Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Pet, Inc., Funsten Nut Division, 79-1666
| Citation | 612 F.2d 1001 |
| Decision Date | 03 March 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 79-1666,79-1666 |
| Parties | 22 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 370, 22 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 30,716 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PET, INCORPORATED, FUNSTEN NUT DIVISION, Defendant-Appellee. Summary Calendar. * |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit) |
Juan Ramon V. Gomez, E.E.O.C., Washington, D.C., for plaintiff-appellant.
Fisher & Phillips, Charles Kelso, Monica Malys, Atlanta, Ga., J. Doyle Fuller, Montgomery, Ala., for defendant-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama.
Before GEE, HENDERSON and HATCHETT, Circuit Judges.
We relate the facts as stated in the brief of plaintiff-appellant Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC):
This is an appeal from a judgment dismissing the complaint filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against Pet, Incorporated, Funsten Nut Division, under § 706(f)(1) of Title VII, Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 20003 (§ 2000e) Et seq. (1976). The Commission brought suit as a class action alleging that Pet maintained race-segregated facilities and departments, and engaged in a discriminatory discharge policy. The district court held that it lacked jurisdiction of the class claims because the Commission had not attempted to conciliate class issues after the company refused to discuss relief for the charging party.
The action arose out of a charge filed on November 15, 1973, by Elbert Perdue, a black male, stating that he had been discriminatorily discharged because of his race. In 1973, Mr. Perdue amended his charge to state his belief that the company discriminated against blacks by maintaining segregated job classifications and segregated facilities.
After investigation, the Commission, on September 29, 1977, found reasonable cause to believe that the charging party had been discriminatorily discharged and that Pet maintained segregated facilities and departments. The determination invited the parties to participate in informal attempts to settle the charge.
Pet expressed its willingness to engage in conciliation attempts, but stated that it had "no interest in either re-employing (charging party) or paying him any back wages."
Subsequently, when the EEOC conciliator informed Pet through counsel that the Commission would fail conciliation unless the individual allegations were also considered, Pet reinterated (sic) its position that it was "unwilling to do anything for the charging party." An internal memorandum of the company shows that it was aware that failure to discuss the individual claim might result in a suit on the general allegations.
On January 27, 1978, the Commission notified the company of the failure of conciliation efforts, pursuant to EEOC Regulation § 1601.25.
(record references and footnotes omitted).
In sum, when appellee declined to grant relief...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
EEOC v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
...precede the filing of a Commission lawsuit"). "Attempt to conciliate" is the prevailing standard. See e. g., EEOC v. Pet, Inc., 612 F.2d 1001, 1002 (5th Cir. 1980); EEOC v. Radiator Speciality Co., 610 F.2d 178, 183 (4th Cir. 1979); EEOC v. Airguide Corp., 539 F.2d 1038, 1042 (5th Cir. 1976......
-
E.E.O.C. v. Dial Corp.
...merely because an impasse has occurred as to the charging party, smacks more of coercion than of conciliation." EEOC v. Pet, Inc., 612 F.2d 1001, 1002 (5th Cir.1980). Thus, the court concluded, "[s]uch an all-or-nothing approach on the part of a commission, one of whose most essential funct......
-
Harris v. Amoco Production Co.
...dispute by Amoco's contention that the EEOC did not seek conciliation beyond an initial overture. Cf. EEOC v. Pet, Inc., Funsten Nut Div., 612 F.2d 1001, 1002 (5th Cir.1980) (per curiam) (holding that EEOC efforts to conciliate were not conducted with sufficient good faith). In light of the......
-
Equal Employment Opportunity Comm'n v. Bloomberg L.P.
...have sought to coerce a settlement, knowing it could simply add the retaliation claims to pending litigation, EEOC v. Pet, Inc., 612 F.2d 1001, 1002 (5th Cir.1980) (per curiam) (stating that EEOC's conduct “smacks more of coercion than of conciliation”). That context, along with the parties......
-
No Longer a Paper Tiger: the Eeoc and Its Statutory Duty to Conciliate
...also 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(b) (2006).94. See Asplundh, 340 F.3d at 1258-61.95. Id. at 1260 (quoting EEOC v. Pet, Inc., Funsten Nut Div., 612 F.2d 1001, 1002 (5th Cir. 1980)).96. The deferential standard of review implicitly requires the reviewing court to bifurcate the process and content of ......