Molybdenum Corp. of Am. v. Equal Employment Op. Com'n
| Citation | 457 F.2d 935 |
| Decision Date | 29 March 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 71-1207.,71-1207. |
| Parties | MOLYBDENUM CORPORATION OF AMERICA, Petitioner-Appellee, v. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Respondent-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit) |
Philip B. Sklover, of E. E. O. C., Washington, D. C. (Stanley P. Hebert, John de J. Pemberton, Jr. and Julia P. Cooper, Washington, D. C., with him on the brief), for respondent-appellant.
Charles S. Solomon, Santa Fe, N. M., for petitioner-appellee.
Before MURRAH, SETH and HOLLOWAY, Circuit Judges.
In March, 1969, Fabian Cisneros' application for employment with Molybdenum Corporation of America was rejected for the stated reason that his vision was defective—he is blind in one eye. No claim of employment discrimination was made within 90 days of this occurrence. About six months later Cisneros again applied for employment with Molybdenum and was again rejected for the same reason. He thereupon filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), claiming that he was actually refused employment because of his nationality, not because of his defective vision.
Pursuant to an agreement between EEOC and the New Mexico Human Rights Commission, Cisneros' complaint was referred to the state agency in order to comply with that portion of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, requiring that the appropriate state agency be given 60 days within which to act or terminate its investigation before EEOC can take jurisdiction over a complaint. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(b). The state agency terminated its action four days after the referral and returned the complaint to EEOC without recommendation.
Upon Molybdenum's refusal to cooperate in the ensuing EEOC investigation, an administrative subpoena was issued and served on the company. Molybdenum then petitioned in District Court to have the administrative subpoena set aside, and EEOC cross-petitioned to have it enforced. The District Court ruled in favor of Molybdenum, basing its decision on two grounds: (1) the complaint was not properly filed with the EEOC in light of this Court's decision in Love v. Pullman Co., 430 F.2d 49 (10th Cir. 1970); and, (2) no complaint had been filed with either the state or federal agency within the 90-day limitation period applicable to both (see 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(d), and 4-33-9, subd. A, N.M.S.A. (1953 Comp., Pocket Supp.)).
The first reason can no longer serve to support the District Court's order in view of the recent reversal of the Love case. See Love v. Pullman Co., 404 U.S. 522, 92 S.Ct. 616, 30 L.Ed.2d 679 (1972).
The only question surviving is whether the 90-day...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pao v. Holy Redeemer Hosp.
...EEOC complaint on October 12, 1979 was timely. The facts of this case are similar to those in Molybdenum Corporation of America v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 457 F.2d 935 (1972), where the Tenth Circuit found that the 180-day period commenced after the plaintiff's second appli......
-
Jacobs v. BD. OF REGENTS, ETC.
...Air Lines, 514 F.2d 594 (9th Cir. 1975); Griffin v. Pacific Maritime Association, 478 F.2d 1118 (9th Cir. 1975); Molybedenum Corp. v. E. E. O. C. 457 F.2d 935 (10th Cir. 1972); Guatam v. First National City Bank, 425 F.Supp. 579 (S.D.N.Y. 1976); Kohn v. Royall, Koogel & Wells, 59 F.R.P. 515......
-
Rich v. Martin Marietta Corp.
...404 U.S. 939, 92 S.Ct. 274, 30 L.Ed.2d 252 (1971).The Tenth Circuit has previously acknowledged this rule in Molybdenum Corp. of America v. EEOC, 457 F.2d 935 (10th Cir. 1972). Like the McDonnell-Douglas case, this case involved a refusal to hire, rather than a refusal to promote. The plain......
-
Corbin v. Pan Am. World Airways, Inc., C-77-0029-CBR.
...1296 (9 Cir. 1974); Macklin v. Spector Freight Systems, Inc., 156 U.S.App.D.C. 69, 478 F.2d 979, 987 (1973); Molybdenum Corp. of America v. EEOC, 457 F.2d 935, 936 (10 Cir. 1972); Bartmess v. Drewrys U.S.A., Inc., 444 F.2d 1186, 1188 (7 Cir. 4 Article 15 provides: "The management of the Com......