Genovese v. Shell Oil Company, No. 73-1224.

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM
Citation488 F.2d 84
PartiesAnthony Joseph GENOVESE, III, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SHELL OIL COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.
Decision Date04 December 1973
Docket NumberNo. 73-1224.

488 F.2d 84 (1973)

Anthony Joseph GENOVESE, III, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
SHELL OIL COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 73-1224.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

December 4, 1973.


Richard W. Shelton, Cecil Burglass, Jr., New Orleans, La., for plaintiff-appellant.

Theodore J. Pfister, Jr., Al J. Moore, New Orleans, La., for defendant-appellee.

Before THORNBERRY, GODBOLD and CLARK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Anthony Joseph Genovese filed a Title VII sex discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) against his employer, Shell Oil Company. On January 25, 1972 he received notice from the EEOC that it had been unable to achieve voluntary compliance by Shell with Title VII. Genovese then filed this private action on March 7, 1972. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5 then provided that after the EEOC notifies the charging party that it has been unable to obtain voluntary compliance "a civil action may, within thirty days

488 F.2d 85
thereafter, be brought against the respondent named in the charge." The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Shell Oil Company upon the basis that Genovese had not complied with this provision

On appeal from this judgment, Genovese argues that, since Title VII is remedial legislation, its provisions should be liberally construed according to equity and justice so as not to serve as stumbling blocks for potential plaintiffs. He asserts that upon receipt of the EEOC notice he contacted his attorney and authorized the filing of suit, and that the attorney apparently misread the notice and thus mistakenly failed to comply with the 30-day requirement. Based on these facts, Genovese urges us to disregard the thirty-day limitation period in the instant case.

There is no room here for liberal or strict statutory construction since it is clear from the language of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5 that the 30-day requirement for the filing of suit is mandatory and jurisdictional. Nothing in the legislative history cited us by Genovese convinces us otherwise. The permissive word "may" refers only to the charging party's decision as to whether a civil action should be brought at all and does not modify the 30-day limitation provision so as to create "a discretion in the Court to receive the case following the expiration of 30 days." Goodman v. City Products, 425 F.2d 702 (6th Cir. 1970). Other circuits have also recognized that this requirement is jurisdictional. Harris v. National Tea Company, ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
39 practice notes
  • Coke v. General Adjustment Bureau, Inc., No. 77-2874
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • March 23, 1981
    ...within 90 days after receipt of the right-to-sue letter from the EEOC, 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-5(f)(1) (1974). See Genovese v. Shell Oil Co., 488 F.2d 84 (5th Cir. 1973); Wrenn v. American Cast Iron Pipe Co., 575 F.2d 544 (5th Cir. 1978). See also Eastland v. TVA, 553 F.2d 364 (5th Cir.), cert.......
  • Roush v. Kartridge Pak Co., No. 3-91-CV-30147.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. United States State District Court of Southern District of Iowa
    • December 14, 1993
    ...and mandatory." Id. See e.g., Cleveland v. Douglas Aircraft Co., 509 F.2d 1027, 1029 (9th Cir.1975); Genovese v. Shell Oil Co., 488 F.2d 84, 85 (5th Cir.1973); Archuleta v. Duffy's Inc., 471 F.2d 33, 34-35 (10th Cir.1973); Stebbins v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 469 F.2d 268, 269 (4th Cir.197......
  • EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OP. COM'N v. General Dynamics Corp., Civ. A. No. CA 4-74-54.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. Northern District of Texas
    • August 15, 1974
    ...with favor in interpretations of the more explicit language regarding the right to sue of individual claimants. Genovese v. Shell Oil Co., 488 F.2d 84 (5th Cir. 1973). A pure expression of this position is found in Simon v. United States, 244 F.2d 703, 705 (5th Cir. 1957) (quoting 34 Am.Jur......
  • Bell v. Brown, No. 75-1378
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • May 20, 1977
    ...of a view on a situation such as that presently before us. The court cited in support of the statement Genovese v. Shell Oil Co., 5 Cir., 488 F.2d 84 (1973), wherein the complaining employee "assert(ed) that upon receipt of the EEOC notice he contacted his attorney and authorized the filing......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
39 cases
  • Coke v. General Adjustment Bureau, Inc., No. 77-2874
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • March 23, 1981
    ...within 90 days after receipt of the right-to-sue letter from the EEOC, 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-5(f)(1) (1974). See Genovese v. Shell Oil Co., 488 F.2d 84 (5th Cir. 1973); Wrenn v. American Cast Iron Pipe Co., 575 F.2d 544 (5th Cir. 1978). See also Eastland v. TVA, 553 F.2d 364 (5th Cir.), cert.......
  • Roush v. Kartridge Pak Co., No. 3-91-CV-30147.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. United States State District Court of Southern District of Iowa
    • December 14, 1993
    ...and mandatory." Id. See e.g., Cleveland v. Douglas Aircraft Co., 509 F.2d 1027, 1029 (9th Cir.1975); Genovese v. Shell Oil Co., 488 F.2d 84, 85 (5th Cir.1973); Archuleta v. Duffy's Inc., 471 F.2d 33, 34-35 (10th Cir.1973); Stebbins v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 469 F.2d 268, 269 (4th Cir.197......
  • EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OP. COM'N v. General Dynamics Corp., Civ. A. No. CA 4-74-54.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. Northern District of Texas
    • August 15, 1974
    ...with favor in interpretations of the more explicit language regarding the right to sue of individual claimants. Genovese v. Shell Oil Co., 488 F.2d 84 (5th Cir. 1973). A pure expression of this position is found in Simon v. United States, 244 F.2d 703, 705 (5th Cir. 1957) (quoting 34 Am.Jur......
  • Bell v. Brown, No. 75-1378
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • May 20, 1977
    ...of a view on a situation such as that presently before us. The court cited in support of the statement Genovese v. Shell Oil Co., 5 Cir., 488 F.2d 84 (1973), wherein the complaining employee "assert(ed) that upon receipt of the EEOC notice he contacted his attorney and authorized the filing......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT