Document: 468 U.S. 42 104 S.Ct. 2924 82 L.Ed.2d 36 Calvin W. BURNETT, etc., et al., Petitioners,v.James R. GRATTAN and Adrienne S. Hedman. No. 83-264. Supreme Court of the United States Argued March 26, 1984. Decided June 27, Syllabus Respondents filed an action in a Maryland state court against petitioner officers college where respondents were employed, claiming employment discrimination violation of, inter alia, U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985, 1986 (Civil Rights Acts). Petitioners removed to Federal District Court. Because Civil Acts contain no statute limitations, borrowed 6-month limitations period from that establishes procedure for administrative resolution complaints, granted petitioners' motion dismiss because complaint had been more than six months after respondents' causes accrued. The Appeals found inappropriate, and, applying Maryland's 3-year all civil actions which statutory limitation is not otherwise provided, held was time-barred. Held: While federal courts properly turn law statutes under Acts, borrowing inappropriate. Both practical differences between litigation proceeding divergence objectives lead this conclusion. On one hand, difficulties facing aggrieved person involve such matters as recognizing constitutional dimensions claimed injury, obtaining counsel or preparing proceed pro se, establishing amount damages, legal documents. other sole responsibility who invokes remedies make, sign, file with Human Relations Commission, then has burden investigating developing case. And goals compensate persons whose rights have violated prevent abuse power are far different procedure. scheme, including short encourages prompt identification, conciliation, private settlement disputes through State Commission's intervention. Pp. 47-55. 710 F.2d 160, affirmed. Paul F. Strain, Baltimore, Md., petitioners. Sheldon H. Laskin, Ellicott City, respondents. Justice MARSHALL delivered opinion 1 question presented whether law, provides appropriate brought Reconstruction-Era § 1981 seq. We hold it does not. 2 * James Grattan Hedman employees Coppin College, predominantly Negro Maryland. Their primary recruit students diverse ethnic backgrounds attend school. App. 34-39. received notice 1976 their contracts would be renewed "was satisfied recruitment efforts Minority Affairs office." Id., at 34, 38. In response, respondents, white, complaints racial Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. those claims pending, they suit February 1977, naming defendants petitioners present action—the president vice student affairs, chairman executive director board trustees. October on leave court,1 amended complaint, specifically alleging victims discrimination, Hedman's case, gender 1981,2 1983,3 1985,4 1986,5 Protection Clause Fourteenth Amendment, discharge also First Amendment various provisions Constitution. 11-33. court. Thereafter, ground barred by applicable limitations. 39-40. 3 sued do themselves prohibiting discriminatory practices employment. Md.Ann.Code, Art. 49B, 9(a) (1979);6 see Pet. Cert. 23, 34. identified "commonality purpose" asserted defined statute, concluded reasonable subject filing body, 34-36. cause accrued, dismissed 4 Fourth Circuit, relying its previous decision McNutt v. Duke Precision Dental Orthodontic Laboratories, Inc., 698 676 (1983), selected inappropriate suits "governed proceedings informal, investigatory conciliatory nature." 162 (1983). applied Code provide period. Md.Cts. & Jud.Proc.Code Ann. 5-101 (1984).7 Finding Grattan's stated related back originally some eight arose,8 time-barred, remanded 5 certiorari resolve confusion Circuits regarding reliance upon suit.9 464 981, 421, 78 357 now affirm. II 6 century-old every rule required adjudicate them. absence specific guidance, Congress directed follow three-step process borrow rule. 1988.10 First, look laws "so suitable carry [the criminal statutes] into effect." Ibid. If exists, undertake second step considering application "common modified changed constitution statutes" forum State. A third asserts predominance interest: apply only if "inconsistent Constitution States." 7 task before case identify governing 1986.11 Only contains limitations.12 Other sources helpful. several occasions, rejected arguments particular applied, O'Sullivan Felix, 233 318, 324-325, 34 596, 598-599, 58 L.Ed. 980 (1914) (rejecting penalty, Act remedial), implicitly linkage statutes, emphasizing independence remedial scheme established Acts. See, e.g., Johnson Railway Express Agency, 421 454, 459-461, 95 1716, 1719-20, 44 295 (1975) (§ Title VII (Equal Opportunity) 1964 independent remedies); Jones Alfred Mayer Co., 392 409, 416-417, n. 20, 88 2186, 2191, 20 1189 (1968) (enactment VIII (Fair Housing) 1968 "had effect 1982"). It settled will these statutes. Chardon Fumero Soto, 462 650, 655-656, 103 2611, 2615-2616, 77 74 B 8 described variety ways when determining set arguably relevant should govern For example, supra, U.S., 462, S.Ct., 1721, we goal identifying "most appropriate" Board Regents Tomanio, 446 478, 483-484, 100 1790, 1794-1795, 64 440 (1980), suggested select "the analogous action." See 469, 1724 ("that [period limitations] court") (MARSHALL, J., concurring part dissenting part). agree Court's selection 49B erroneous approach. functional make analog effectuate Congress' purpose enacting 9 arising out duties These exist any relief may available matter law. They judicially enforceable first instance. characterized broadly inclusive language. limit bring suit, circumscribed facts, nor preclude money damages injunctive relief. An must responsive characteristics "appropriate" fails take account practicalities involved litigating policies 10 Applying criteria disqualifying begin observation ignores dominant characteristic actions: belong McDonald West Branch, 466 284, 290, 1799, 1803, 80 302 (1984). Assuring full availability judicial necessitates attention litigation. Litigating claim requires considerable preparation. injured recognize his injury. He obtain counsel, prepare se. conduct enough investigation draft pleadings meet requirements rules;13 he establish documents, pay substantial fee additional papers support request forma pauperis, serve complaint. At same time, litigant ahead responsibilities immediately prepared withstand responses, dismiss, well discovery. 11 strikingly different. modeled 1964, 2000e seq., typical 30 States. 10, 7. person's "make, sign Commission . writing oath." (1979). need name address entity alleged committed act, particulars thereof," "other information time Commission." Although complainant potentially liable malicious filing, 12(b), obligation investigate allegations fully. entire rests empowered issue subpoenas, hearings, seek enforcement orders. 11-12. 12 When legislature selects action, takes burdens borne parties sort. Article 9(a), tells act wishes aid resolving dispute. Legislature reflects minimal places complainant, correspond significant way litigant.14 Indeed, acknowledges burdens. Where initiate grievance, Commission—which receiving essentially assumes role "litigant"—may engage negotiations toward least two years bringing formal charges employer. Regulations 14.03.01.01-14.03.01.03.A 13 legislative definition policy assessment applies. Occidental Life Insurance Co. EEOC, 432 355, 367, 97 2447, 2454, 53 402 (1977) ("State legislatures devise periods national interests mind, duty assure importation frustrate interfere implementation policies"). instance, length influenced legislature's determination importance underlying claims, repose potential defendants, considerations economy, relationship goals. To extent concerns inconsistent with, marginal relevance to, informing Act, resulting claims.15 14 clear compensation violated, prevention power. 488, 1797; Robertson Wegmann, 436 584, 590-591, 98 1991, 1995, 56 554 (1978). That empowering agency apparent both authority limited,16 create right action.17 identification disputes. conciliation agency's intervention live 15 urge assertion public employee particular, noting important "is clearly mirrored abbreviated fair agency," enacted most Brief 30, 19. policy, keyed classification plaintiffs, cannot pre-empt purposes distinction among vindicate rights. "abbreviated" precisely effectuates narrower goal, elsewhere 16 Similarly, argue here affords "some protection seemingly endless stream unfounded, often stale, lawsuits them." 30. This contention undercuts rather buttresses embodied actions. statement suggests choice restrictive judgment factors minimizing diversion officials' outweigh interest providing ready access valid claims. manifestly central objective ensure individuals abridged recover secure Mitchum Foster, 407 225, 239, 92 2151, 2160, 32 705 (1972); Griffin Breckenridge, 403 88, 97, 91 1795, 29 338 (1971); McNeese Education, 373 668, 671-672, 83 1433, 1435, 622 (1963); Monroe Pape, 365 167, 173, 81 473, 476, 492 (1961).18 III 17 sum, tests our prior cases control contemplated court, rights, us conclude therefore 18 Affirmed. 19 POWELL, judgment. what 1985(3). (CA4 1983), again general Reconstruction discrimination. As adduced persuasive reason doubt correctly decided question, I 21 REHNQUIST, whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE O'CONNOR join, 22 concur Court, agreeing circumstances imposed (1979), write separately standard purports reach result. my view, search intent 23 straightforward: examine determine lawsuit. seen fit prescribe instead directing "not inconsistent" 1988; cf. (setting 1-year limitations). addresses assuming certain Under approach, appropriateness depends "practicalities" embodies "analogous" But test prescribed consistent neither principle practice decisions. 24 majority, all, view so trouble seeming hardly unique garden-variety claim. apparently believes asserting preparatory suit. ante, 50-51. basis assumption clear. Rules require nothing plain grounds relief, Fed.Rule Civ.Proc. 8(a), while discovery enable party develop fully trial come play filed. sure, modicum necessary initiating suit: depend fact being asserted, but facts give rise there inherent light modern pleading rules, makes invariably difficult Cf. 464, 1722, (1975). 25 true longer reflect means common-sense truism qualifies "practicality" ordinarily affect court's analysis Were otherwise, always prefer over alternative, shorter period, type approach before. 53, focus lawsuit illuminate convincing why contained 26 proposed "analogous"—whatever mean—to From seems believe basic vindication right, encompasses nondiscriminatory plaintiffs logical result involving plaintiff defendant. Thus, catchall covering forms invasions personal nearly 27 course, grounded contract could avoid state-employed doctor, though malpractice, might benefit medical malpractice desire uniform treatment odds 489, 1797, (1980); 593, 11, 1997, 11. More significantly, can still notwithstanding applies class cognizable involves parties. 28 occasions addressed Robertson, indicated dual preventing compensating violations yardsticks measured. 591, 1995. developed concept inconsistency further observed gauge consistency, respective sought foster compared." 487, 1796. went affirm "long respected fundamental well-ordered system," ibid., "in general, said disfavored law," id., 1797. Finally, one-year tolled pending proceedings. petitioner's rules tolling since forced him during pendency noted "anything peculiar justify special reluctance law." 1722. measure forming action. 53-55. reasoning, however, stale generally underlie adopted utterly disregards earlier observation, "[a] considered 'inconsistent' merely lose litigation." 1996. Congress, moreover, instructed refer 1988. admonition mere "technical obstacle circumvented possible." 484, 1795. States," 1988, free disregard Tomanio made clear, extremely conclusion claim, prima facie 31 limits Plainly, discriminates equivalent not, Alternatively, afford claimant, disregarded. Exactly constitutes determined priori. willingness impose demonstrates reasonable. another context willing seem materially DelCostello Teamsters, 151, 2281, 76 476 Even permissible, strong nature magnitude harm readily ascertainable below unlikely intended Unlike necessarily mean unreasonable Perhaps types judicial, administrative, reinforce did intend limited extent, bear 33 correct inquiry indicates unless Since appears Appeals. Respondents' original state-court declaratory dismissals arbitrary without fact, constituted deprivation property due denial equal protection. 6-7. sustained supplemental demurrer forth amend. guarantees activities, making 1983 confers actors deprive citizen within jurisdiction "rights, privileges, immunities secured laws." (1961) (constitutional deprivations); Maine Thiboutot, 448 1, 2502, 65 555 (1980) (statutory violations). 1985(3) creates injury caused conspirator "any laws, privileges case" year accrued knowledge prevent, 1985 conspiracy, neglects refuses act. assures "all opportunity labor management-union relations regardless race, color, religion, ancestry origin, sex, age, marital status, physical mental handicap unrelated reasonably performance employment." prohibits accommodations housing, 5, 8, 16, 20-22 (1979 Supp.1983). "A shall three date accrues provision commenced." contest state-law apply. governed it, too, time-barred relate back, Rule Procedure 15, Cert., 37-38. ruling appealed. F.2d, 162. Appeals' holding Several positions similar taken Childers Independent School Dist. Bryan County, 1338, 1342-1343 (CA10 1982) applicability Oklahoma's Political Subdivision Tort Claims 120-day employee's infringing 1983); Zuniga AMFAC Foods, 580 380, 384, 1978) Colorado's Anti-Discrimination "limitations nonjudicial inapplicable law"), overruled grounds, Garcia Wilson, 731 640 1984) (en banc) (holding Circuit uniformly injuries purposes, terms generating suit); Chambers Omaha Public Dist., 536 222, 225-228 (CA8 1976) Nebraska's Fair Practices 180-day nonrenewal contract); Mason Owens-Illinois, 517 520, 521-522 (CA6 1975) Ohio's promotion discharge, 1981); Garner Stephens, 460 1144, 1147-1148, 1972) (Kentucky 90-day limitations); Waters Wisconsin Steel Works Int'l Harvester 427 488-489 (CA7) Illinois' action), cert. denied, 400 911, 137, 151 (1970). Warner Perrino, 585 171, 173-175 (applying housing 1982 action); Green Ten Eyck, 572 1233, 1237-1238 (Missouri's officials); Warren Norman Realty 513 730, 733-735 (CA8) 1982, litigants alternative relief), 423 855, 96 105, 46 upheld Burns Sullivan, 619 99 Massachusetts Against Discrimination 449 893, 101 256, 66 121 (1980). followed Carter Supermarkets General Corp., 684 187, 189 (1982) (private employee, Holden Massachusetts, 671 (claim racially motivated 1985), 459 843, (1982); Hussey 651 (1981) (per curiam) political 1985(3)). 1988 pertinent part: "The conferred district [civil Titles] vindication, exercised enforced conformity States, effect; adapted object, deficient furnish punish offenses common wherein having held, extended disposition cause. ." discussion history complementary legislation, Moor County Alameda, 411 693, 702, 13, 703-706, nn. 18-19, 93 1785, 1792, 1792-1794, 596 (1973). Neither Appeals, vary depending us. affirmance reinstates (with exception supra), occasion discuss explicit 6-months' amendment liberally construed, administration justice wellserved premature, hastily drawn complaints. recent revision emphasizes attorney se certifies "to best knowledge, information, belief formed [a complaint] warranted existing good faith argument extension, modification, reversal interposed improper purpose, harass unnecessary delay needless increase cost "borrowed" context, find DelCostello, fixed 10(b) National Labor unfair Board, offered breaches collective-bargaining agreement. uniformity field, realities litigation," informed adopt substantive whatever reason, sees aspects cases. 594, Moreover, here, unlike relied functionally degree steps shade each other. inquiry—whether law—is made, Davis, 582 1316 Virginia's express discriminating action). Campbell Haverhill, 155 610, 615, 217, 219, 39 280 (1895) (patent action) (state operate "must sue"). concludes employer cease-and-desist order, include reinstatement hiring, backpay 2-year equitable 11(e) decision, monetary employees. 7(b) 1980 Md.Laws, ch. 568. review record final decision. (Supp.1983). de novo consideration 12(a). restrictions deterring Second noted, "[i]t anomalous restricting officials designed augment officials, especially rights." Pauk Trustees City University New York, 654 856, 862 N.Y.Gen.Mun.Law 50-i (McKinney Supp.1983) city 455 1000, 102 1631, 71 866 (1982).

Category: 1