INTERNATIONAL BRO. OF EL. W. v. UNITED STATES EQ. EMP. OP. COM'N

• Citation: 283 F. Supp. 769
• Decision Date: 16 August 1967
• Docket Number: Civ. No. 67-553.
• Parties: INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL UNION NO. 5, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES of America EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Respondent.
• Court: United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Pennsylvania)

283 F. Supp. 769

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL UNION NO. 5, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES of America EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Respondent.

Civ. No. 67-553.

United States District Court W. D. Pennsylvania.

August 16, 1967.

Bernard Kaplan, White, Jones & Gregg, Pittsburgh, Pa., for plaintiffs.

Gustav Diamond, U. S. Atty., Pittsburgh, Pa., for defendant.

SORG, District Judge.

MEMORANDUM

This petition, filed by the above named Union, seeks to set aside a demand for access to evidence served on it by the Commission, respondent above named. In doing so, it invokes Section 710(c) of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C.A. Section 2000e-9(c) which provides:

"(c) Within twenty days after the service upon any person charged under Section 2000e-5 of this title of a demand by the Commission for the production of documentary evidence * * * such person may file in the district court of the United States for the judicial district in which he * * * transacts business, and serve upon the Commission a petition for an order of court modifying or setting aside such demand * * *."

The Commission's demand for certain records of the Union was made for the purpose of investigating a formal charge made against the Union by one Alfred B. Carl, Jr., that, as a member of the negro race, he was denied an opportunity to take the Union's required examination to qualify for a classification as journeyman wireman which would entitle him to membership in the Union. This formal charge, dated August 16, 1966, fixes July 27, 1965, as the date of the Union's alleged discriminatory practice. The Union contends that because this charge was not timely filed with the Commission in accordance with Section 706(d) of the Act, the Commission is without authority to conduct the investigation pursuant to which it served its demand for access to evidence. The Commission asserts that because the formal charge was merely the culmination of a series of prior events it should serve as a proper basis for the proposed investigation. A chronology of the facts is, therefore, essential.¹

On August 25, 1965, the Commission received a sworn statement from Carl to the effect that on July 27, 1965, (although the date of the alleged act of discrimination has been fixed as July 21, 1965) he was discriminated against as a negro. On September 3, 1965, in view of Section 706(b) of the Act, which prohibits the filing of such a charge with the Commission until sixty (60) days after appropriate state proceedings have been commenced, the Commission forwarded this communication to the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission. Carl's statement was then reduced to a formal complaint and filed with the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission on September 10, 1965. On December 27, 1965, the Commission, respondent herein, received a request from Carl that it assert its jurisdiction in connection with the statement previously made by him. The Commission thereupon...