E.E.O.C. v. Western Pub. Co., Inc., 73-1894
| Decision Date | 27 August 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 73-1894,73-1894 |
| Citation | 502 F.2d 599 |
| Parties | 8 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 629, 8 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 9633 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Appellant, v. WESTERN PUBLISHING COMPANY, INC., and Allen Hall, Manager, Employee Relations, Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Susan J. Johnson, Atty., Appellate Section, EEOC, Washington, D.C., for appellant.
George P. Blake, Chicago, Ill., for appellees.
Before HEANEY and STEPHENSON, Circuit Judges, and SMITH, Senior District Judge. *
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission appeals from the District Court's denial in part of enforcement of a subpoena issued by the Commission pursuant to 710 of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-9 (Supp. II, 1973).
On January 9, 1971, Janet A. Brady filed a charge with the EEOC against the Western Publishing Company and Allen Hall, its personnel manager. The charge stated:
Mr. Hall has been discriminating against my race. He has become determine to destroy my life in every way possible, because I am a Negro. He has made it so hard that I can not get a job in the city of St. Louis since I quit work on June 29, 1970. He does not feel that I have a son and a ill mother to support. He just feel that as long as I am a Negro I don't need a job. I tried to talk to them but it has done no good, he has discriminated against me and is going to keep on discriminate against Negroes until something done. Please give me some help.
Ms. Brady further alleged that the most recent date on which the discrimination took place was January 5, 1971.
The EEOC referred the charge to the Missouri Commission on Human Rights by letter dated January 21, 1971. The Missouri Commission failed to act on it. On March 21, 1971, the EEOC assumed jurisdiction over the charge pursuant to the then provisions of 706(b) of Title VII of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(b) (1970).
On March 14, 1972, a perfected charge was filed which alleged that Ms. Brady had been 'fired.' On this same date, she filed an affidavit 1 with the Commission in which she averred that: she was the only black working in an office job at Western Publishing at the time she was hired; she was paid less than any other employee; she was not given raises like other employees; she was not given a promotion; she was harassed and eventually fired; and she was given bad references, all because she was black.
On March 21, 1972, an officer of the Commission tendered a demand for access to information to the company. The demand was rejected on the ground that it included information not relevant to the charge that Hall had given Ms. Brady bad references. 2
The final perfected charge was filed on January 15, 1973. It read as follows:
I feel Western Publishing Company has discriminated against me because of my race (Negro) by paying me less than any other salaried employee and by not giving me raises when others received raises. I feel the company has also discriminated against me and other Blacks because of our race (Negro) by not promoting us, by discriminating against us in hiring, and by discharging us because of our race (Negro). Finally I feel the company discriminated against me because of my race by giving out discriminatory references on me when I tried to find another job.
On February 21, 1973, the Commission issued a subpoena duces tecum to the company. It requested Hall to produce records, folders and agreements dealing with nearly every aspect of the company's employment practices and policies. 3
On February 28, 1973, Western Publishing filed with the Commission a Petition to Revoke the Subpoena on the grounds that the material requested did not relate to any matter properly under investigation or for which a valid charge had been filed. The company asserted that Ms. Brady's charge was invalid since it was not timely filed, and that even if valid, it was unreasonable, burdensome and oppressive.
On May 3, 1973, the Commission determined that: (1) all the allegations in the final perfected charge were valid and properly filed because the additional allegations contained in the final perfected charge were permissible amendments and the charge alleged class discrimination of a continuing nature; (2) all information requested was both relevant and material to the charge; and (3) the subpoena was not unreasonable, burdensome or oppressive.
The company continued to refuse to comply with the subpoena, and on June 25, 1973, the Commission filed a petition in the District Court to enforce the subpoena.
The District Court held a hearing on July 13, 1973. On November 6, 1973, the District Court issued its Memorandum and Order. It declined to decide whether the allegations other than 'discriminatory references' contained in the final perfected charge properly reflected the original charge. It reasoned that those allegations would not have been timely filed (within ninety days of their occurrence, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(d) (1970)) even if they were to relate back to the date the original charge was filed. It concluded that only the information relevant to the charge of 'discriminatory references' need be produced. It ordered the company to make available to the Commission only those records relating to termination (Item 9 of the subpoena, n. 3, supra) and the materials previously offered to the EEOC by the company. The latter materials include: (1) the company's 'personnel action forms' for all terminated employees; (2) a letter from the company to the Missouri State Employment Service concerning the company's position as to unemployment compensation for Ms. Brady; and (3) an affidavit from Mr. Hall concerning the company's reference policies. The 'personnel action forms' include the employee's name, date of termination, reason for termination, and employment performance. The company states that it is these forms that provide the basis for any references given regarding former employees including Ms. Brady.
This appeal was then filed by the Commission. The issues on appeal are whether the allegations in the final perfected charge other than discriminatory references were timely filed, and whether these additional allegations constituted permissible amendments to the original charge.
It is well established that lay complainants' charges are to be construed broadly in a liberal manner in order to effect the 'remedial and humanitarian underpinnings of Title VII and of the crucial role played by the private litigant in the statutory scheme.' Sanchez v. Standard Brands, Inc., 431 F.2d 455, 460 (5th Cir. 1970). It is also established that: (1) complainants' allegations are not to be construed 'in a crabbed, artificial manner,' Macklin v. Spector Freight Systems, Inc., 156 U.S.App.D.C. 69, 478 F.2d 979, 988 (1973); (2) 'the matters the Commission proceeds to investigate should assist in determining the scope of the complaint,' Id.; and (3) the Commission has the authority 'to reframe charges and to use available materials and information to articulate lay complainants' charges.' Blue Bell Boots, Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportun. Com'n, 418 F.2d 355, 357 (6th Cir. 1969). Furthermore, the regulations to Title VII provide, in part, that amendments to an original charge may be filed and relate back to the original filing date where the amendments allege 'additional acts which constitute unlawful employment practices directly related to or growing out of the subject matter of the original charge.' 29 C.F.R. 1601.11(b) (1973). In addition, it is clear that in the investigative stage if it has been alleged nonfrivolously that the violation charged is a continuing one, the statute of limitations may not be raised to preclude access to the evidence. Rather the Commission is entitled to see all the evidence relevant to the charge so it can decide 'whether it thinks that the violation is a continuing one, and, if so, whether it has reasonable cause to believe the charge is true.' Pacific Maritime Association v. Quinn, 491 F.2d 1294 (9th Cir. 1974).
Read in the light of the aforementioned principles, we think that the District Court erred in holding that the charge was not timely filed with respect to allegations other than discriminatory references. We are also convinced that the original charge can properly be read as asserting that the company had been practicing and continued to practice discrimination with respect to every phase of employment.
The record reveals that in the original charge, Ms. Brady stated: 'Mr. Hall has been discriminating against my race. * * *'. This sentence can only be read as indicating a belief on Ms. Brady's part that the discrimination was pervasive and continuing. That Ms. Brady intended that her charge be construed in this manner is supported by her further...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shehadeh v. Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Co. of Maryland
...849, 853, 28 L.Ed.2d 158, 163 (1970); B. Schlei & P. Grossman, Employment Discrimination Law 908 (1976).44 In EEOC v. Western Publishing Co., 502 F.2d 599 (8th Cir. 1974), the court approved enforcement of a Commission subpoena prompted by a charge of racially-motivated adverse employment r......
-
Jacobs v. BD. OF REGENTS, ETC.
...508 F.2d 239 (3rd Cir. 1975), cert. denied 421 U.S. 1011, 95 S.Ct. 2415, 44 L.Ed.2d 679. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Western Publishing Co., 502 F.2d 599 (8th Cir. 1974); Belt v. Johnson Motor Lines, Inc., 458 F.2d 443 (5th Cir. 1972); White v. City of Suffolk, 460 F.Supp. 51......
-
Rich v. Martin Marietta Corp.
...VII may file charges with the EEOC at any time during which the alleged continuing violation has taken place. See EEOC v. Western Publishing Co., 502 F.2d 599 (8th Cir. 1974); Macklin v. Spector Freight Systems, Inc., 478 F.2d 979 (D.C.Cir.1973); Belt v. Johnson Motor Lines, Inc., 458 F.2d ......
-
McPartland v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc.
...broadly and in a liberal manner in order to effect the remedial and humanitarian underpinnings of Title VII," EEOC v. Western Publishing Co., 502 F.2d 599, 603 (8th Cir.1974). I also note, however, that plaintiff was represented by counsel from April 1978 through June 1982. I will take both......