Source: https://openjurist.org/827/f2d/952
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 09:52:54+00:00

Document:
Justine S. Lisser, E.E.O.C. (Johnny J. Butler, Acting General Counsel, Gwendolyn Young Reams, Acting Associate Gen. Counsel, Vella M. Fink, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Washington, D.C., on brief), for amicus curiae E.E.O.C.
Nancy B. Shuger, Mark J. Davis, Asst. Attys. Gen. (Stephen H. Sachs, Atty. Gen. of Baltimore, Md., on brief), for defendants-appellees.
Before WINTER, Chief Judge, WILKINSON, Circuit Judge, and KAUFMAN, Senior United States District Judge for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Plaintiff Mazie Keller, a black woman, sued her employer, the Prince George's County Department of Social Services (the "Department"), and the State of Maryland alleging discrimination on the basis of race in violation of the fourteenth amendment and 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Secs. 2000e et seq. Plaintiff prayed a jury trial of her Sec. 1983 claim. The suit arose from her employer's decision to deny Keller a promotion. The district court awarded summary judgment to defendants on Keller's Sec. 1983 claim on the ground that Title VII provides the exclusive remedy for employment discrimination claims against a state employer. 616 F.Supp. 540 (D.Md.1985). After a bench trial, the district court entered judgment for defendants on the Title VII claim, ruling that the plaintiff had failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the denial of her promotion was due to racial discrimination. Plaintiff appeals. We reverse the judgment for defendants on the Sec. 1983 claim and remand the case for further proceedings.
The Department employed the plaintiff in the classification of Case Worker Associate II when, in September of 1983, she applied for the higher salaried position of Case Worker Associate III. Plaintiff claims that she was denied this promotion due to her race. Keller asserted two causes of action in her suit alleging intentional discrimination arising under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Secs. 2000e et seq., and section 1 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, because she had been discriminated against in violation of the fourteenth amendment. The underlying facts which support these actions are identical. Subsequent to filing her complaint, the plaintiff filed a demand for a jury trial.
In August 1985, the district court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's Sec. 1983 claim on the ground that Title VII provides the exclusive remedy for employment discrimination claims by a state employee. After dismissing plaintiff's Sec. 1983 claim, the district court denied her request for a jury because there is no right to a jury trial under Title VII. 616 F.Supp. at 544.
In September 1985, plaintiff sought leave to amend her complaint to allege that the denial of her promotion resulted in emotional distress and entitled her to compensatory damages under Sec. 1983. The district court denied the plaintiff's motion based on its earlier ruling that Title VII offered the exclusive remedy for the alleged discrimination.
In June 1986, a trial was held before the district judge on plaintiff's Title VII claim. The district judge ruled at trial that plaintiff had established a prima facie case of racial discrimination by establishing that she was black, that she had applied for an available position for which she was qualified, that she was rejected for this position, and that after her rejection, the position remained open to applicants of the plaintiff's qualifications. Accord McDonnell-Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973). The court further ruled that defendants met their burden of articulating a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for the decision to deny plaintiff the promotion by demonstrating that it was given to an applicant who was more qualified for the position than Ms. Keller.
Persons seeking monetary damages under Sec. 1983 have a right to a jury trial under the seventh amendment. Segarra v. McDade, 706 F.2d 1301, 1304 & n. 6 (4 Cir.1983). Accordingly, the denial of the plaintiff's demand for a jury trial of her Sec. 1983 cause of action violated her seventh amendment right to a jury trial, and the judgment of the district court is void, unless she had no Sec. 1983 cause of action as a matter of law. In re N-500L Cases, 691 F.2d 15, 19 (1 Cir.1982); Gnossos Music v. Mitken Inc., 653 F.2d 117 (4 Cir.1981). The denial of the plaintiff's right to a jury trial is harmless error, however, if the trial judge would have directed a verdict in favor of the defendants. In re N-500L Cases, supra, 691 F.2d at 25. The standard of review regarding a directed verdict is whether the evidence is such, without weighing the credibility of the witnesses, that there is only one conclusion that reasonable jurors could have reached. Wheatley v. Gladden, 660 F.2d 1024, 1027 (4 Cir.1981).
The defendants' argument that a directed verdict would be warranted in this case lacks merit. The plaintiff offered substantial evidence on the issue of whether her employer's decision to deny her the promotion was a pretext for racial discrimination which the district court weighed and decided was insufficiently credible to warrant a verdict of intentional discrimination. The district court did not conclude that the defendants' evidence was so convincing that it merited a directed verdict. Critically, the district court also disregarded direct evidence that the defendants were motivated by racial animus because the court found that the statements of plaintiff's witnesses were not credible. If this credibility finding had not been made, the evidence would have demonstrated that the plaintiff's supervisor denied the plaintiff the promotion due to racial animus because, according to plaintiff's witnesses, the supervisor had stated that the plaintiff was "so black that I can hardly stand to look at her." While we see no indication that the district judge's findings were clearly erroneous, they do not establish that the defendants were entitled to a directed verdict so as to deprive plaintiff of her right to a jury trial if she was entitled to one. Thus we are brought to the basic question of the correctness of the district court's ruling that plaintiff's Sec. 1983 cause of action was superseded by the enactment of Title VII.
Title VII and Sec. 1983 also differ in the relief which they offer to aggrieved parties. Section 1983 provides for equitable and legal relief, including awards of compensatory or punitive damages, while Title VII grants authority only for equitable relief. Monetary relief available to a Title VII claimant is typically limited to an award of back pay. While a jury trial is available for a plaintiff's legal claim under Sec. 1983, Title VII's limitation to equitable relief means that there is no right to a jury trial in Title VII actions. Lehman v. Nakshian, 453 U.S. 156, 164, 101 S.Ct. 2698, 2703, 69 L.Ed.2d 548 (1981). A jury trial is similarly unavailable in a Sec. 1983 action if only equitable relief is sought. See infra, part III B.
Relying on Great American Federal Savings & Loan Association v. Novotny, 442 U.S. 366, 99 S.Ct. 2345, 60 L.Ed.2d 957 (1979) and Brown v. General Services Administration, 425 U.S. 820, 96 S.Ct. 1961, 48 L.Ed.2d 402 (1976), the district court held in this case that Title VII provides the exclusive remedy for a plaintiff seeking relief for intentional discrimination in employment decisions by a state government. 616 F.Supp. 543-44.3 The district court reasoned that allowing the plaintiff to proceed under Sec. 1983 would circumvent the detailed procedures and remedies that Congress created for Title VII. Id. Moreover, the district court ruled that Sec. 1983 as invoked by plaintiff, unlike Sec. 1981 which is not preempted by Title VII, creates only a remedy and no substantive right against employer discrimination, conduct which is exclusively redressed by Title VII. Id. We conclude that this holding conflicts with the intent of Congress in adopting the 1972 amendments to Title VII and established case law on this subject.
The Supreme Court first considered the interplay between Title VII and the Civil Rights Acts in Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, 421 U.S. 454, 95 S.Ct. 1716, 44 L.Ed.2d 295 (1975). The unanimous Court in Johnson held that Title VII does not preempt an employment discrimination suit against a private employer brought under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which prohibits racial discrimination in contractual relations. The Court found that the intention of the 1964 Act was expressed in the House and Senate Reports and the floor debates which accompanied the passage of the 1972 amendments to Title VII. Id., 421 U.S. at 461, 95 S.Ct. at 1720-21. Despite Title VII's comprehensive framework, the Court concluded from the legislative history of Title VII that Congress intended to allow individuals independently to pursue their rights under Title VII and other applicable federal statutes. Id. The Court acknowledged that the procedures for relief under Sec. 1981 and Title VII were at odds with each other and that the filing of a Sec. 1981 suit would weaken the administrative process mandated by Title VII. But, the Court reasoned, these difficulties were the byproduct of Congress' choice to make available multiple remedies against employment discrimination.
