EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OP. COM'N v. Western Electric Co., Inc.

• Decision Date: 26 September 1974
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 73-448-N.
• Citation: 382 F. Supp. 787
• Parties: EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION v. WESTERN ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Maryland

382 F. Supp. 787

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION v. WESTERN ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC.

Civ. A. No. 73-448-N.

United States District Court, D. Maryland.

August 15, 1974.

As Amended September 26, 1974.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

William A. Carey, Gen. Counsel, William L. Robinson, Associate Gen. Counsel, EEOC, Washington, D. C., Delores Wilson, Regional Atty., Thomas Gibson, Associate Regional Atty., Raymond D. Goodman, and Joseph D'Arrigo, Asst. Regional Attys., EEOC, Philadelphia Regional Litigation Center, Philadelphia, Pa., and George Beall, U. S. Atty., and James M. Kramon, Asst. U. S. Atty., for the District of Maryland, for plaintiff.

Michael Hertzberg, New York City and Leonard E. Cohen and Monte Fried, Baltimore, Md., for defendant.

NORTHROP, Chief Judge.

This is a suit brought by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (hereinafter EEOC or Commission) against the Western Electric Company (hereinafter defendant) pursuant to § 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) as amended by Public Law 92-261 (March 24, 1972) (hereinafter the Act). The complaint¹ alleges that defendant has intentionally engaged in and is now intentionally engaging in unlawful employment practices which discriminate against blacks and women in violation of Title VII. The case is now before the Court on defendant's motion for summary judgment and partial summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The facts material to the resolution of the issues in this case have been made part of the record through answers to interrogatories and various documents.

On August 8, 1972, Cornelius Gaines, a black employee at the Western Electric plant in Baltimore, filed a charge with the EEOC alleging that he has been discharged from his job for insubordination and believed it was because of his race. He stated that a white employee, who had engaged in similar prohibited conduct, received only a ten-day suspension. The charge was deferred to the Maryland Commission on Human Relations for investigation. On September 8, 1972, the Baltimore District Office of EEOC was advised by letter that the State Commission had terminated its proceedings, and the charge was "officially" filed with the EEOC on that date. Thereafter, on September 13, 1972, notice of the charge was served by regular mail on the defendant.

An investigation ensued which took the form of interrogatories propounded to the defendant. No personal interviews were conducted with personnel of Western Electric nor were any tours of the plant made. Information was gathered by defendant, and answers were compiled and forwarded to the EEOC. On January 31, 1973, Western Electric was notified that the EEOC had determined that there was reasonable cause to believe that the defendant had engaged in unlawful employment practices and invited it to participate in conciliation discussions. It further advised defendant that if it failed to communicate its intent to participate in such discussions within seven days of receipt of the letter, the Commission would interpret such failure as indication that defendant did not wish to conciliate. The matter would then be referred to the EEOC's General Counsel for appropriate action. Western Electric did not respond to this correspondence. Pursuant to Regulation 1601.25, the Commission sent a second letter, dated February 22, 1973, stating that since defendant failed to avail itself of the EEOC's invitation, it concluded that defendant did not wish to engage in conciliation discussions. It further stated that the Commission intended to advise the charging party of his right to request a Notice of Right to Sue in the federal court, and that the case was being forwarded to General Counsel. The letter did not state that the defendant had a specified period of time within which it could make a written request to resume conciliation efforts before suit would be brought. On February 22, 1973, the EEOC notified Mr. Gaines of his right under § 706 to bring suit against the defendant, but this was not pursued. The instant case was instituted on May 7, 1973.

In its motion for summary judgment, Western Electric alleges that: (1) the notice of the charge sent by the Commission did not contain the name of the charging party and incorrectly stated the place of violation; (2) the Commission failed to institute suit within 180 days after the charge was filed; (3) the Commission failed to conduct a sufficient and/or proper investigation of the charge; and (4) the Commission failed to send a "last chance" notice pursuant to Commission Regulation 1601.23.

I.

Under § 706(b) of the Act, the EEOC is required to serve the defendant with a notice of the charge of discrimination within ten days of its filing. While conceding that it received timely notice, Western Electric contends that the notice did not contain the name of the charging party and that it incorrectly stated the place of violation.

This issue needs little discussion. Section 706(b) provides that "... the Commission shall serve a notice of the charge (including the date, place and circumstances of the alleged unlawful employment practice) on the employer ...." There is no requirement that the charging party be named. Moreover, the EEOC's own regulations explicitly state that "unless otherwise determined by the Commission, the notice shall not identify the person filing the charge or on whose behalf it was filed." 29 C.F.R. § 1601.13. Where a question of statutory construction arises, great deference is accorded to the interpretation given the statute by the agency charged with its administration. Udall v. Tallman, 380 U.S. 1, 85 S.Ct. 792, 13 L.Ed.2d 616 (1965). When that deference is accorded here, the unambiguous language of the EEOC's regulations support a conclusion that the requirements have been met.

The Commission's incorrect statement of the place of violation is an unfortunate case of carelessness. Because of the serious nature of a charge of discrimination, the Commission should strive for accuracy in its notice to a defendant. However, such error certainly does not require summary judgment.

II.

Defendant next argues that § 706(f)(1) of the Act limits the EEOC's power to bring suit to 180 days from the date the charge is filed with the Commission. Section 706(f)(1) provides in pertinent part:

If within thirty days after a charge is filed with the Commission ..., the Commission has been unable to secure from the respondent a conciliation agreement acceptable to the Commission, the Commission may bring a civil action against any respondent ... named in the charge.... The person or persons aggrieved shall have the right to intervene in a civil action brought by the Commission .... If ... within one hundred and eighty days from the filing of such charge ... the Commission has not filed a civil action under this section ... or the Commission has not entered into a conciliation agreement to which the person aggrieved is a party, the Commission ... shall so notify the person aggrieved and within ninety days after the giving of such notice a civil action may be brought against the respondent named in the charge (A) by the person claiming to be aggrieved or (B) if such charge was filed by a member of the Commission, by any person whom the charge alleges was aggrieved by the alleged unlawful employment practice.... Upon timely application, the court may, in its discretion, permit the Commission ... to intervene in such civil action upon certification that the case is of general public importance. Upon request, the court may, in its discretion, stay further proceedings for not more than sixty days pending ... further efforts of the Commission to obtain voluntary compliance.

The precise meaning of this language has been argued before a number of district courts and has produced a clear split in authority.² The arguments for both sides were exhaustively set forth in Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Union Oil Co. of California, 369 F.Supp. 579 (N.D.Ala.1974), and will not be outlined here. The source of much of this confusion is the legislative history of the Act. It is simply unclear as to what Congress intended. The 1972 amendments were the product of much compromise and consensus; the debate contains conflicting statements that are impossible to reconcile. Counsel on both sides have found statements supportive of their position.

Despite this lack of clarity, the Court finds itself in agreement with that line of authority holding that the 180-day time period is not a limit on the EEOC's power to bring suit. A number of factors dictate this conclusion. At the time the 1972 amendments were being considered, Congress was acutely aware of the considerable backlog of charges which had accumulated at the Commission since its creation. It was also cognizant of the fact that lengthy delays were involved in the processing of those charges. Thus the House Report accompanying the amendments stated:

The Commission has stated, in testimony before this committee, that its caseload has increased even more rapidly than its projections had anticipated. ... In the case of the Commission, the burgeoning workload, accompanied by insufficient funds and a shortage of staff, has, in many instances, forced a party to wait 2 or 3 years before final conciliation can be instituted.... H.R.Rep.No. 92-238, 92nd Cong.2d Sess. 12, 1972; U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News, p. 2147.

At the same time, it was recognized that the proposed 1972 amendments would expand the Commission's jurisdiction and workload. Under these circumstances, it is difficult to believe that Congress established a time limit for bringing suit which it knew that the EEOC could not meet. In effect, Congress would be significantly weakening the very strong powers it sought to confer. The majority of the charges filed with the EEOC would remain unprocessed thus, leaving...