State ex rel. General Motors Corp. v. Ohio Civil Rights Commission, 76-972

• Decision Date: 18 May 1977
• Docket Number: No. 76-972,76-972
• Citation: 4 O.O.3d 241,50 Ohio St.2d 111,362 N.E.2d 1221
• Parties: , 16 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 1439, 14 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 7714, 4 O.O.3d 241 The STATE ex rel. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, v. OHIO CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Page 111

50 Ohio St.2d 111

362 N.E.2d 1221, 16 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 1439,

14 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 7714, 4 O.O.3d 241

The STATE ex rel. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, v. OHIO CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION.

No. 76-972.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

May 18, 1977.

Syllabus by the Court

The inability to comply with the statute of limitations is not, within the meaning of R.C. 4112.05(B), a circumstance which warrants an exception to the jurisdictional prerequisite that conciliatory efforts precede the issuance of a complaint.

This is an action in prohibition originating in this court. Relator, General Motors Corporation, seeks to prohibit the Ohio Civil Rights Commission (hereinafter the commission) from proceeding to a hearing upon 57 separate charges of employment discrimination.

These charges were filed by various employees, former employees or job applicants at General Motors' plants and facilities located within this state, alleging that General Motors discriminated against them on the basis of their race and/or sex, in violation of R.C. 4112.01 et seq. In each of the cases the commission issued a complaint and notice of hearing without attempting to engage in methods of conference, conciliation or persuasion, in compliance with R.C. 4112.05(B).

In its complaint for a writ of prohibition relator urges that the commission was without jurisdiction to issue the instant complaints, having failed to comply with the prerequisites imposed by R.C. 4112.05(B). General Motors has filed a motion for summary judgment and the commission has filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings.

Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue, Victor E. DeMarco, Dennis M. Kelly, Anthony R. Moore, Cleveland, and Russell J. Thomas, Jr., Detroit, Mich., for relator.

William J. Brown, Atty. Gen., Earl Manz and Donald W. Conley, Columbus, for respondent.

CELEBREZZE, Justice.

R.C. 4112.05(B) sets forth the procedure to be followed by the commission prior to issuance of a complaint, stating in part:

'Whenever it is charged in writing and under oath by a person * * * that any person * * * has engaged or is engaging in unlawful discriminatory practices, or upon its own initiative * * * the commission may initiate a preliminary investigation. * * * If it determines after such investigation that it is probable that unlawful discriminatory practices have been or are being engaged in, it shall endeavor to eliminate such practices by informal methods of conference, conciliation, and persuasion. * * * If, after such investigation and conference, the commission is satisfied that any unlawful discriminatory practice of the respondent will be eliminated, it may treat the complaint as conciliated, and entry of such disposition shall be made on the records of the commission. If the commission fails to effect the elimination of such unlawful discriminatory practices and to obtain voluntary compliance with Chapter 4112 of the Revised Code, or, if the circumstances warrant, in advance of any such preliminary investigation or endeavors * * * the commission shall issue and cause to be served upon any person or respondent a complaint stating the charges in that respect and containing a notice of hearing before the commission * * *.' (Emphasis added.)

In State ex rel. Republic Steel Corp. v. Ohio Civil Rights Comm. (1975), 44 Ohio St.2d 178, 339 N.E.2d 658, we construed the above section, noting that the language '* * * if the circumstances warrant * * *' provides an exception to the jurisdictional requirement that conciliatory efforts...