Woodard v. Virginia Bd. of Bar Examiners, 78-1586
| Decision Date | 24 May 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 78-1586,78-1586 |
| Citation | 598 F.2d 1345 |
| Parties | 29 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 841, 19 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 9260 Jesse Lincoln WOODARD, Appellant, v. VIRGINIA BOARD OF BAR EXAMINERS, W. Scott Street, III, individually and in his official capacity as Secretary and Treasurer of the Virginia Board of Bar Examiners, J. Sloan Kuykendall, William H. King, John L. Walker, Carl C. Gillespie, Francis N. Crenshaw, individually and in their official capacities as members of the Virginia Board of Bar Examiners, Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
W. Edward Thompson, Washington, D. C. (James A. Winstead, Chesapeake, Va., on brief), for appellant.
Walter H. Ryland, Deputy Atty. Gen., Richmond, Va. (Marshall Coleman, Atty. Gen. of Virginia, Stuart H. Dunn, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen., Leonard L. Hopkins, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Richmond, Va., on brief), for appellees.
Before BREITENSTEIN, Circuit Judge for the Tenth Circuit, sitting by designation, and RUSSELL and WIDENER, Circuit Judges.
Appellant Woodard applied for admission to the Virginia Bar and sat for the bar examination. He failed to achieve a passing score on the examination and his application for admission to the bar was therefore denied. After filing discrimination charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and being issued a "Right to Sue" letter, he brought this suit as a class action in district court alleging violations of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e Et seq., and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985 and 1988 (1970). The district court denied class certification and dismissed the claims for lack of jurisdiction. We affirm.
The district court found and we agree that Title VII, by its own terms, does not apply to the bar examination. The Board of Bar Examiners is neither an "employer," an "employment agency," nor a "labor organization" within the meaning of the Act. Tyler v. Vickery (5th Cir. 1975) 517 F.2d 1089, 1096, Cert. denied 426 U.S. 940, 96 S.Ct. 2660, 49 L.Ed.2d 393 (1976).
The district court properly dismissed the remaining claims for lack of jurisdiction. Appellant must present his grievance to the Supreme Court of Virginia and, if it is decided adversely to him, may then petition the Supreme Court of the United States for certiorari. Doe v. Pringle (10th Cir. 1976) 550 F.2d 596, 599, Cert. denied 431 U.S. 916, 97 S.Ct. 2179, 53 L.Ed.2d 227 (1977). 1
1 See Judge Hall's concurring opinion in Richardson...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Greene v. Zank
...appear equally viable." (Id., at p. 184, fn. 17.) In Woodard v. Virginia Bd. of Bar Examiners (E.D.Vir.1978) 454 F.Supp. 4, affd. (4th Cir.1979) 598 F.2d 1345, the district court recognized that in evaluating applicants for admission to practice law in Virginia, the Virginia Board of Bar Ex......
-
Gulino v. Board of Educ., City of New York
...of California, 777 F.2d 462 (9th Cir.1985) (dental licensing board not an employer under Title VII); Woodard v. Virginia Board of Bar Examiners, 598 F.2d 1345 (4th Cir.1979) (Virginia Board of Bar Examiners not subject to Title VII); Tyler v. Vickery, 517 F.2d 1089 (5th Cir.1975) (Title VII......
-
Vermett v. Hough
...and are related to the time-barred incident.... In Woodward v. Virginia Board of Bar Examiners, 420 F.Supp. 211 (ED Va 1976); aff'd 598 F.2d 1345 (CA 4 1979), the District Court pointed When a person challenges continuous discriminatory conduct rather than any single discriminatory act, the......
-
West v. J.O. Stevenson, Inc., 7:15-CV-87-FL
...(4th Cir.1999), abrogated by Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp. , 546 U.S. 500, 126 S.Ct. 1235, 163 L.Ed.2d 1097 (2006) ; Woodard v. Va. Bd. of Bar Examiners , 598 F.2d 1345, 1346 (4th Cir.1979). In Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp. , 546 U.S. 500, 126 S.Ct. 1235, 163 L.Ed.2d 1097 (2006), the Supreme Court altered th......