In Brown, the Supreme Court held that, unlike a private employee, a federal employee may not maintain a Sec. 1981 suit against the United States based on a claim of intentional discrimination in employment. 425 U.S. at 835, 96 S.Ct. at 1969. The Court ascertained Congressional intent from several sources. First, the Court found that the legislative history of Sec. 717 of Title VII, which protects federal employees against intentional discrimination, revealed that Congress believed that, prior to this legislation, federal employees had no judicial remedy for intentional acts of employment discrimination. Id., 425 U.S. at 828, 96 S.Ct. at 1965-66. The Court inferred from this that Congress' intent in passing Sec. 717 was to create an exclusive judicial scheme for remedying employment discrimination. Id. The Court also found that the comprehensive remedial framework provided to federal employees under Title VII was inconsistent with the view that Sec. 717 was designed to supplement other judicial remedies. Id., 425 U.S. at 832, 96 S.Ct. at 1967. While the Court acknowledged the tension between this holding and the decision in Johnson, it distinguished the latter case on the ground that Johnson's holding "rested upon the explicit legislative history of the 1964 Act." Id., 425 U.S. at 833-34, 96 S.Ct. at 1968.
Most recently, in Novotny, the Supreme Court held that Sec. 1985(3), which provides redress for conspiracies to deprive persons of their federal rights, was unavailable to a private employee as a remedy against intentional acts of employment discrimination. 442 U.S. at 378, 99 S.Ct. at 2352. Relying primarily on Brown, the Court prohibited plaintiffs from bringing employment discrimination suits under Sec. 1985(3) because that would allow plaintiffs to bypass the administrative and remedial framework established by Title VII. Id. Moreover, unlike Sec. 1981, Sec. 1985(3) offered only a remedy to protect federal rights and did not create any substantive rights. 442 U.S. at 376, 99 S.Ct. at 2351. The Court distinguished Johnson on this basis, and on the ground that Congress had clearly expressed its view that Sec. 1981 was not impliedly repealed by the 1964 Act. 442 U.S. at 377 & n. 21, 99 S.Ct. at 2351 & n. 21.
Relying on its comprehensive scheme to infer that Title VII impliedly repealed earlier civil rights statutes is problematic because such an implied repeal ignores the nature of the social malady which Title VII was intended to help eradicate. Cf. Easterbrook, The Court and the Economic System, 98 Harv.L.Rev. 14-15 (1984) (a remedial approach to legislative interpretation is appropriate where a law is designed to overcome market failures). A remedial focus on the problem of employment discrimination reveals that a battery of remedies is required to combat entrenched discrimination. Indeed, Congress recognized in adopting Title VII that no single approach to the problem of employment discrimination could be a panacea. See Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U.S. 36, 47-49, 94 S.Ct. 1011, 1019-20, 39 L.Ed.2d 147 (1974).5 We would expect, therefore, that if Congress intended to change the scope of Title VII in its 1972 amendments to the Act, it would have clearly expressed this intention in such amendments. As the Court concluded in Johnson, 421 U.S. at 461, 95 S.Ct. at 1720-21:We are disinclined, in the face of congressional emphasis upon the existence and independence of the two remedies, to infer any positive preference for one over the other, without a more definite expression in the legislation Congress has enacted.
The legislative history of the 1972 amendments to Title VII obviates the need to search for Congress' implied intentions; that history clearly indicates that Sec. 2 of the Act was not intended to preempt the preexisting remedy under Sec. 1983 for violations of the fourteenth amendment by state employers. The legislative history of the 1972 amendments is of such clarity on this issue, that the Court in Johnson relied on the record of the 1972 amendments to divine Congress' intent eight years earlier in passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Supra, 421 U.S. at 459, 95 S.Ct. at 1719-20. The Court in Brown and Novotny expressly reaffirmed the holding in Johnson and interpreted Johnson as being based on the explicit legislative history on this issue. As we read the same legislative history of the 1972 amendments which the Johnson Court relied on to interpret the 1964 Act, we are led to conclude that Title VII was not intended to displace a state employee's remedy under Sec. 1983. Any other conclusion would require us to ignore both the Supreme Court's holding in Johnson and to substitute judicial policy for the course established by Congress in 1972. We now turn to that history.
In establishing the applicability of Title VII to State and local employees, the Committee wishes to emphasize that the individual's right to file a civil action in his own behalf, pursuant to the Civil Rights Act of 1870 and 1871, 42 U.S.C. Secs. 1981 and 1983, is in no way affected.... The bill, therefore, by extending jurisdiction to State and local government employees does not affect existing rights that such individuals have already been granted by previous legislation.
