Dubois v. Packard Bell Corporation, No. 72-1333.
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | MURRAH, SETH and DOYLE, Circuit |
| Citation | 470 F.2d 973 |
| Parties | Betty Lou DUBOIS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PACKARD BELL CORPORATION, a corporation registered to do business in New Mexico, d/b/a Albuquerque Job Corps Center For Women, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Decision Date | 01 February 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 72-1333. |
470 F.2d 973 (1972)
Betty Lou DUBOIS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
PACKARD BELL CORPORATION, a corporation registered to do business in New Mexico, d/b/a Albuquerque Job Corps Center For Women, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 72-1333.
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
December 18, 1972.
Rehearing Denied February 1, 1973.
Gerald R. Lopez, Atty., Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Washington, D. C. (John de J. Pemberton, Jr., Acting General Counsel, and Julia P. Cooper, Chief, Appellate Section, Washington, D. C., on the brief amicus curiae), for appellant.
Bernard P. Metzgar, Albuquerque, N. M., on the briefs, for appellant.
Robert M. St. John, Albuquerque, N. M. (Rodey, Dickason, Sloan, Akin & Robb, P. A., Albuquerque, N. M., on the brief), for appellee.
Before MURRAH, SETH and DOYLE, Circuit Judges.
MURRAH, Circuit Judge.
Betty Lou Dubois resigned as an employee of the Albuquerque Job Corps Center for Women, operated and controlled by appellee Packard Bell Corporation. 144 days later she filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. She sought both injunctive and compensatory relief as provided under the Act. Inasmuch as subsection 706(b) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(b),1 requires that no charge may properly be filed with the EEOC until after proceedings have been commenced under applicable state law, the EEOC referred Mrs. Dubois' complaint to the New Mexico Human Rights Commission. The New Mexico Commission rejected the complaint as untimely under the 90-day filing period provided in N. M.Stat.Ann. § 4-33-9, subd. A (1971 Supp.), and returned it to the EEOC. When negotiations with Packard Bell failed, the EEOC notified Mrs. Dubois that she could bring suit pursuant to subsection 706(e).2
The trial court granted Packard Bell's motion for summary judgment on the ground that failure to file with the state agency within the 90-day period prescribed by the state statute precludes application of the extended federal filing period set forth in subsection 706(d) of Title VII. That subsection provides that where the state filing procedure set forth in subsection (b) has been followed, the 90-day federal filing period may be extended to either 210 days after the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred, or 30 days after receiving notice that the state or local agency has "terminated the proceedings under the State or local...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Baruah v. Young, Civ. A. No. M-81-1346.
...under state law was a necessary condition for the application of the 300-day EEOC filing period. Compare DuBois v. Packard Bell Corp., 470 F.2d 973, 974-75 (10th Cir. 1972) and Mobley v. Acme Markets, Inc., 473 F.Supp. 851, 856-57 (D.Md.1979) with EEOC v. Delaware Trust 536 F. Supp. 362 Co.......
-
Gabriele v. Chrysler Corp., 76-2265
...such prior resort have done so because Title VII's legislative history is very clear on that point. Dubois v. Packard Bell Corp., 470 F.2d 973, 975 (10th Cir. 1972); Crosslin v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co., 422 F.2d 1028, 1030-31 (9th Cir. 1970), vacated and remanded, 400 U.S.......
-
Holliday v. Ketchum, MacLeod & Grove, Inc., 77-1867
...such prior resort have done so because Title VII's legislative history is very clear on that point. Dubois v. Packard Bell Corp., 470 F.2d 973, 975 (10th Cir. 1972); Crosslin v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co., 422 F.2d 1028, 1030-31 (9th Cir. 1970), Vacated and remanded, 400 U.S.......
-
Roberts v. Western Airlines, C-71-1194-CBR.
...(en banc) (to take advantage of 210-day limit, complainant must file state claim within 90 days); Dubois v. Packard Bell Corporation, 470 F.2d 973, 974 (10 Cir. 1972) (complainant must abide by state statute of limitations to take advantage of longer federal time 14 Under California law thi......
-
Roberts v. Western Airlines, No. C-71-1194-CBR.
...(en banc) (to take advantage of 210-day limit, complainant must file state claim within 90 days); Dubois v. Packard Bell Corporation, 470 F.2d 973, 974 (10 Cir. 1972) (complainant must abide by state statute of limitations to take advantage of longer federal time 14 Under California law thi......
-
Baruah v. Young, Civ. A. No. M-81-1346.
...under state law was a necessary condition for the application of the 300-day EEOC filing period. Compare DuBois v. Packard Bell Corp., 470 F.2d 973, 974-75 (10th Cir. 1972) and Mobley v. Acme Markets, Inc., 473 F.Supp. 851, 856-57 (D.Md.1979) with EEOC v. Delaware Trust 536 F. Supp. 362 Co.......
-
Holliday v. Ketchum, MacLeod & Grove, Inc., No. 77-1867
...such prior resort have done so because Title VII's legislative history is very clear on that point. Dubois v. Packard Bell Corp., 470 F.2d 973, 975 (10th Cir. 1972); Crosslin v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co., 422 F.2d 1028, 1030-31 (9th Cir. 1970), Vacated and remanded, 400 U.S.......
-
Curto v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., No. 82 C 1576.
...under the analogous provisions of Title VII. See Jordan v. United States, 522 F.2d 1128 (8th Cir.1975); Dubois v. Packard Bell Corp., 470 F.2d 973 (10th Cir. 1973); Shudtz v. Dean Witter & Co., 418 F.Supp. 14, 17 (S.D.N.Y.1976). See also Williams v. Department of the Navy, 472 F.Supp. 747, ......