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Colorado |
Quiat and Quiat, P. C., Gerald M. Quiat, Denver, Colo., for plaintiff.
Dawson, Nagel, Sherman & Howard, William F. Schoeberlein, Edward Lee Dale, Denver, Colo., for defendant.
This is an action for damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f) for alleged employment discrimination.
From the pleadings, it appears that plaintiff filed a charge against the defendant with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission (State Commission) on June 25, 1968. Three days later, on June 28, 1968, he filed a similar charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Federal Commission) pursuant to Section 2000e-5(b), which provides for a lapse of sixty days between the filing with the State Commission and the filing with the Federal Commission, unless the proceedings before the State Commission have been earlier terminated.
On August 6, 1968, the State Commission notified the Federal Commission that the case had been terminated by the State Office. Thereafter, on August 12, 1968, the Federal Commission assumed jurisdiction and assigned the matter for investigation. The investigation was concluded on August 29, 1968. On April 14, 1970, the plaintiff received notice that he could, within thirty days, institute a civil action in the appropriate Federal District Court. This action was instituted May 13, 1970.
The defendant has moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and contends that the plaintiff's premature filing with the Federal Commission bars this action.
The Court finds there has been substantial compliance with the procedural requirements. Although the plaintiff filed his complaint with the Federal Commission prematurely, the Federal Commission did not proceed to act until after the State Commission had notified the Federal Commission of the termination of its investigation.
Substantial compliance with the procedural requirement is sufficient, and the motion to dismiss should be denied.
The defendant has also moved to strike from the complaint, the allegations relating to discrimination because of religion, and the national origins of plaintiff's parents. The basis of this motion is that the plaintiff's complaint to the Federal Commission was limited to discrimination because of his national origin and included...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stevenson v. International Paper Co.
...amended, 348 F.Supp. 1083 (S.D.Fla.1972); Jamison v. Olga Coal Co., 335 F.Supp. 454 (S.D.W.Va. 1971); Fix v. Swinerton and Walberg Co., 320 F.Supp. 58, 59 (D.Colo.1970). As a result of the policy favoring voluntary compliance with equal employment provisions, generally a complainant may not......
-
E.E.O.C. v. General Elec. Co.
...F.Supp. 1117, is unclear as to the basis of its ruling but it would be inferable, since it cited and relied on Fix v. Swinerton and Walberg Company (D.Colo.1970) 320 F.Supp. 58, (also a pre-Amendment case) as authority for its conclusion, that it presented the same issue as was involved in ......
-
Voutsis v. Union Carbide Corporation
...628, 21 L.Ed.2d 565 (1969); Nishiyama v. North American Rockwell Corp., 49 F.R.D. 288, 291 (C.D.Cal. 1970); Fix v. Swinerton & Walberg Co., 320 F.Supp. 58, 59 (D.Colo.1970); Bremer v. St. Louis S.W.R.R., 310 F.Supp. 1333, 1338-1339 (E.D.Mo.1969); Vigil v. American Tel. & Tel. Co., 305 F.Sup......
-
EQUAL EMPLOY. OP. COM'N v. Raymond Metal Prod. Co.
...(W.D.Tenn.1973); Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Hickey-Mitchell Co., 372 F.Supp. 1117 (E.D.Mo. 1973); Fix v. Swinerton & Wallberg Co., 320 F.Supp. 58 (D.Colo.1970). All of the cases cited by defendant rely on the basic test set forth in Sanchez. Regrettably, a trend seems to be ......