When the bill reached the House floor, Congress was informed of the bill's intention. Congressman Erlenborn responded by introducing a bill which, among other things, amended the Committee's proposal to make Title VII "the exclusive remedy of any person claiming to be aggrieved by an unlawful employment practice." H.R. 9247, Legislative History, at 141, 144. One express purpose of this provision was to foreclose a plaintiff's recourse to the existing remedies afforded by the Civil Rights Acts of 1866 and 1871. Legislative History, at 231 (statement of Cong. Erlenborn); Legislative History, at 264 (statement of Cong. O'Hara). Members of the House expressed opposition to the Erlenborn amendment because it was intended to nullify the protections of the Civil Rights Acts which enforce individual rights guaranteed under the fourteenth amendment. Legislative History, at 249 and 242 (statement of Cong. Eckhardt); Legislative History, at 264 (statement of Cong. Hawkins, sponsor of the original house bill); Legislative History, at 276 (statement of Cong. Abzug). Congressman Hawkins, sponsor of the original house bill, objected that "the Erlenborn substitute ... nullif[ies] the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which later became the 14th Amendment ... and it wipes out other Civil Rights Acts as well." Id. at 285. Despite these and other objections, however, the House approved the Erlenborn amendment in the form of a substitute for the Committee bill, and included the provision making Title VII the exclusive remedy for discriminatory employment practices. Legislative History, at 314, 326, 329.
[N]either of the above provisions regarding the individual's right to sue under title VII, nor any of the other provisions of this bill, are meant to affect existing rights granted under other laws.
S.Rep. No. 92-415, Legislative History, at 433.
[C]ourt decisions ... have held that Title VII has not preempted the field of civil rights in employment and thus an individual has an independent cause of action in cases of employment discrimination pursuant to the provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (42 U.S.C. 1981) and 1871 (42 U.S.C. Section 1983) and that actions may be brought under all three laws simultaneously.
There are other remedies, but those other remedies are not surplusage. Those other remedies are needed to implement the promise we made under the Constitution to prevent discrimination in employment. The laws of 1866, 1871, as well as the law of 1964 are to implement that promise.
At this juncture, when we are all agreed that some improvement in the enforcement of Title VII is needed, it would be, in our judgment, unwise to diminish in any way the variety of enforcement means available to deal with discrimination in employment. The problem is widespread and we suggest that all available resources should be used in the effort to correct it.
[T]he courts have specifically held that Title VII and the Civil Rights Acts of 1866 and 1871 are not mutually exclusive, and must be read together to provide alternative means to redress individual grievances ... to make Title VII the exclusive remedy for employment discrimination would be inconsistent with our entire legislative history of the Civil Rights Act. It would jeopardize the degree and scope of remedies available to the workers of our country. To lock the aggrieved person into the administrative remedy would narrow rather than strengthen our civil rights enforcement effort.
At a time when we are trying to increase the enforcement power in regard to discrimination in employment, it is certainly not the time in which to dismantle a very important series of remedies--and again I use that word--which would be dismantled were this [Hruska] amendment to be adopted.
Congress also believed that the fears of opponents of the 1972 Act that multiple remedies would undercut the comprehensive scheme of Title VII were exaggerated. Congress understood that the courts had for some time allowed multiple remedies in employment discrimination suits and that there was considerable judicial experience in reconciling the various overlapping statutory schemes.12 In addition, Congress emphasized its commitment to overlapping remedies in Title VII by adopting Sec. 706, which allowed the EEOC to bring civil actions and to intervene in Title VII suits in federal court. This authority supplemented overlapping procedures already contained in Title VII for consultation with the EEOC and state and local agencies, and for bringing a private cause of action in federal court. See 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e-5; supra note 5. Proponents of the 1972 amendments also noted that the judicial tool of collateral estoppel would be available to administer efficiently multiple litigation over claims of employment discrimination authorized by different federal statutes. Legislative History, at 1400-01 (statement of Sen. Javits).
