Ward v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., Civ. No. C-66-129.

• Decision Date: 14 October 1966
• Docket Number: Civ. No. C-66-129.
• Citation: 260 F. Supp. 579
• Parties: Floyd E. WARD, Plaintiff, v. The FIRESTONE TIRE & RUBBER CO., Local 186, United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America, AFL-CIO, and International Union of Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America, AFL-CIO, Defendants, United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Intervenor.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Tennessee

260 F. Supp. 579

Floyd E. WARD, Plaintiff, v. The FIRESTONE TIRE & RUBBER CO., Local 186, United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America, AFL-CIO, and International Union of Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America, AFL-CIO, Defendants United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Intervenor.

Civ. No. C-66-129.

United States District Court W. D. Tennessee, W. D.

October 14, 1966.

Anthony J. Sabella, Memphis, Tenn., for plaintiff.

John S. Montedonico, Memphis, Tenn., for Firestone.

Donald R. Wellford, Memphis, Tenn., for Unions.

Louis R. Lucas, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

BAILEY BROWN, Chief Judge.

MEMORANDUM DECISION

This is an action filed by Floyd E. Ward against Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. and Local 186 and the International, United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum & Plastic Workers of America, AFL-CIO, under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and more particularly the equal opportunities provisions (42 U.S.C.A. Sec. 2000e et seq.) Plaintiff, a white male, alleges that he has been deprived of an employment opportunity because of his male sex. The defendants have asserted, among other defenses, a statute of limitations defense, and the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission has been allowed to intervene as to this issue alone.

With respect to the statute of limitations defense, it appears that plaintiff filed this action within thirty days after notification by the Commission of its inability to obtain voluntary compliance but more than ninety days after plaintiff filed his complaint with the Commission. Defendants contend that 42 U.S.C.A. Sec. 2000e-5(e) should be construed so as to bar this action. Since it is not necessary to our decision here, we will not decide this question. However, by way of comment we point out that the result contended for by defendants would be anomalous in that plaintiff would in a sense be penalized because of the failure of the Commission to perform its statutory duties within the time allowed. Moreover, the statute allows the action to be filed within thirty days after "the Commission shall so notify the person aggrieved," which would indicate that the thirty-day period would begin to run with such notice.

The defendant International has asserted as a separate defense the fact that it was not named in the complaint filed by plaintiff with the Commission. Again, it is not necessary to our decision to decide this question, and we do not do so. However, we point out that if the decision is correct in Hall v. Werthan Bag Corp., 251 F.Supp. 184 (M.D. Tenn.1966), this is not a valid defense, for there it was held that the filing of a complaint with the Commission is not a condition precedent to the right to file an action in court.

Plaintiff relies on 42 U.S.C.A. Sec. 2000e-2(a) (1) and (2), which read as follows:

"(a) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer—

(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or

(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national

...