Green v. McDonnell-Douglas Corporation
| Citation | 299 F. Supp. 1100 |
| Decision Date | 13 May 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 68 C 187(2).,68 C 187(2). |
| Parties | Percy H. GREEN, Plaintiff, v. McDONNELL-DOUGLAS CORPORATION, formerly known as McDonnell Aircraft Corporation, a Corporation, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
Louis Gilden, St. Louis, Mo., for plaintiff.
Bryan, Cave, McPheeters & McRoberts, St. Louis, Mo., for defendant.
This matter is pending on a motion by the defendant to strike and dismiss certain portions of the plaintiff's amended complaint. The plaintiff filed this action against the defendant, McDonnell-Douglas Corporation, on April 15, 1968, alleging a cause of action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq.). A short background of the plaintiff's complaints, as reflected by the pleadings, is necessary to place the present motion in perspective.
The plaintiff alleges that he is a negro who has been active in civil rights activities in the St. Louis area. He applied to McDonnell Aircraft Corporation for a job, and was told that nothing was available at that time. He filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5, alleging employment discrimination against him for reasons of race and involvement in civil rights activities. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission found that reasonable cause existed to believe that the defendant refused to accept the plaintiff for employment because of his involvement in civil rights activities. No finding was made by the Commission as to discrimination due to race. Conciliation failed and the plaintiff was notified on March 19, 1968, that he had thirty days to commence a civil action. The present action was filed on April 15, 1968, alleging violation of Title VII, denial of employment because of involvement in civil rights activities. The amended complaint, filed on March 20, 1969, alleges denial of employment because of civil rights activities and also because of race.
The defendant, in its motion to strike, contends that this Court is without jurisdiction on the issue of discrimination due to race, because the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission did not make a finding of reasonable cause on this ground. The plaintiff contends that this Court has jurisdiction regardless of the finding by the Commission. He contends that the only jurisdictional requirements to commencing a civil suit under Title VII are the filing of a charge with the Commission and the receipt of notification from the Commission.
The enforcement provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are found in 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5:
The jurisdictional prerequisites to maintaining a suit in the United States district courts under Title VII have been the source of much recent litigation. However, none of these cases considers the question of whether it is necessary for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to make a finding of reasonable cause. The cases hold that an individual may not bypass the Commission and go directly to the courts. Stebbins v. Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co., 382 F.2d 267 (4th Cir.1967). The following have been held to be jurisdictional elements: (1) a charge must be filed with the Equal Employment Commission, and (2) the complainant must receive the statutory notice from the Commission that it has been unable to obtain voluntary compliance. Dent v. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry., 406 F.2d 399 (5th Cir. 1969). Choate v. Caterpillar Tractor Co., 402 F.2d 357 (7th Cir.1968). Sokolowski v. Swift and Co., 286 F.Supp. 775 (D.Minn.1968). It has also been held that suit may not be brought against an employer unless he was named in the charge filed with the Commission. Mickel v. South Carolina State Employment Service, 377 F.2d 239 (4th Cir. 1967), cert. denied 389 U.S. 877, 88 S.Ct. 177, 19 L.Ed.2d 166 (1967). The United States District Court for the Central District of California, in Edwards v. North American Rockwell Corp., 291 F. Supp. 199 (1968),...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Walker v. Mortham
... ... now-familiar framework of burdens of proof, established by the Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973), that a Title VII plaintiff must ... ...
-
Bowl America Incorporated v. Fair Lanes, Inc.
... ... 1084 Stanley H. Wilen, Burke, Gerber & Wilen, Baltimore, Md., Wm. Warfield Ross, Donald H. Green (Joel E. Hoffman and Alexander W. Sierck, on the brief), Wald, Harkrader & Rockefeller, Washington, ... such as Carroll Rosenbloom and John Unitas, Banks' substantial holdings in Brunswick Corporation stock, Brunswick's recommendation of Banks, and his apparent success in developing three modern ... ...
-
Watson v. Limbach Company
... ... at p. 1338 ... See, accord, Nishiyama v. North American Rockwell Corporation, 49 F.R.D. 288, 290, 291 (C.D.Calif.1970). 5 ... The view adopted in these cases ... See, Burrell v. Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corporation, 287 F.Supp. 289 (E.D.La.1968); Green v. McDonnell-Douglas Corporation, 299 F.Supp. 1100 (E.D.Mo.E.D. 1969). Burrell, supra, is easily ... ...
-
Beverly v. Lone Star Lead Construction Corporation
... ... Railway Express Co., 306 F.Supp. 898 (N.D.Ga.1969); McDonald v. American Federation of Musicians, 308 F.Supp. 664 (N.D.Ill.1970). Contra, Green v. McDonnell-Douglas Corp., 299 F.Supp. 1100 (E.D.Mo.1969) ... 3 Dent v. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry., 406 F.2d 399 (5th Cir. 1969); ... ...
-
Anderson v. Wachovia Mortgage Corp.: the Third Circuit Correctly Applied the Mcdonnell Douglas Burden-shifting Framework to Lending Discrimination
...McDonnell Douglas violated 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2(a)(1) and 2000e-3(a). Id. 103. Id. (citing Green v. McDonnell Douglas Corp. (Green I), 299 F. Supp. 1100 (E.D. Mo. 104. Id. (quoting Green v. McDonnell Douglas Corp. (Green II), 318 F. Supp. 846, 850 (E.D. Mo. 1970)). 105. Green II, 318 F. Sup......