We reach an obvious conclusion from this legislative history: Congress explicitly expressed its intent in passing the 1972 Act, an intent which the Supreme Court in Johnson, Brown, and Novotny characterized as binding on the question of Title VII's exclusivity. Unlike actions against federal employers discussed in Brown, Congress was aware of the remedies for state employees such as Sec. 1983 which preexisted Title VII, and it decided that those remedies should remain available. The Court's decision in Novotny does not undermine this conclusion because Congress omitted discussion of the remedy afforded by Sec. 1985(3) in enacting Title VII in 1964 while, in contrast, Congress stated that it did not intend in enacting the 1972 Act to preempt either the preexisting rights or remedies of state employees, including those remedies provided by Sec. 1983. Legislative History, at 1512 (statement of Sen. Javits) (Title VII amendments preserve the preexisting remedies and rights created by the Civil Rights Acts of 1866 and 1871).
The Supreme Court's recent affirmative action decisions also indicate that the Court rejects the view that Title VII may preempt a cause of action for intentional employment discrimination under Sec. 1983. The standards for review of affirmative action plans, for both public and private employers, are more liberal under Title VII than are the standards imposed on public employers by the fourteenth amendment in a Sec. 1983 suit. Compare Johnson v. Transportation Agency, --- U.S. ----, ----, 107 S.Ct. 1442, 1449-50, 94 L.Ed.2d 615 (1987) (affirmative action plans are valid under Title VII if they are designed to eliminate manifest imbalances in traditionally segregated job categories), with U.S. v. Paradise, --- U.S. ----, 107 S.Ct. 1053, 94 L.Ed.2d 203 (1987) (affirmative action plans are subject to strict scrutiny under the fourteenth amendment, and must therefore be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest). The stricter standards that the Court has imposed under the fourteenth amendment would be, of course, functionally irrelevant if aggrieved public employees may only challenge an affirmative action plan adopted by a state employer under the rubric of Title VII. Given the Court's recent pronouncements on the independent rights and remedies protected by Title VII and Sec. 1983, we think it difficult to imagine that the Supreme Court would uphold a ruling that Title VII in fact preempts the remedy available for a violation of the fourteenth amendment for intentional employment discrimination provided by Sec. 1983.
On appeal, defendants raise for the first time the defense that retroactive relief under Sec. 1983 is barred by the eleventh amendment. To accept this defense would limit the plaintiff's remedies to equitable relief under Sec. 1983, relief to which the district judge has already ruled that the plaintiff is not entitled and for which no right to a jury trial is available.
Several factors are relevant in analyzing the nature of the Department for purposes of the eleventh amendment: the characterization of the Department under state law; the extent of state control over the Department; the extent to which it depends on state appropriations; and whether a damage award would come from state funds. Mount Healthy, supra. Factors of particular importance in this case include whether the money appropriated to the Department comes primarily from state funds, and whether the local Department raises its own monies. If the Department obtains a significant amount of local appropriations, a judgment against it may not effect state coffers. The Maryland Code authorizes payment of administrative costs of the local Department out of "funds derived from local sources" or state allotments. Md.Code Art. 88A Sec. 13(d). The Code authorizes "[t]he local governing authority in each county ... to levy for or appropriate such funds, from time to time, as may be necessary for this purpose."21 Id. The Code also requires that local departments be represented by their own counsel in all civil cases. Art. 88A Sec. 7. Fees for such services are paid from the regular administrative funds of the local department. Art. 88A Sec. 13(c). There is no record of how this authority is used in practice. We do not know the extent to which local monies have been appropriated by the Department or whether a judgment against the Department would have any effect on state coffers. These issues of fact, and state law, should be decided by the district court in the first instance. On remand, if the state chooses to raise the defense of the eleventh amendment, the district court may consider its proper application in this case.
The only question here is what Congress intended. The comprehensive nature of Title VII and the obvious differences between Title VII and Sec. 1983 suggest at first blush that Title VII is the exclusive remedy for claims of employment discrimination against state and local governments. These facts are, however, only clues in the search for congressional intent. Here the legislative history of the 1972 Amendments leaves no doubt that Congress intended to preserve a Sec. 1983 cause of action for employment discrimination that violates the Fourteenth Amendment. Congress weighed the vexatiousness of multiple actions for a single offense against the need to assault the evil of discrimination with a varied legal arsenal. Congress found the latter value paramount.
In determining when Congress intends a statutory remedy to be exclusive, the Supreme Court has increasingly focused on the comprehensiveness of a statute and its remedies. When Congress has enacted a statute that establishes an administrative process for resolving disputes and imposes strict restrictions on private actions, the Court has limited parties to their statutory remedies and has prevented plaintiffs from using a Sec. 1983 cause of action to bypass the administrative process. See Smith v. Robinson, 468 U.S. 992, 1009-13, 104 S.Ct. 3457, 3467-69, 82 L.Ed.2d 746 (1984) (decision modified by 20 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1415 (West Supp.1987)); Bush v. Lucas, 462 U.S. 367, 385-89, 103 S.Ct. 2404, 2414-17, 76 L.Ed.2d 648 (1983); Brown v. GSA, 425 U.S. 820, 829-33, 96 S.Ct. 1961, 1966-68, 48 L.Ed.2d 402 (1976). Cf. Great American Federal Savings & Loan Association v. Novotny, 442 U.S. 366, 373-76, 99 S.Ct. 2345, 2349-51, 60 L.Ed.2d 957 (1979); Middlesex County Sewerage Authority v. National Sea Clammers Association, 453 U.S. 1, 13-15, 101 S.Ct. 2615, 2622-24, 69 L.Ed.2d 435 (1981). Thus, in the absence of a specific congressional intent to the contrary, the comprehensive nature of Title VII is strong evidence that Congress meant the statutory remedy to be exclusive.
A section 1983 suit allows the employee to avoid virtually all of the specific Title VII limitations. A claimant can avoid the 180-day filing requirement because the Sec. 1983 suit is subject to the same statute of limitations as any personal injury action. Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 278, 105 S.Ct. 1938, 1948, 85 L.Ed.2d 254 (1985). An aggrieved employee would not be entitled to a jury trial under Title VII, but would be for her legal claims under Sec. 1983. Moreover, she can sue for compensatory damages and, although she cannot obtain punitive damages from a municipality, Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc., 453 U.S. 247, 101 S.Ct. 2748, 69 L.Ed.2d 616 (1981), she could seek punitive damages by suing a municipal employee directly, Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30, 103 S.Ct. 1625, 75 L.Ed.2d 632 (1983). Title VII, by contrast, is equitable in nature. Most importantly, an employee may be able to "completely bypass the administrative process, which plays such a crucial role in the scheme established by Congress in Title VII." Novotny, 442 U.S. at 376, 99 S.Ct. at 2351.
Before allowing litigants to ignore a statutory scheme as detailed and comprehensive as Title VII, courts must make certain that Congress has expressed its intent in an unambiguous fashion. I concur in the result reached here because, in this case, the legislative record is not murky. It is clear that Congress intended Title VII to be an additional, rather than exclusive, remedy for employment discrimination.
The 1972 Amendments began when Representative Hawkins introduced a bill to extend Title VII coverage to state and federal employees. Although the bill did not state whether Title VII was the exclusive remedy for state employees, the report from the House Committee on Education and Labor noted that the bill preserved a state employee's cause of action under Sec. 1983. H.R.Rep. No. 92-238, 92d Cong., 1st Sess. 18-19 (1971) reprinted in Legislative History of the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972, at 78-79 (1972) [hereinafter Legislative History]. The minority members of the committee filed a separate report, noting that they believed Title VII should be the exclusive remedy, but they had failed to convince a majority of the committee. Legislative History at 126-27.
The minority, however, did convince the whole House that Title VII should be the exclusive remedy. Representative Erlenborn introduced a substitute bill, which provided in part that, except for a claimant's right to sue under Title VII, "a charge filed hereunder shall be the exclusive remedy of any person claiming to be aggrieved by an unlawful employment practice of an employer, employment agency, or labor organization." Legislative History at 326, 329. During debate in the House, Representative Erlenborn noted the unfairness of allowing an employee to bring multiple suits against an employer for the same incident. Id. at 231. The House ultimately enacted the Erlenborn substitute bill with its exclusivity provision.
