Spencer v. Schlesinger

• Decision Date: 23 April 1974
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 73-716.
• Citation: 374 F. Supp. 840
• Parties: William M. SPENCER et al., Plaintiffs, v. James R. SCHLESINGER, Secretary of Defense, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Columbia

374 F. Supp. 840

William M. SPENCER et al., Plaintiffs, v. James R. SCHLESINGER, Secretary of Defense, et al., Defendants.

Civ. A. No. 73-716.

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

April 23, 1974.

Gary Gerlach, Arnold & Porter, Washington, D. C., Lauralee Matthews, Joel Selig, Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights, for plaintiffs.

Eric Marcy, Asst. U. S. Atty., Washington, D. C., for defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

CORCORAN, District Judge.

This action is one for injunctive and monetary relief. It arises out of alleged racially discriminatory employment practices in the Defense Communications Agency (DCA) of the United States Department of Defense. Individual plaintiffs William Spencer, Gary Griffin and Frederick Bradley are black employees of DCA. The Black Employees Against Discrimination (BEAD), an association of some 44 black employees of DCA, has been joined as a plaintiff by the amended complaint.¹

I

All plaintiffs allege a broad range of racially discriminatory employment practices at DCA in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (1970), as amended by the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16 (Supp. II, 1972).

They also seek to establish a class action under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(2) and Local Rule 1-13(b).²

This Court's jurisdiction is invoked pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(c) and 28 U.S.C. § 1343(4) (1970).³

In addition to the plaintiffs' motion for class action certification there is also before the Court at this time defendants' motion to dismiss or, alternatively, for summary judgment. The Court (1) denies the motion to certify as a class action; (2) dismisses the claims of co-plaintiffs Griffin and Bradley and BEAD; and (3) remands the complaint of Spencer to the DCA for further action not inconsistent herewith.

II

On September 21, 1972, plaintiff Spencer registered an informal complaint with DCA, pursuant to 5 C.F.R. § 713.213 (1973). He alleged racial discrimination in the filling of a Communications Specialist GS-12 position at DCA for which both Spencer and plaintiff Griffin had applied and been rejected. A white applicant was selected.

In accordance with DCA grievance procedures, Spencer chose Griffin as his Equal Employment Opportunity Counselor to investigate his complaint. Griffin reported evidence of "institutionalized discrimination or systematic exclusion of blacks in higher positions" at DCA. (DCA Administrative Record, Tab A-1, hereinafter cited as Record.)

As a result of that report, Spencer, on October 25, 1972, filed a timely complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(a) and 5 C.F.R. § 713.214, with the Director of Equal Employment Opportunity at DCA. (Id.) Spencer alleged personal grievances and a policy of "institutionalized racism" at DCA. The agency conducted an extensive investigation of his claims pursuant to 5 C.F.R. § 713.216 and issued a report adverse to Spencer's individual claim. Additionally, the DCA report found that "institutionalized racism is neither the policy nor the practice of DCA." (Record, Tab A-1.)

In the meantime Spencer had consulted with counsel. On receipt of DCA report, Spencer's counsel, on March 1, 1973, transmitted "preliminary comments" to DCA in the course of which a large number of documents and voluminous statistics were requested of the agency. Counsel wrote: "If you are unable to answer all our questions within three weeks time, we request that your agency make a final determination so this matter may proceed to the next stage." (Record, Tab B-14.)

On March 14, 1973, DCA notified Spencer that it could not furnish the material requested short of the deadline fixed by his counsel. It accordingly proceeded to a "final" decision⁴ on his complaint as requested. Based upon a review of the record as it then existed DCA concluded that Spencer had not been discriminated against either by reason of personal bias or institutional racism. In its decision letter, DCA also stated that it would be willing, pursuant to 5 C.F.R. § 713.217, to hold an evidentiary hearing, but because of the "magnitude" of Spencer's request for information, and the expressed desire for either the delivery of the information within three weeks or a final decision, concluded that Spencer did not in fact want a hearing. (Record, Tab B-16.)

On March 21, 1973, Spencer's counsel, in response to the DCA decision and pursuant to 5 C.F.R. § 713.217 and § 713.218, requested a hearing before an independent Civil Service Commission (CSC) Hearing Examiner at the agency level. (Record, Tab B-17.) However, CSC informally advised DCA that they would not appoint a Hearing Examiner in view of the fact that the complainant, Spencer, had already received a final agency decision. (Record, Tab B-18.) Spencer was advised that he could appeal DCA's decision to the CSC Board of Appeals and Review, pursuant to 5 C.F. R. § 713.231. (Id.) However, Spencer along with Griffin, chose to file this action on April 13, 1973, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(c) and 5 C.F.R. § 713.281.

As is evident from this recital of events Spencer has never received a full administrative hearing at the agency level under 5 C.F.R. § 713.218.

Following the disposition of the Spencer complaint, some 28 members of BEAD (including its chairman, plaintiff Bradley), filed a complaint with DCA on July 9, 1973. It included allegations of both individual and institutional racial discrimination. On August 9, 1973, DCA dismissed the BEAD complaint for failure to allege specific individual complaints under 5 C.F.R. § 713.214(a)(1). Bradley and BEAD assert that this refusal by DCA to investigate their claims gives them an independent right to sue DCA under Title VII. See 5 C.F.R. § 713.215. Consequently, the amended complaint was filed on September 10, 1973.

III

Earlier in this action the government had moved to remand the Spencer complaint to DCA for the full evidentiary hearing contemplated by the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972 (the 1972 Act) and 5 C.F.R. § 713.218. By order filed October 26, 1973, the Court denied the motion and further held that plaintiffs were entitled to litigate the case "in the same general manner as cases involving private employers are litigated" pursuant to Title VII. Having had further opportunity to review the Spencer complaint, the statute upon which it is based, the legislative history of that statute and the developing body of case law in the field, the Court now concludes that in the interests of justice, the Order of October 26, 1972 should be vacated, and that disposition be made as hereinafter set out as to each plaintiff.

A. Spencer

There is conflict in reported cases but the Court is persuaded that it was the clear intent of Congress to accord federal employees, alleging discrimination, evidentiary hearings at the agency level, and thereafter to afford a review of the administrative record in a district court after exhaustion of all available administrative remedies.⁵ Hackley v. Johnson, 360 F.Supp. 1247 (D.D.C.1973) (Gesell, J.); Handy v. Gayler, 364 F.Supp. 676 (D.Md.1973); Pointer v. Sampson, 62 F.R.D. 689 (D.D.C., 1974) (Gasch, J.). See also Thompson v. Department of Justice, 372 F.Supp. 762 (N.D.Cal.1974) reversing prior decision in 360 F.Supp. 255; Chandler v. Johnson, 7 (CCH) EPD ¶ 9139 (C.D.Cal.1973); Tomlin v. Air Force Medical Center, 369 F.Supp. 353 (S.D.Ohio 1974); Gautier v. Weinberger, 6 (CCH) EPD ¶ 9001 (D.D.C.1973) (Gasch, J.); Williams v. Mumford, 6 FEP Cases 483 (D.D.C.1973) (Jones, J.). Contra, Henderson v. Defense Contract Administration Services Region New York, 370 F.Supp. 180 (S.D.N.Y. 1973); Jackson v. U. S. Civil Service Commission, C.A. 72-H-1003 (S.D.Tex., filed Dec. 13, 1973); Griffin v. U. S. Postal Service, No. 72-487-Civ-J-T (M. D.Fla., filed Feb. 7, 1973).

The review of the administrative record, after exhaustion of administrative remedies, does not contemplate a trial de novo.⁶ This conclusion is based upon the language of the 1972 Act, the legislative history⁷ and the reasoning of Hackley, Handy, Pointer and Thompson.

There is ambiguous language in the legislative history which lends support to the argument which persuaded the Court to enter its Order of October 26, 1972, to the effect that employees of the Federal Government are to be treated in all respects the same as employees in the private sector, including a statutory right to a trial de novo. Such an argument, however, does not withstand close scrutiny.⁸

The fact is that federal employees and employees in the private sector are treated differently by Congress under Title VII. In the case of the private employee, Congress designated the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to settle his complaint, but in the case of the federal employee Congress chose another route—i. e., it designated the Civil Service Commission (CSC) to consider the complaint. Where the voluntary informal efforts within the EEOC were unsuccessful in the private sector Congress gave the private employee immediate access to the Court and a trial de novo;⁹ but where the federal employee felt aggrieved, Congress designated CSC to mediate the dispute after the agency had been given the opportunity to put its own house in order. Then and only then Congress allowed the federal employee, where aggrieved on discrimination grounds, to seek review in a district court of the prior administrative action, thus according to the federal employee a right which he did not have prior to 1972—an irrevocable right to enter a federal court.¹⁰ The end result is the same— the federal employee and the private employee are given a day in Court.

The reason for different administrative treatment is clear. Prior to 1972, a federal employee, unlike his private counterpart, had to surmount a practically insurmountable defense of sovereign immunity before securing a hearing in Court; the private employee did not face that obstacle. In...