Moody v. Albemarle Paper Company, Civ. No. 989.

• Decision Date: 05 July 1967
• Docket Number: Civ. No. 989.
• Citation: Moody v. Albemarle Paper Company, 271 F.Supp. 27 (E.D. N.C. 1967)
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of North Carolina
• Parties: Joseph P. MOODY, Theodore Daniels, Henry Hill and Arthur Mitchell, Plaintiffs, v. ALBEMARLE PAPER COMPANY, United Papermakers and Paperworkers, A.F.L.-C.I.O. and Halifax Local No. 425, United Papermakers and Paperworkers, A.F.L.-C.I.O., Defendants, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Intervenor.

271 F. Supp. 27

Joseph P. MOODY, Theodore Daniels, Henry Hill and Arthur Mitchell, Plaintiffs, v.ALBEMARLE PAPER COMPANY, United Papermakers and Paperworkers, A.F.L.-C.I.O. and Halifax Local No. 425, United Papermakers and Paperworkers, A.F.L.-C.I.O., DefendantsEqual Employment Opportunity Commission, Intervenor.

Civ. No. 989.

United States District Court E. D. North Carolina, Wilson Division.

July 5, 1967.

J. LeVonne Chambers, Charlotte, N. C., Conrad O. Pearson, Durham, N. C., T. T. Clayton, of Clayton & Ballance, Warrenton, N. C., Jack Greenberg, Robert Belton, LeRoy D. Clark, New York City, for plaintiffs.

Francis V. Lowden, Jr., Paul M. Thompson, of Hunton, Williams, Gay, Powell & Gibson, Richmond, Va., Julian R. Allsbrook, of Allsbrook, Benton, Knott, Allsbrook & Cranford, Roanoke Rapids, N. C., for defendantAlbemarle Paper Co.

Bonner D. Sawyer, Hillsborough, N. C., James B. Ledford, Charlotte, N. C., Warren Woods, Washington, D. C., for defendantsUnited Papermakers and Paperworkers, A.F.L.-C.I.O. and Halifax LocalNo. 425.

Monica Gallagher, Francis H. Kennedy, Jr., Louis Lucas, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for intervenor.

MEMORANDUMOPINION and ORDER

LARKINS, District Judge:

Plaintiffs bring this action on their own behalf and on behalf of other Negroes similarly situated under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., alleging violations by their employer, their local union, and the defendant international union of their rights to equal employment opportunities.Jurisdiction in this Court is provided by the Act and by 28 U.S.C. § 1343.

Several motions have been filed by the defendants and are now before the Court for ruling.Within 20 days of service of the complaint, the local union moved to dismiss the action or in lieu thereof to quash the return of service of the summons upon the grounds that service had been improperly made and that the complaint fails to state a claim against the local union upon which relief may be granted.In a separate motion filed on the same date, and within 20 days of service upon it, the international union likewise moved to dismiss the action or in lieu thereof to quash the return of summons upon the grounds that service was improperly made and that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief against it may be granted.The employer, Albemarle Paper Company, has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment upon the following grounds: (1) that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, for the reason that plaintiffs have not exhausted their administrative remedies before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission as is required by Section 706(e) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e);(2) that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted in a class action.Oral argument was presented at a hearing requested by the parties, and numerous briefs and memorandums of law have been submitted in support of the parties' respective positions.The objections to the sufficiency of service of process upon the local union and the international union were withdrawn at the hearing, leaving for decision the jurisdictional questions and that of whether the complaint states a claim for relief as to each defendant.

The Court is of the opinion that only one of the motions, that of the international union, has merit.Jurisdictional prerequisites for institution of an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 have been the subject of much recent litigation.See, e. g., Hall v. Werthan Bag Corp., 251 F.Supp. 184(M.D. Tenn.1966);Dent v. St. Louis-San Francisco Rwy. Co., 265 F.Supp. 56(N.D. Ala.1967);Robinson v. Lorillard, Civil ActionNo. C-141-G-166 (M.D.N.C. 1967);Quarles v. Phillip Morris, Inc., 271 F.Supp. 842(E.D.Va.1967);Evenson v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 268 F. Supp. 29(E.D.Va.1967);Anthony v. Brooks, Civil ActionNo. 9947(N.D.Ga.1967);Mickel v. South Carolina State Employment Service, 377 F.2d 239(4th Cir., May 3, 1967).From a reading of the foregoing cases, it appears that the better rules regarding jurisdictional prerequisites and the propriety of entertaining an action under Title VII are as follows:

1.Subject Matter Jurisdiction.

After an aggrieved party has filed a written complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and has received notice from the Commission that voluntary compliance within sixty days from receipt of the complaint by the Commission...