Walton v. Utility Products, Inc.

Decision Date02 September 1976
Docket NumberNo. GC 75-104-K.,GC 75-104-K.
PartiesJohnnie WALTON, etc., Plaintiff, v. UTILITY PRODUCTS, INC., Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — Northern District of Mississippi

Willie Lee Bailey, Greenville, Miss., for plaintiff.

Jerome S. Hafter, Greenville, Miss., for defendant.

ORDER

KEADY, Chief Judge.

Plaintiff alleges that he was hired by defendant on June 30, 1970, and that he continued to work for defendant until September 17, 1971, at which time he was discharged for allegedly racially discriminatory reasons. A timely EEOC charge of racial discrimination ensued, and on November 5, 1974, plaintiff received notice from the EEOC that conciliation efforts had failed, and that plaintiff could pursue his claim in court if he filed an action within 90 days of receipt of an EEOC "right-to-sue" letter which would be furnished to him upon request. Plaintiff's attorney requested the right-to-sue letter on December 2, 1974, and on two subsequent occasions, but the EEOC did not deliver the letter until June 26, 1975. Suit was then filed on August 15, 1975, three years, eleven months after the occurrence of the alleged racial discrimination against plaintiff, and nine months after receipt of the EEOC failure of conciliation notice, but less than two months after receipt of the EEOC right-to-sue letter.

The court now has before it the motion of defendant to dismiss the complaint in this action. Defendant contends: (1) that all demands for injunctive, declaratory and other relief based on 42 U.S.C. § 1981 are barred by the three-year period of limitations provided in Miss.Code Ann. § 15-1-29 (1972); (2) that all relief based on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., is barred because of plaintiff's failure to file this action within 90 days of receipt by plaintiff of notice from the EEOC that efforts to conciliate his case had failed; and (3) that all claims based on the Ninth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

The court rejects defendant's contention that the three-year limitations period of Miss.Code Ann. § 15-1-29 (1972) bars plaintiff's section 1981 claim. Defendant correctly states that since section 1981 contains no statute of limitations, the applicable period of limitations is determined by reference to the most analogous statute of limitations in force in the state in which the cause of action arises. Section 15-1-29 pertains to actions founded on implied contracts. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that this section is the Mississippi statute of limitations applicable to actions seeking recovery of back wages, and that, therefore, recovery of back pay wages in a section 1981 employment discrimination suit will be limited to a period of three years prior to commencement of the action. Johnson v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 491 F.2d 1364 (5th Cir. 1974). This does not mean, however, that a section 1981 employment discrimination action will be barred if not initiated within three years of the alleged act of discrimination, for such a suit generally involves more than a claim for back pay. In a Title VII case the Fifth Circuit has stated that:

The right to be free from discriminatory practices in employment is not analogous to the right of action on implied or unwritten contracts .... Indeed, it is the failure to contract for employment or promotion on an equal basis which gives rise to a Title VII action.

United States v. Georgia Power Co., 474 F.2d 906, 923-24 (5th Cir. 1973).

This court is of the opinion that the reasoning of Georgia Power is equally applicable to a section 1981 employment discrimination action. As there is no Mississippi statute of limitations for civil rights actions, or a specific Mississippi statue of limitations for actions analogous to actions based on racial discrimination in employment, the general six-year period of limitations provided by Miss.Code Ann. § 15-1-49, rather than the three-year period provided by section 15-1-29, determines the time within which a section 1981 employment discrimination suit must be filed. As noted previously, section 15-1-29 does act as a limitation upon an employer's back pay liability, but it does not operate to bar the entire back pay claim, or a claim for declaratory or injunctive relief.1 Since plaintiff filed his section 1981 claim well within the six-year period, defendant's motion to dismiss this portion of the complaint must be denied.

The court also does not agree with defendant's contention that Title VII relief is precluded because of plaintiff's failure to file this action within 90 days of receipt of the EEOC failure of conciliation notice. As pointed out above, the failure of conciliation notice advised plaintiff of his right to pursue his claim in court, but only by filing a civil action within 90 days after receipt of an EEOC right-to-sue notice, which would be furnished at plaintiff...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • Williams v. Yazoo Valley-Minter City Oil Mill, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Mississippi
    • November 22, 1978
    ...of monetary damages. Johnson v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 491 F.2d 1364, 1379 n. 49 (5th Cir. 1974); Walton v. Utility Products, Inc., 424 F.Supp. 1145, 1147 (N.D. Miss.1976); Miss.Code Ann. § 15-1-29. 34. In regard to any practice which is found by the court to involve racial discriminat......
  • Washington v. Louisiana
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Louisiana
    • August 21, 2012
    ...v. Family Mart, 496 F.Supp. 891 (M.D.Ala.1980); Lopez v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., 493 F.Supp. 801 (D.Md.1980); Walton v. Utility Products, Inc., 424 F.Supp. 1145 (N.D.Miss.1976). Plaintiff has failed to allege facts that would support a constitutional violation under the Thirteenth Amendment......
  • Partin v. St. Johnsbury Co., Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Rhode Island
    • March 21, 1978
    ...v. Amalgamated Transit Union, 554 F.2d 876 (8th Cir. 1977); Croker v. Boeing, 437 F.Supp. 1138 (E.D.Pa.1977); Walton v. Utility Products, Inc., 424 F.Supp. 1145 (N.D.Miss.1976); Holly v. Alliance Rubber, 380 F.Supp. 1128 (N.D.Ohio 1974).4 The Court also rejects the analysis of some courts t......
  • Truvillion v. King's Daughters Hosp.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • March 28, 1980
    ...catch-all statute is applicable. 16 See Heath v. D. H. Baldwin Co., N.D.Miss.1979, 447 F.Supp. 495, 504; Walton v. Utility Products, Inc., N.D.Miss.1976, 424 F.Supp. 1145, 1147. The statute runs for six years, and does not bar Ms. Truvillion's Ms. Truvillion sought to bring each of her stat......
  • 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