Vigil v. American Telephone and Telegraph Company

• Decision Date: 18 February 1972
• Docket Number: No. 25-70.,25-70.
• Citation: 455 F.2d 1222
• Parties: Billy C. VIGIL, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Intervenor.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit

455 F.2d 1222 (1972)

Billy C. VIGIL, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Intervenor.

No. 25-70.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

February 18, 1972.

James Heidelberg (Pete Tijerina, Mario Obledo, Alvaro Garza, San Antonio, Tex., Levi Martinez, Pueblo, Colo., and Roger Cisneros, Denver, Colo., on the brief), for plaintiff-appellee.

Luis D. Rovira, Denver, Colo. (Stuart S. Gunckel and David R. Hansen, of Akolt, Shepherd, Dick & Rovira, Denver, Colo., on the brief), for defendant-appellant.

Julia P. Cooper, Washington, D. C. (Stanley P. Hebert, Gen. Counsel, and G. Maxine Bethel, Atty., E.E.O.C., on the brief), for intervenor.

Before LEWIS, Chief Judge, and PICKETT and McWILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

McWILLIAMS, Circuit Judge.

Billy C. Vigil brought an action in the district court against his employer, the American Telephone and Telegraph Company (hereinafter referred to as A. T. & T.), charging that he had been discriminated against because of his national origin in that he had been denied equal employment opportunities. By way of the relief prayed for, Vigil sought injunctive relief and damages for the alleged commission of an unfair employment practice by A.T. & T. in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq.

In response to the complaint, A.T. & T. filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the district court lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter. This motion was denied, 305 F.Supp. 44, and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), A.T. & T. now seeks a review of this interlocutory order.

The basic issue concerns the effect, if any, of the filing of a charge of unfair employment practice with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, hereinafter referred to as EEOC, before the expiration of the sixty-day period within which a state fair employment practices commission under the provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(b) has exclusive jurisdiction to act. A brief chronology is necessary to place the narrow issue in focus.

On February 2, 1968, Vigil filed with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission a charge of unfair and discriminatory employment practice by A.T. & T. occurring on or about August 30, 1967. On February 20, 1968, Vigil filed a similar charge with the EEOC. The EEOC thereupon "deferred" to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission and upon the expiration of sixty days from February 2, 1968 (the date when Vigil filed his complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission), "assumed jurisdiction" by inquiring of Vigil as to whether he desired the EEOC to proceed to formally investigate his complaint against A. T. & T. On April 15, 1968, Vigil advised the EEOC, in writing, that he did desire to have his charge investigated by that agency. Upon investigation, the EEOC found reasonable cause to believe that A.T. & T. had violated the provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but its efforts to achieve voluntary compliance proved ineffective. Vigil thereupon instituted the present proceeding in the district court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e).

A.T. & T.'s argument runs as follows: (1) Vigil's attempted filing with the EEOC on February 20, 1968, was a nullity inasmuch as the same matter was then pending before a state agency and under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(b) "no charge may be filed * * * before the expiration of sixty days after proceedings have been commenced under the State or local law, unless such proceedings have been earlier terminated * * * "; (2) Vigil's letter of April 15, 1968, to the EEOC requesting the latter to investigate his claim was filed more than two hundred and ten days from the date of the unfair employment practice within which a charge of unfair employment practice under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(d) must be filed with the EEOC; and, (3) therefore EEOC had no jurisdiction to investigate Vigil's complaint against A.T. & T., and such being the case Vigil is thereafter precluded from instituting a civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e).

In denying the motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, the trial court rejected A.T. & T.'s argument as being "completely out of harmony with both the spirit of the Civil Rights Act and its legislative intent and history." In so doing, ...