Parker v. Dole
| Decision Date | 31 July 1987 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. C87-692A. |
| Citation | 668 F. Supp. 1563 |
| Parties | Loretta S. PARKER, Plaintiff, v. Elizabeth DOLE, Secretary, United States Department of Transportation, and Donald D. Engen, Administrator, United States Federal Aviation Administration, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia |
Dana E. McDonald, Atlanta, Ga., for plaintiff.
Myles Eric Eastwood and James R. Schulz, U.S. Atty., Atlanta, Ga., for defendants.
This case involves a Title VII claim for sex discrimination by a federal employee of the Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation. Simultaneous to filing her complaint, plaintiff filed a motion to set aside Local Rule 920-2, Internal Operating Procedures of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia as violative of Title VII and Rule 53 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 920-2 provides for the referral of cases brought in the Atlanta and Newnan divisions of the Northern District of Georgia pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2 (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) to the full-time magistrates of this district. Defendants do not oppose plaintiff's motion.
Plaintiff brought this action April 10, 1987 seeking promotion, backpay and damages for alleged discrimination by her employer, the Federal Aviation Administration, based on sex. Simultaneous to filing her complaint plaintiff filed a motion to set aside Local Rule 920-2, Internal Operating Procedures which orders referral of Title VII cases in the Atlanta and Newnan Divisions to Magistrates. Plaintiff offers that objections to such referrals are to be made at or near the time of the referral.1 Plaintiff stresses that she has no idea which judge and which magistrate might be assigned to the case, and therefore, is not "judge shopping." Plaintiff's Brief in Support at 2.
In an order dated April 17, 1986, the judges of the Northern District of Georgia made the specific finding of fact that within the Atlanta and Newnan Division of the Northern District of Georgia, the docket of the court does not permit the trial of actions brought pursuant to Title VII within 120 days of the issue being joined as required by 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f). See statutory language infra at page 1566.
As a solution to this problem, the district judges of the Northern District through this April 17, 1986 order, amended Rule 920 of its Internal Operating Procedures to create Rule 920-2. The Rule provides:
At the time a Title VII complaint is filed in an Atlanta or Newnan district court, the case is assigned to a particular district judge and referred to a magistrate. Rule 905 and 920, Internal Operating Procedures for the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The magistrate then proceeds to expedite disposition of the matter and the case proceeds to trial. After trial, the magistrate issues a special master's report for approval by the district judge assigned to the case.2
On the first anniversary of the order implementing Internal Operating Procedure 920-2, this court in the Local Rules Committee meeting of April 20, 1987 requested that the District Court Executive prepare statistics on the total number of Title VII cases assigned to all the judges of the relevant divisions during the calendar year 1985, the total number of 1985 cases disposed of during that year, and the average number of months to disposition. The year 1985 was the last year in which current Rule 920-2, Internal Operating Procedures was not in effect. The court also directed the District Court Executive to provide the same information by individual magistrate and cumulatively for the calendar year 1986, the first full year under the operation of Rule 920-2.
The District Court Executive responded providing the following statistical summaries:
TABLE I
Title VII Cases Assigned to and Closed By United
States District Judges for the Northern District
of Georgia During Calendar Year 1985
No. No. Average
Cases Cases No. Months
Filed Closed to Disposition
233 175 8.8
TABLE II
Title VII Cases Assigned to and Closed By United
States Magistrates for the Northern District of
Georgia During the Calendar Year 1986
No. No. Average No
Cases Cases Months to
Magistrates Filed Closed Disposition
AL Chancey, Jr. 29 6 3.8
JM Feldman 30 6 5.8
JE Dougherty 29 8 6.0
WL Harper 28 4 3.0
JR Strother, Jr. 27 5 5.2
_____ _____ ____
23.8
23.8 = 4.7 Average No. Months
____ to Disposition
5
The statistical summary demonstrates that the average number of months to disposition of Title VII cases in 1985 without the referral procedure was 8.8 months. With the operation of the referral procedure in 1986, the average number of months to disposition was nearly halved to 4.7 months.
The following chart demonstrates that the caseload in Atlanta and Newnan Divisions has not decreased significantly since the court's April 17, 1986 order.
CASES FILED IN ATLANTA & NEWNAN
DIVISIONS3
1985-1986 1986-1987
848 Criminal 641 Criminal
2,926 Civil 2,955 Civil
_____ _____
3,774 Total 3,596 Total
Plaintiff challenges the Northern District's internal operating procedure on three grounds. First, plaintiff contends that Rule 920-2 violates Rule 53 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Second, plaintiff contends the Rule 920-2 procedure is violative of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(4) and (5) of Title VII. Third, plaintiff contends that Rule 920-2 violates the provisions of the Magistrate's Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636.
Plaintiff contends that Rule 920-2, Internal Operating Procedures is inconsistent with 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(5) and Rule 53(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in that across-the-board referral in the Atlanta and Newnan divisions violates the Rule 53(b) requirement that referral be made "only upon a showing that some exceptional condition requires it."4 Section 2000e-5(f)(5) provides:
(5) It shall be the duty of the judge designated pursuant to this subsection to assign the case for hearing at the earliest practicable date and to cause the case to be in every way expedited. If such judge has not scheduled the case for trial within one hundred and twenty days after issue has been joined, that judge may appoint a master pursuant to Rule 53 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(5).
In essence, plaintiff argues that because § 2000e-5(f)(5) contemplates referral of Title VII cases to a special master under Rule 53, and because Rule 53(b) provides that referrals to special masters under its authority are to be "the exception and not the rule," the "blanket" referral of Title VII cases authorized under Rule 1920-2 of the Northern District of Georgia at issue here violates § 2000e-5(f)(5) and Rule 53.
The Ninth Circuit in considering the validity of Rule 53(b) in the § 2000e-5(f)(5) context rejected this literal interpretation as contrary to the intent of Congress that the stringency of Rule 53(b) be "relaxed" in the Title VII context. White v. General Services Administration, 652 F.2d 913 (9th Cir.1981); Spaulding v. University of Washington, 740 F.2d 686, 695 (9th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1036, 105 S.Ct. 511, 83 L.Ed.2d 401 (1984) (). The court in White looked to the legislative history of the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972 and discovered that Congress, as a part of a compromise which allowed the current enforcement provisions of the Act to be passed, designated that Rule 53(b)'s usual stringent requirements be "relaxed." White at 915-16; 118 Cong.Rec. ___ (daily ed. February 22, 1972), reprinted in Legislative History of the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972 at 1730-31 (also available on C.I.S. Index).
Generally, resort to legislative history is unnecessary where there is no ambiguity in the plain meaning of the statute. Scarborough v. Office of Personnel Management, 723 F.2d 801, 816-17 (11th Cir.1984). However here § 2000e-5(f)(5) explicitly mandates that the court "cause the case to be in every way...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
James v. American Intern. Recovery, Inc.
...Rule 53 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Rule 920-2, Internal Operating Procedures of this court. See Parker v. Dole, 668 F.Supp. 1563 (N.D.Ga.1987) (Hall, J.) (holding that the referral of discrimination cases to Magistrate Judges is permissible and is in keeping with the purpo......
-
Smith v. Beverly Health and Rehabilitation Services
...of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and has been upheld expressly as authorized under the law and constitutional. See Parker v. Dole, 668 F.Supp. 1563 (N.D.Ga.1987); see also Kinney v. Motion Indus., Inc., No. 1:94-CV-1317-FMH (N.D. Ga. June 22, 1995), petition for mandamus denied, No. 95-8859 (1......
-
In re Briggs
...Fairman, 947 F.2d 1479, 1481-82 (11th Cir.1991), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 112 S.Ct. 1503, 117 L.Ed.2d 642 (1992); Parker v. Dole, 668 F.Supp. 1563, 1569 (N.D.Ga.1987); see also supra n. 9 (collecting cases for the proposition that a statutory provision should not be construed in isolatio......
-
Richardson v. Bedford Place Housing Phase I Assoc.
...120 days. The collective solution to this problem is found in the court's Internal Operating Procedures Rule 920-2. Parker v. Dole, 668 F.Supp. 1563, 1564 (N.D.Ga.1987) (finding Rule 920-2 in compliance with Title VII, the Magistrate Judge's Act, and Fed.R.Civ.P. 53). Rule 920-2 provides, a......
-
Article Title: the Appointment of Special Masters in High Conflict Divorces
...Community Sch. Bd. Of Brooklyn, 383 F. Supp. 699 (E.D.N.Y. 1974), appeal dismissed, 497 F.2d 1027 (2d Cir. 1974). 10. Parker v. Dole, 668 F. Supp. 1563 (N.D. 1987). 11. Id. 12. Plumb, 809 P.2d at 741. 13. In 1999, 1,861 divorces were filed in the Fourth Judicial District Court, of which 839......