Trujillo v. General Elec. Co., Nos. 79-1071

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtBefore McWILLIAMS, DOYLE and LOGAN; McWILLIAMS
Parties22 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 1575, 23 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 30,983 George M. TRUJILLO, Plaintiff-Appellant, Cross-Appellee, v. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee, Cross-Appellant, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Amicus Curiae.
Decision Date29 May 1980
Docket Number79-1072,Nos. 79-1071

Page 1084

621 F.2d 1084
22 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 1575,
23 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 30,983
George M. TRUJILLO, Plaintiff-Appellant, Cross-Appellee,
v.
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee, Cross-Appellant,
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Amicus Curiae.
Nos. 79-1071, 79-1072.
United States Court of Appeals,
Tenth Circuit.
Submitted March 14, 1980.
Decided May 29, 1980.

Ray M. Vargas, Albuquerque, N.M., for plaintiff-appellant, cross-appellee.

Robert M. St. John and Bruce Hall of Rodey, Dickason, Sloan, Akin & Robb, P.A., Albuquerque, N.M., for defendant-appellee, cross-appellant.

Page 1085

Issie L. Jenkins, Acting Gen. Counsel, Joseph T. Eddins, Associate Gen. Counsel, and Lutz Alexander Prager, Atty., Washington, D.C., for amicus curiae.

Before McWILLIAMS, DOYLE and LOGAN, Circuit Judges.

McWILLIAMS, Circuit Judge.

George M. Trujillo brought an employment discrimination action against General Electric Company under the provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Civil Rights Act of 1866. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5 and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. General Electric filed a motion to dismiss the Title VII claim on the ground that Trujillo had failed to file that particular claim within 90 days from receipt of his right-to-sue notice, as required by 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f) (1). The trial court denied the motion.

At trial, Trujillo called four witnesses. At the conclusion of the plaintiff's case, General Electric moved to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b), contending that Trujillo had failed to make a prima facie case. The motion was denied, whereupon General Electric called three defense witnesses. Based on conflicting testimony, the trial judge found for General Electric and entered judgment in its favor. Specifically, the trial judge found that Trujillo's discharge from employment with General Electric resulted from his erratic and deteriorating work performance, and was not in anywise prompted by race discrimination. Trujillo appeals the judgment thus entered. General Electric cross-appeals the order of the trial court denying General Electric's motion to dismiss the Title VII claim. We shall consider the cross-appeal first.

Trujillo was initially employed by General Electric on February 1, 1971, as a technician in their Albuquerque, New Mexico plant. On January 29, 1976, Trujillo's employment with General Electric was terminated. On June 2, 1976, Trujillo filed a charge of employment discrimination because of national origin with the Albuquerque, New Mexico District Office of the EEOC. After investigation, the District Director issued Trujillo and General Electric a determination that there was no reasonable cause to believe that Trujillo's termination was due to race discrimination. Such determination was issued, together with the statutory Notice of Right-to-Sue, on December 2, 1976. On December 10, 1976, Trujillo wrote the District Director requesting reconsideration of the Director's determination of "no-cause." The Director replied by advising Trujillo, and General Electric, that Trujillo should submit any additional information by February 10, 1977, ". . . so that your case may be reviewed and reconsidered before the 90-day period runs out March 4, 1977."

In early January, 1977, Trujillo submitted his additional evidence. On January 24, 1977, the EEOC vacated its earlier determination of no-cause and issued a revised determination with a finding that there was reasonable cause to believe Trujillo's charge of employment discrimination. That particular order further stated: "Both parties are hereby notified that the Notice of Right-to-Sue issued on December 3, 1976, is revoked and is therefore null and void."

Thereafter, as required by 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(b), the District Director attempted to conciliate the parties, but without success. Accordingly, on August 11, 1977, the District Director issued a combination notice of failure of conciliation and a so-called "second" Notice of Right-to-Sue within 90 days. Trujillo filed the present action on October 20, 1977, well within 90 days from receipt of the second Notice of Right-to-Sue, but far beyond 90 days from receipt of the first Notice of Right-to-Sue.

General Electric's position is that Trujillo did not file his Title VII claim within 90 days after receipt of the first Notice of Right-to-Sue, and that therefore the Title VII claim was subject to a motion to dismiss for failure to comply with the 90-day limitation...

To continue reading

Request your trial
52 practice notes
  • Natural Resources Defense Council v. Abraham, No. 01-4102.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • January 13, 2004
    ...that in administrative cases agency generally has power to reconsider both interim and final decisions); Trujillo v. Gen. Elec. Co., 621 F.2d 1084, 1086 (10th Cir.1980) (noting EEOC District Director had power to rescind his right-to-sue letter in employment discrimination case based not on......
  • Gorbach v. Reno, No. 98-35723.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • June 4, 1999
    ...decisions, since the power to decide in the first instance carries with it the power to reconsider." See Trujillo v. General Elec. Co., 621 F.2d 1084, 1086 (10th Cir.1980) (citations omitted) (EEOC District Director has implicit power to rescind previously-issued Right to Sue notice, despit......
  • McHenry v. Pa. State System of Higher Educ., No. Civ. 98-2468.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Pennsylvania)
    • May 11, 1999
    ...See 29 C.F.R. § 1601.21; see also Jackson v. Richards Medical Co., 961 F.2d 575, 586 (6th Cir.1992); Trujillo v. General Electric Co., 621 F.2d 1084, 1087 (10th Cir.1980); Gonzalez v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 610 F.2d 241, 246 (5th Cir.1980). The circumstances under which the EEOC may r......
  • Jackson v. Richards Medical Co., No. 91-5473
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • April 10, 1992
    ...earlier notice of right-to-sue, then [its] authority to fully reconsider is severely circumscribed." Trujillo v. General Electric Co., 621 F.2d 1084, 1086 (10th To require a discharged employee to bring suit against his employer at a time when the District Director has reconsidered his earl......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
49 cases
  • Natural Resources Defense Council v. Abraham, No. 01-4102.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • January 13, 2004
    ...that in administrative cases agency generally has power to reconsider both interim and final decisions); Trujillo v. Gen. Elec. Co., 621 F.2d 1084, 1086 (10th Cir.1980) (noting EEOC District Director had power to rescind his right-to-sue letter in employment discrimination case based not on......
  • Gorbach v. Reno, No. 98-35723.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • June 4, 1999
    ...decisions, since the power to decide in the first instance carries with it the power to reconsider." See Trujillo v. General Elec. Co., 621 F.2d 1084, 1086 (10th Cir.1980) (citations omitted) (EEOC District Director has implicit power to rescind previously-issued Right to Sue notice, despit......
  • McHenry v. Pa. State System of Higher Educ., No. Civ. 98-2468.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Pennsylvania)
    • May 11, 1999
    ...See 29 C.F.R. § 1601.21; see also Jackson v. Richards Medical Co., 961 F.2d 575, 586 (6th Cir.1992); Trujillo v. General Electric Co., 621 F.2d 1084, 1087 (10th Cir.1980); Gonzalez v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 610 F.2d 241, 246 (5th Cir.1980). The circumstances under which the EEOC may r......
  • Jackson v. Richards Medical Co., No. 91-5473
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • April 10, 1992
    ...earlier notice of right-to-sue, then [its] authority to fully reconsider is severely circumscribed." Trujillo v. General Electric Co., 621 F.2d 1084, 1086 (10th To require a discharged employee to bring suit against his employer at a time when the District Director has reconsidered his earl......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT