Love v. Pullman Company United States v. Pullman Company 8212 5033, 70 8212 37, Nos. 70
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | STEWART |
| Citation | 92 S.Ct. 616,404 U.S. 522,30 L.Ed.2d 679 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 70 |
| Decision Date | 17 January 1972 |
| Parties | Earl A. LOVE, Petitioner, v. The PULLMAN COMPANY. UNITED STATES et al., Petitioners, v. The PULLMAN COMPANY. —5033, 70—37 |
v.
The PULLMAN COMPANY. UNITED STATES et al., Petitioners, v. The PULLMAN COMPANY.
Syllabus
Procedure whereby the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), after having received a written charge from a complainant of discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, orally referred it to the appropriate state agency, waited until that agency had terminated its jurisdiction, and then formally filed the charge on behalf of the complainant without having obtained an additional written charge within 30 days of the termination of the state proceedings held to satisfy the requirements of § 706(b) and (d) of the Act, which have the purpose of affording state agencies prior opportunity to consider discrimination complaints and ensuring their prompt filing and disposition by the EEOC on exhaustion of the state remedy. Pp. 523 527.
10 Cir., 430 F.2d 49, reversed.
Hugh J. McClearn, Denver, Colo., for petitioner in No. 70 5033.
Lawrence G. Wallace, Washington, D.C., for petitioners in No. 70—37.
Edward C. Eppich, Denver, Colo., for respondent.
Page 523
Mr. Justice STEWART delivered the opinion of the Court.
A person claiming to be aggrieved by a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 253,1 may not maintain a suit for redress in federal district court until he has first unsuccessfully pursued certain avenues of potential administrative relief. In this litigation the petitioner employee filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, alleging that his employer, the respondent Pullman Company, had engaged in employment practices violative of Title VII. The court dismissed the complaint, holding that the statutory prerequisites to the maintenance of the suit had not been met. The Court of Appeals affirmed, 10 Cir., 430 F.2d 49, and we granted certiorari to consider the question of federal law presented. 401 U.S. 907, 91 S.Ct. 873, 27 L.Ed.2d 805.
The petitioner was employed by the Pullman Company as a 'porter-in-charge.' In 1963 and again in 1965, he complained to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, alleging that the porters-in-charge, most of whom, like the petitioner, were Negroes, performed the same functions as conductors, most of whom were white, yet at lower pay. The proceedings of the Colorado Commission terminated in 1965 without reaching a resolution of the controversy satisfactory to the petitioner. On May 23, 1966, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission received from the petitioner a 'letter of inquiry' which complained of this same alleged discrim-
Page 524
ination. In accord with its usual practice,2 the Commission treated this letter as a complaint but did not formally file it. Instead to insure compliance with Title VII's procedural requirements, EEOC orally advised the Colorado Commission that it had received a complaint from the petitioner. By letter of June 1, 1966, the Colorado Commission informed EEOC that it waived the opportunity to take further action on the petitioner's grievance, and the EEOC then proceeded with its own investigation. The investigation resulted in a finding of probable cause to believe that the charge of discrimination was true, but the EEOC was unsuccessful in its attempts to obtain Pullman's voluntary compliance. This lawsuit followed.
The basis for the holding of the Court of Appeals was its finding that the charge of discrimination had not been 'filed' with EEOC by the petitioner in conformity with the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Great American Federal Savings Loan Association v. Novotny, No. 78-753
...must notify the state or local authority of the charge before taking any action. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(d). Cf. Love v. Pullman Co., 404 U.S. 522, 92 S.Ct. 616, 30 L.Ed.2d 679. 13. The statute requires that a complaint be filed with the federal agency within 180 days "after the alleged unlawfu......
-
Johnson v. U.S. Postal Service, No. 86-2780
...would be "particularly inappropriate in a statutory scheme in which laymen, unassisted by trained lawyers, initiate the process. Id. [404 U.S. 522], at 527 [92 S.Ct. 616, 619, 30 L.Ed.2d 679 (1972) ]. That principle must be applied [to the time limit in 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(f) ] as well." Zipe......
-
Weise v. Syracuse University, Nos. 372
...litigation, H. Friendly, Federal Jurisdiction: A General View 78 (1973), and the expeditious handling of complaints, Love v. Pullman Co., 404 U.S. 522, 526, 92 S.Ct. 616, 30 L.Ed.2d 679 (1972). Therefore, although compliance with these requirements is a jurisdictional prerequisite to mainte......
-
Harris v. Marsh, No. 81-60-CIV-3
...complaining employee in a determined effort to reach the merits of any cognizable allegation of discrimination. See Love v. Pullman Co., 404 U.S. 522, 527, 92 S.Ct. 616, 619, 30 L.Ed.2d 679 (1972); Shehadeh v. Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co., 595 F.2d 711, 727 (D.C.Cir.1978); Sanchez v. ......
-
Harris v. Marsh, No. 81-60-CIV-3
...complaining employee in a determined effort to reach the merits of any cognizable allegation of discrimination. See Love v. Pullman Co., 404 U.S. 522, 527, 92 S.Ct. 616, 619, 30 L.Ed.2d 679 (1972); Shehadeh v. Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co., 595 F.2d 711, 727 (D.C.Cir.1978); Sanchez v. ......
-
Franci v. Avco Corp., Civ. No. B-77-22.
...the factors that militate toward an equitable 460 F. Supp. 397 modification are entitled to considerable weight. Cf. Love v. Pullman Co., 404 U.S. 522, 526-527, 92 S.Ct. 616, 30 L.Ed.2d 679 (1972) (Title VII); Smith v. Jos. Schlitz Brewing Co., 419 F.Supp. 770, 777 (D.N.J. The equitable fac......
-
Failey v. Donahoe, No. 03:11-cv-01088-HU
...are made by those unschooled in the technicalities of formal pleading." B.K.B., 276 F.3d at 1100 (citing, inter alia, Love v. Pullman Co., 404 U.S. 522, 527, 92 S. Ct. 616, 619, 30 L. Ed. 2d 679 (1972) "(stating that 'technicalities are particularly inappropriate in a statutory scheme [such......
-
Hamilton v. 1st Source Bank, No. 89-2615
...394-95, 102 S.Ct. at 1133; Oscar Mayer & Co. v. Evans, 441 U.S. 750, 761, 99 S.Ct. 2066, 2074, 60 L.Ed.2d 609 (1979); Love v. Pullman Co., 404 U.S. 522, 526-27, 92 S.Ct. 616, 618, 30 L.Ed.2d 679 (1972). In Ricks, the Court We recognize, of course, that the limitations periods should not com......