Blue Bell Boots, Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportun. Com'n
Decision Date | 28 October 1969 |
Docket Number | No. 18924.,18924. |
Citation | 418 F.2d 355 |
Parties | BLUE BELL BOOTS, INC., formerly J. W. Carter Company, Petitioner-Appellant, v. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Respondent-Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Whiteford S. Blakeney, Charlotte, N. C., for appellant, F. A. Berry, Jr., Nashville, Tenn., Brown, Hill, Boswell, Blakeney, Alexander & Machen, Charlotte, N. C., of counsel.
David Cashdan, Washington, D. C., for appellee, Daniel Steiner, Gen. Counsel, Russell Specter, Asst. Gen. Counsel, on brief.
Before WEICK, O'SULLIVAN and McCREE, Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal from the dismissal of a petition to set aside a demand for access to evidence made by respondent-appellee Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).1 The petition was filed pursuant to section 710(c) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-9(c), and alleged a failure by the Commission to comply with the provisions of the Act in three respects: (1) no sworn charge was filed with the EEOC within 90 days of the alleged acts of discrimination; (2) the EEOC did not notify the "person aggrieved" within sixty days of failure to obtain voluntary compliance with the Act; and (3) the evidence demanded by the EEOC is not relevant to the charge.
Between October 7 and October 21, 1966, petitioner (then called the J. W. Carter Company) discharged seven Negro employees. On November 8, 1966, the EEOC received from the Tennessee Commission on Human Relations a letter containing seven charges set forth on EEOC forms and signed by the seven employees who had been discharged. Each charge related a detailed (and identical) account of the employees' experiences at the company, and each complainant alleged that she had been discharged for reasons of race or color. However, the forms on which the charges were filed did not provide a place for an oath or affidavit, and the charges were unsworn.
Almost six months later, on March 30, 1967, the EEOC served petitioner with seven charges. These charges were dated March 29, 1967, and contained allegations by the seven former employees that they had been discharged because of race or color.2 The charges were signed and verified by the discharged employees. However, the detailed recital of events which had appeared in the November 8, 1966 charges was not included. The charges merely declared:
Petitioner contends that because the November 8 documents did not contain sworn statements by the former employees, they were not "charges" within the meaning of the Act. Accordingly, petitioner contends, no "charges" were filed within 90 days of the alleged discriminatory practices as required by section 706(d) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(d).
U.S.C. §§ 2000e-5(a) and 2000e-5(d), provide in part:
Although a literal reading of section 706(a) would seem to require that a charge be verified at the time of filing with the Commission, a reading of the entire statute makes it clear that the Congressional intent in requiring an oath is to prevent the harassment of respondents by reckless charges. However, this purpose can be served by requiring verification before action is taken by the Commission, and this was done in the instant proceeding. Such a construction recognizes the remedial nature of the statute and does not prejudice an unwary victim of discrimination by insistence upon a formal requirement which can be supplied before the respondent is brought into the picture. Accordingly, courts have consistently held that a charge filed within ninety days of an alleged unfair practice need not be accompanied by the oath of the complainant. Sworn verification may occur later. Choate v. Caterpillar Tractor Co., 402 F.2d 357 (7 Cir. 1968), rev'g 274 F.Supp. 776 (S.D.Ill.1967); Georgia Power Co. v. EEOC, 295 F.Supp. 950 (N.D.Ga.1968); Weeks v. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 277 F.Supp. 117 (S.D.Ga.1967); LeBlanc v. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., No. 67-573, (E.D.La.1967); Roig v. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., No. 67-574, (E.D.La. 1967); Wheeler v. Bohn Aluminum Co., 58 Lab.Cas. ¶ 9137, 68 L.R.R.M. 2762 (W.D.Mich. June 12, 1968); Kendrick v. American Bakery Co., 58 Lab.Cas. ¶ 9146, 69 L.R.R.M. 2012 (N.D.Ga.1968); Russell v. Alpha Portland Cement Co., F.Supp., 58 Lab.Cas. ¶ 9151, 69 L.R.R.M. 2256 (N.D.Ala.1968). See also 29 C.F.R. § 1601.11(b).
Petitioner also attempts to invoke the ninety day requirement of section 706(d) by suggesting that the variances between the November 8 charges and the March 29 charges converted the latter into a new, and different, set of charges, which would be untimely. Again, we find petitioner's reasoning unpersuasive. The March 29 charges reflect the essence of the earlier charges and merely represent an exercise of the Commission's authority to reframe charges and to use available materials and information to articulate lay complainants' charges. Union Bank v. EEOC, 408 F.2d 867, n. 6, (9 Cir. 1968); Wheeler v. Bohn Aluminum Co., 58 Lab.Cas. ¶ 9137, at 6535 (W.D.Mich.1968).
Finally, petitioner contends that the Commission did not provide it with copies of the charges as required by section 706(a), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(a). Since the only charges "under oath" were those prepared on March 29, 1967, it is clear the Commission did comply with this requirement when it served those charges on petitioner on March 30, 1967.3 The Commission was not required to serve the unsworn charges of November 8, 1966 on petitioner.
Section 706(e) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e), provides:
If within thirty days after a charge is filed with the Commission * * *, the Commission has been unable to obtain voluntary compliance with this subchapter, 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 (1) by the person claiming to be aggrieved, * *.
In the present case, the Commission did not notify the complainants of a failure to obtain voluntary compliance. Petitioner contends that this failure to notify the complainants should bar subsequent civil actions by the complainants and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Shell Oil Company
...special regulations more closely tailored to the characteristics of "pattern-or-practice" cases. 20 See, e.g., Blue Bell Boots, Inc. v. EEOC, 418 F.2d 355, 358 (CA6 1969); cf. Local No. 104, Sheet Metal Workers v. EEOC, 439 F.2d, at 243 (information regarding pre-1965 practices is relevant ......
-
E.E.O.C. v. Bay Shipbuilding Corp.
...at 1075-1076, 643 F.2d at 985-986; EEOC v. University of New Mexico, 504 F.2d 1296, 1299-1302 (10th Cir. 1974); Blue Bell Boots, Inc. v. EEOC, 418 F.2d 355, 358 (6th Cir. 1969).9 Section 2000e-8(e) provides in part:It shall be unlawful for any officer or employee of the Commission to make p......
-
Rich v. Martin Marietta Corp.
...Workers Int'l Assoc. v. EEOC, 439 F.2d 237 (9th Cir. 1971); Graniteville Co. v. EEOC, 438 F.2d 32 (4th Cir. 1971); Blue Bell Boots, Inc. v. EEOC, 418 F.2d 355 (6th Cir. 1969); Georgia Power Co. v. EEOC, 412 F.2d 462 (5th Cir. 1969).7 See Brito v. Zia Co., 478 F.2d 1200 (10th Cir. 1973); Spu......
-
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Bailey Co., Inc.
...§ 2000e-8(a), the EEOC may gain access to evidence that is relevant to the charge under investigation, see Blue Bell Boots, Inc. v. EEOC, 418 F.2d 355, 358 (6th Cir. 1969), and under § 710, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-9, 2 the EEOC may gain access to evidence that relates to any matter under investig......
-
Texas Commission on Human Rights Act: Procedures and Remedies
...light on the allegations against the employer.” EEOC v. Shell Oil Co., 466 U.S. 54, 68-69 (1984) (citing Blue Bell Boots, Inc. v. EEOC, 418 F.2d 355, 358 (6th Cir. Texas Employment Law 2. Maintenance of Records An employer under investigation in connection with a charge filed with the Commi......
-
Texas commission on human rights act: procedures and remedies
...light on the allegations against the employer.” EEOC v. Shell Oil Co. , 466 U.S. 54, 68-69 (1984) (citing Blue Bell Boots, Inc. v. EEOC , 418 F.2d 355, 358 (6th Cir. 1969)). 2. Maintenance of Records An employer under investigation in connection with a charge filed with the Commission must ......
-
Texas Commission on Human Rights Act : Procedures and Remedies
...light on the allegations against the employer.” EEOC v. Shell Oil Co. , 466 U.S. 54, 68-69 (1984) (citing Blue Bell Boots, Inc. v. EEOC , 418 F.2d 355, 358 (6th Cir. 1969)). 2. Maintenance of Records An employer under investigation in connection with a charge filed with the Commission must ......
-
Texas Commission on Human Rights Act: Procedures and Remedies
...light on the allegations against the employer.” EEOC v. Shell Oil Co. , 466 U.S. 54, 68-69 (1984) (citing Blue Bell Boots, Inc. v. EEOC , 418 F.2d 355, 358 (6th Cir. 1969)). 2. Maintenance of Records An employer under investigation in connection with a charge filed with the Commission must ......