Ferguson Perforating and Wire Co. v. Rhode Island Commission for Human Rights, 78-122-M
| Decision Date | 26 June 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 78-122-M,78-122-M |
| Citation | 415 A.2d 1055 |
| Parties | 32 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 213, 23 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 31,053 FERGUSON PERFORATING AND WIRE CO. v. RHODE ISLAND COMMISSION FOR HUMAN RIGHTS. P. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
This is a petition for a writ of certiorari filed by the Rhode Island Commission for Human Rights (commission) to review a judgment of the Superior Court, sitting without a jury, reversing the commission's decision that a complaint they issued against Ferguson Perforating and Wire Co. (Ferguson) for an alleged violation of the Rhode Island Fair Employment Practices Act satisfied the procedural due-process requirements established by G.L.1956 (1968 Reenactment) § 28-5-18.
On December 12, 1974, Virginia Bogacki filed a complaint with the commission which alleged that Ferguson discriminated against her on April 25, 1974, by firing her from her job because of her sex. The commission began its investigation of the charge on February 27, 1975, and issued a complaint on April 16, 1975. This complaint did not contain a notice of hearing and was addressed to Robert Waterman, an officer of the company, even though the commission knew that James Ferguson was the agent of record for Ferguson.
On May 7 and June 4, 1975, the commission made attempts to conciliate the matter, but these efforts failed.
On June 16, 1975, Ferguson moved to discuss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction because the complaint did not satisfy the procedural due-process requirements set forth in § 28-5-18.
On July 15, 1975, Ferguson was notified by the commission of a hearing to be held on the complaint on September 10, 1975. On July 23, 1975, Ferguson appeared before the commission to argue its motion for lack of personal jurisdiction, which motion the commission denied August 4, 1975. The commission's decision was reversed by the Superior Court, and the commission now seeks review of that judgment.
Section 28-5-18 provides in part that:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Horn v. Southern Union Co.
...enable such persons to investigate alleged violations and to preserve evidence * * *."); Ferguson Perforating and Wire Co. v. Rhode Island Commission for Human Rights, 415 A.2d 1055, 1056 (R.I.1980) ("These procedural protections are designed to provide respondents with adequate time for su......
-
Fricker v. Town of Foster, C.A. 84-0156 S.
...of Burnett compelling. See R.I. Gen.Laws §§ 28-5-19, 28-5-20, 28-5-21. See also Ferguson Perforating & Wire Co. v. Rhode Island Commission for Human Rights, 415 A.2d 1055, 1056 (R.I.1980). Lastly, while Burnett, 104 S.Ct. at 2930, limns the considerations which must be taken into account fr......
-
Rathbun v. Autozone, Inc.
...Inc. v. Rhode Island Common for Human Rights, 416 A.2d 673, 676 (R.I.1980). Similarly, in Ferguson Perforating and Wire Co. v. Rhode Island Comm'n for Human Rights, 415 A.2d 1055 (R.I.1980) the Rhode Island Supreme Court viewed the one-year limitation provision in FEPA as necessary to prote......
-
Gonsalves v. Alpine Country Club
...under which the HRC operates as providing the contestants with a meaningful hearing. See Ferguson Perforating and Wire Co. v. Rhode Island Commission for Human Rights, 415 A.2d 1055, 1056 (R.I.1980); Millett v. Hoisting Engineers' Licensing Division, 377 A.2d 229, 235-36 (R.I.1977). Such a ......