Goodman v. City Products Corp., Ben Franklin Div.

Decision Date14 May 1970
Docket NumberNo. 19321.,19321.
Citation425 F.2d 702
PartiesWalter GOODMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY PRODUCTS CORPORATION, BEN FRANKLIN DIVISION, Defendant-Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

Louis R. Lucas, Memphis, Tenn., for plaintiff-appellant; Jack Greenberg, Norman C. Amaker, Robert Belton, Lowell Johnston, New York City, on the brief.

Richard A. Brackhahn, Memphis, Tenn., for defendant-appellee; Fowler, Brackhahn & Young, Memphis, Tenn., on the brief.

Before PHILLIPS, Chief Judge, PECK, Circuit Judge, and WILSON*, District Judge.

FRANK W. WILSON, District Judge.

This case presents an appeal from an order of the District Court dismissing a lawsuit instituted pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.). The lawsuit was dismissed by the District Court upon the ground that it was not filed within the limitations period provided by statute. The issue presented upon this appeal is whether the District Court correctly construed and applied the statutory limitations period.

The undisputed facts as presented in the record on this appeal are as follows. The appellant was formerly employed by the appellee, City Products Corporation, Ben Franklin Division, in Memphis, Tennessee. On April 12, 1967, he was discharged from this employment. Thereafter he duly filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission pursuant to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, alleging racial discrimination in connection with his discharge. That Commission, finding reasonable cause to believe that a violation of the Act had occurred, attempted conciliation but was unable to effect a settlement by this means. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission thereupon advised the appellant by letter that it had failed in its effort at conciliation and further advised the plaintiff that, pursuant to § 706(e) of the Act 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e) he had 30 days following receipt of the letter within which to institute a lawsuit in the appropriate United States District Court. This notification was received by the appellant on August 12, 1968. (Some issue was raised in the court below in regard to this date, but the correctness of the date was conceded upon appeal) This lawsuit was then filed in the District Court upon September 12, 1968, a period of 31 days after receipt by the appellant of the Commission's notice. The District Court, upon motion, dismissed the action for failure to file the same within 30 days of receipt of the Commission's notice.

The limitations period applicable to the filing of a lawsuit of this nature is governed by § 706(e) of the Act 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e), this section providing in relevant part as follows:

"* * * 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 * * *"

It is the contention of the appellant that the foregoing statutory language is merely directory and not mandatory, since the permissive verb "may" rather than the mandatory verb "shall" is used. It is further contended that since the statute is remedial legislation designed to eliminate discrimination in employment, the Court should take a liberal view of jurisdictional prerequisites, including the time limitation for filing a lawsuit, and further the remedial purpose of the legislation by preserving the plaintiff's cause of action. Finally, it is contended that this Court should permit the late filing of the lawsuit under the circumstances of the case and as a matter of general equity jurisdiction. Citing cases construing time limitations applicable to the Equal Opportunity Commission in the performance of its functions as not limiting an aggrieved party in his access to the courts, Miller v. International...

To continue reading

Request your trial
74 cases
  • Cornelius v. City of Parma
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio
    • 22 Febrero 1974
    ...397 (N.D. Ga.1970), aff'd., 457 F.2d 511 (5th Cir. 1972); Brown v. Ballas, 331 F.Supp. 1033 (W.D.Tex.1971). Cf. Goodman v. City Products Corp., 425 F.2d 702 (6th Cir. 1970). Nor do the white plaintiffs at bar have standing under section 1982 to challenge the denial of the building permit.15......
  • Foreman v. General Motors Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan
    • 28 Junio 1979
    ...of potential administrative relief. p. 966. The Court, at page 966, went on to quote from its own opinion in Goodman v. City Products Corp., 425 F.2d 702 (6th Cir. 1970) as Compliance with the statutory requirements is a prerequisite to the institution of a civil action based on the statute......
  • Watson v. Limbach Company
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio
    • 27 Octubre 1971
    .......         N. Victor Goodman, Columbus, Ohio, for Local #189. . ...See, United States v. City of Chicago, 400 U.S. 8, 91 S.Ct. 18, 27 L.Ed.2d 9 ...Lone Star Lead Construction Corp; Evenson v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., supra ; ...See, Goodman v. City Products Corp., Ben Franklin Division, 425 F.2d 702 (6th ......
  • Roush v. Kartridge Pak Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Iowa
    • 14 Diciembre 1993
    ...410 U.S. 939, 93 S.Ct. 1403, 35 L.Ed.2d 606 (1973); Harris v. National Tea Co., 454 F.2d 307, 309 (7th Cir.1971); Goodman v. City Products Corp., 425 F.2d 702 (6th Cir.1970). This view that § 2000e-5(f)(1) was jurisdictional has gradually been transformed by a series of United States Suprem......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT