672 F.2d 207 (D.C. Cir. 1982), 81-1790, Saltz v. Lehman

Docket Nº:81-1790.
Citation:672 F.2d 207
Party Name:Irving SALTZ, Appellant, v. John F. LEHMAN, Secretary of the Navy.
Case Date:March 09, 1982
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 207

672 F.2d 207 (D.C. Cir. 1982)

Irving SALTZ, Appellant,

v.

John F. LEHMAN, Secretary of the Navy.

No. 81-1790.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

March 9, 1982

Miller Marshall, Washington, D. C., was on the brief for appellant.

Charles F. C. Ruff, U.S. Atty., Washington, D.C., at the time the brief was filed, Royce C. Lamberth, Kenneth M. Raisler and Diane M. Sullivan, Asst. U.S. Attys., Washington, D.C., were on the brief for appellee.

Before ROBB and WALD, Circuit Judges, and GERHARD A. GESELL, [*] United States District Judge for the District of Columbia.

Opinion PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM:

This appeal is from a district court order granting appellee's (defendant below) motion to dismiss appellant's (plaintiff below) Title VII claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Appellant's complaint against the Naval Material Command Support Activity ("NMCSA" or "agency"), Department of the Navy, alleged discrimination based upon appellant's non-selection for three GS-14 vacancies, which were filled on June 20, 1972, September 15, 1973, and February 2, 1974. Appellant first notified an Equal Employment Opportunity Counselor at the agency on November 9, 1974. He formally complained to the Department of the Navy on March 28, 1975. After investigation of the complaint, NMCSA issued notice that it found no discrimination. After a hearing, an examiner from the Federal Employee Appeals Authority, Civil Service Commission, likewise found no discrimination; the Secretary of the Navy agreed, but the Appeals Review Board of the Civil Service Commission rescinded the agency's decision for failure to consider all issues raised. On rehearing, the examiner again found no discrimination

Page 208

and the Secretary issued the agency's final decision to that effect. Appellant unsuccessfully appealed to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"), which also found no discrimination. Appellant then brought suit in the district court, where the government argued, inter alia, that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because of appellant's failure to adhere to 5 C.F.R. § 713.214(a) (4) (1978), which requires initial Title VII complaints to be brought to the attention of the agency Equal Employment Opportunity Counselor within thirty days. 1

The Supreme Court has very recently resolved the question of whether the timely-filing...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP