United States v. INTERNATIONAL BRO. OF ELEC. WKRS., LOC. NO. 683
Decision Date | 16 June 1967 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. 67-101. |
Citation | 270 F. Supp. 233 |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America, By Ramsey CLARK, Attorney General, Plaintiff, v. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL NO. 683, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio |
Robert M. Draper, U. S. Atty., Columbus, Ohio, for plaintiff.
N. Victor Goodman, Columbus, Ohio, for defendant.
This matter is before the Court on defendant's motion:
The bases offered in support of this motion are:
Section 2000e-6(a), which sets out the matter to be contained in a complaint filed under that provision of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, lays down no requirement that the Attorney General expressly plead "reasonable cause to believe." United States v. Building and Construction Trades Council, E.D.Mo., 271 F.Supp. 447, July 26, 1966.
Dismissal of a complaint because of the failure to use so-called "magic words" would be wholly contrary to the liberal pleading provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In addition, under the provisions of Rule 11, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a signature on a complaint, such as appears here, constitutes a certification that there is good ground to support the matters contained in the complaint.
Paragraph 7 of the complaint sets out some of the ways in which defendant has acted which serve to constitute a practice intended to deny persons —specifically herein Negroes—the full exercise of rights described in the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The practice of discrimination is alleged in the form of facts of defendant's dealings with Negro workers generally. What plaintiff has not done is to make allegations of how defendant has acted toward specific Negroes. Contrary to the assertions of defendant, the Civil Rules do not require a plaintiff to plead evidence. Paul M. Harrod Co. v. A. B. Dick Co., 204 F. Supp. 580 (N.D.Ohio 1962). We cannot assume that Congress intended to engraft formerly used laborious pleading-concepts on the "notice" requirements of the Rules, nor can we assume that Congress intended to require plaintiff to set out his entire case in the complaint rather than await the trial. In this complaint, sufficient facts as to defendant's "pattern or practice" have been alleged so that defendant has notice of the contentions it need meet in the lawsuit.
The third and fourth grounds asserted in support of this motion are likewise without merit. There is nothing in the prayer of the complaint which asks for preferential...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. Northside Realty Associates
...Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5, is not a proper subject for discovery. United States v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, No. 683, 270 F.Supp. 233, 234-235 (S.D., Ohio 1967); United States v. Building and Construction Trades Council of St. Louis, Missouri, AFL-......
-
United States v. Gray, Civ. A. No. 4128.
...have, in fact, engaged in such a `pattern or practice,' and to do so as expeditiously as possible." In United States v. I.B.E.W., Local No. 683, 270 F.Supp. 233 (S.D.Ohio 1967), the defendant moved to dismiss on the ground that the United States had failed in its complaint to allege that "t......
-
People ex rel. Babbitt v. Herndon, 13596
...447 (E.D.Mo.1966); U. S. v. Northside Realty Associates, 324 F.Supp. 287 (N.D.Ga.1971); U. S. v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local, No. 683, 270 F.Supp. 233 (S.D.Ohio 1967); U. S. v. Mitchell, 313 F.Supp. 299 (N.D.Ga.1970). The rationale of these holdings has been that o......
-
United States v. INTERNATIONAL ASS'N OF B., S. & OIW, L. NO. 1, 17879.
...United States v. Building & Const. Tr. Coun. of St. Louis, Mo., 271 F.Supp. 447, 452 (E. D.Mo.1966); United States by Clark v. IBEW Local 683, 270 F.Supp. 233, 235 (S.D.Ohio 1967). Other district courts have denied motions for interrogatories aimed at discovery of the factual basis for dete......