732 F.2d 1441 (9th Cir. 1984), 83-2087, Casavantes v. California State University, Sacramento

• Citation: 732 F.2d 1441
• Docket Number: 83-2087.
• Date: 09 May 1984
• Parties: Edward J. CASAVANTES, Deceased; Leona Casavantes, as Administratrix of the Deceased's estate; Margaret A. Casavantes; Steven E. Casavantes; David J. Casavantes; and Juan D. Hernandez, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, SACRAMENTO; W. Lloyd Johns, President; John Paul Walsma; and Earlene Ames, Defendants/Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

Page 1441

732 F.2d 1441 (9th Cir. 1984)

Edward J. CASAVANTES, Deceased; Leona Casavantes, as

Administratrix of the Deceased's estate; Margaret A.

Casavantes; Steven E. Casavantes; David J. Casavantes;

and Juan D. Hernandez, Plaintiffs/Appellants,

v.

CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, SACRAMENTO; W. Lloyd Johns,

President; John Paul Walsma; and Earlene Ames,

Defendants/Appellees.

No. 83-2087.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

May 9, 1984

Argued and Submitted Feb. 17, 1984.

Howard L. Dickstein, Kanter, Williams, Merin & Dickstein, Sacramento, Cal., Peggy R. Mastroianni, Atty., Washington, D.C., for plaintiffs/appellants.

Mary C. Michel, Sacramento, Cal., for defendants/appellees.

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California (Sacramento).

Before MERRILL, FARRIS and PREGERSON, Circuit Judges.

MERRILL, Circuit Judge:

Edward Casavantes was employed by the California State University in Sacramento as an untenured Associate Professor from 1973 to 1979. By letter dated June 1, 1978 Casavantes was informed that he had been denied tenure, and that the 1978-1979 academic year would be his last year of employment; he received this letter on June 2 or 3, 1978.

On February 6, 1979 (248 days after receipt of the notice of termination), Casavantes travelled to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission office in San Francisco where he completed and filed with the Commission its Form 283, captioned "Intake Questionnaire." On that Form he asserted that he had been terminated because of his race, national origin, and outspoken demeanor regarding minority issues. Casavantes also summarized information about himself, the University,

Page 1442

and grievance proceedings that had already been pursued. After completing Form 283, Casavantes was interviewed by an EEOC representative.

On April 11, 1979 (313 days after notice of termination), a formal charge document was sent to Casavantes by the Commission, and on April 14, 1979, it was signed by Casavantes and mailed back. On September 8, 1981, a right-to-sue letter was issued by the Commission, and on December 4, 1981, Casavantes's estate filed suit.

The District Court dismissed the suit upon the ground that it was without jurisdiction since Casavantes's claim was time-barred, not having been the subject of a civil action brought within 300 days of the discriminatory act under Sec. 706, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e-5(e). ¹

In our determination of whether Casavantes complied with the procedural portions of Title VII, we are guided by the principle that "[t]he Equal Employment Opportunity Act is a remedial statute to be liberally construed in favor of the victims of discrimination." Mahroom v. Hook, 563 F.2d 1369, 1375 (9th Cir.1977), cert. denied, 436 U.S. 904, 98 S.Ct. 2234, 56 L.Ed.2d 402 (1978). We have noted that a liberal construction is particularly appropriate in situations in which the complainant is acting pro se. See Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 455 U.S. 385, 397, 102 S.Ct. 1127, 1135, 71 L.Ed.2d 234 (1982); Rice v. Hamilton Air Force Base Commissary, 720 F.2d 1082, 1084 (9th Cir.1983). Cf. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Shell Oil Co., --- U.S. ----, 104 S.Ct. 1621, 80 L.Ed.2d 41 (April 2, 1984) (nontechnical interpretation of charge filed by Commission).

To maintain a Title VII action a complainant must first file a charge of discrimination with the Commission within 180 days--or 300 days under specified circumstances applicable here--of the alleged unlawful employment practice, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e-5(e), and receive the statutory notice of right to sue, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e-5(f)(1). A charge must "be in writing under oath or affirmation and shall contain such information and be in such form as the Commission requires." 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e-5(b). The charge intake process is principally designed to facilitate the processing of valid charges while screening out invalid charges at the earliest possible time. See B. Schlei & P. Grossman, Employment Discrimination Law 940 (2d ed. 1983). Casavantes argues that his filing of an Intake Questionnaire satisfied the statutory obligation to initiate the administrative process within the required 300-day period. We agree. This position is consistent with the recent trend in Title VII jurisprudence which recognizes the importance of nontechnical interpretations of the procedural requirements inherent in...