After the House passed this bill, the Senate renewed the debate on exclusivity. Senator Williams introduced a bill without an exclusivity clause, and the accompanying committee report explained that "neither the above provisions regarding the individual's right to sue under Title VII, nor any of the other provisions of this bill, are meant to affect existing rights granted under other laws." Legislative History at 433. In response to the Williams bill, Senator Hruska introduced an amendment that, with a few exceptions, would have made Title VII the exclusive remedy for employment discrimination. Id. at 1382.
The Senate conducted extensive debate on the exclusivity issue. Senator Hruska argued that exclusivity would prevent employees from harassing or blackmailing their employers by bringing more than one lawsuit. See Legislative History at 1395-98, 1402, 1509, 1518. Senators Williams and Javits lead the fight for non-exclusivity, arguing that a battery of actions was necessary to fight employment discrimination. Id. at 1400, 1403-05, 1511-15, 1517. During the debate, both sides apparently assumed that state employees could bring a Sec. 1983 action before the 1972 amendments and would be able to bring such an action unless the 1972 Amendments contained an exclusivity provision. The Senate finally rejected the Hruska Amendment by a vote of 33-33 and rejected a motion to reconsider the amendment by 50-37. Thus, the Senate version of the 1972 Amendments went to conference without an exclusivity provision.
At conference, the committee had to reconcile the differing House and Senate versions of exclusivity. The Senate version prevailed; the conference bill did not contain an exclusivity provision. The conference report did not discuss this issue, but simply stated that the "House bill provided that charges under Title VII are the exclusive remedy for unlawful employment practices. The House receded." Legislative History at 1815. During the post-conference debates, no Congressman mentioned the exclusivity problem.
In sum, the legislative history shows that the House and Senate extensively debated the effect of the 1972 Amendments on Sec. 1983 causes of action and were aware that, without an exclusivity clause, state employees could still bring a Sec. 1983 suit. Although the House initially supported an exclusivity provision, the Senate desire for non-exclusivity prevailed in the conference bill. Based on this explicit record, I believe that Congress did not intend Title VII to be the exclusive remedy for state employees who allege employment discrimination that violates the Fourteenth Amendment.
[L]egislative enactments in this area have long evinced a general intent to accord parallel or overlapping remedies against discrimination. In the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Congress indicated that it considered the policy against discrimination to be of the "highest priority." Consistent with this view, Title VII provides for consideration of employment-discrimination claims in several forums. See 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e-5(b) (EEOC); 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e-5(c) (state and local agencies); 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e-5(f) (federal courts). And, in general, submission of a claim to one forum does not preclude a later submission to another. See 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e-5(b) and (f). Moreover, the legislative history of Title VII manifests a congressional intent to allow an individual to pursue independently his rights under both Title VII and other applicable state and federal statutes. The clear inference is that Title VII was designed to supplement, rather than supplant, existing laws and institutions relating to employment discrimination.
Id. at 47-49, 94 S.Ct. at 1019-20 (citations omitted).
The minority views on H.R. 1746 from the Committee included the objection that the bill failed to make Title VII an exclusive federal remedy. H.Rep. 92-238, Legislative History, at 126. The minority specifically noted that their attempts to amend the Committee bill to make Title VII an exclusive remedy had been unsuccessful. The opponents in the committee argued that this omission would undercut the statutory role of the EEOC and other Title VII procedures. Legislative History, at 126-27, 129.
In sum, although we favor the granting of judicial enforcement authority to EEOC, we are concerned that at this point in time there be no elimination of any of the remedies which have achieved some success in the effort to end employment discrimination. In the field of civil rights, the Congress has regularly insured that there be a variety of enforcement devices to insure that all available resources are brought to bear on problems of discrimination.
The district courts may thus draw upon a considerable experience in civil rights litigation to deal with the difficulties which Congress accepted as the price of an all-out assault on employment discrimination. For example, much case law has already developed to reconcile the divergent limitation periods and exhaustion requirements of Title VII and Sec. 1981 in employment discrimination suits against private employers. See Johnson, supra; Developments in the Law--Section 1981, 15 Harv.C.R.C.L.L.Rev. 239-246 (1980). In addition, the right to a jury trial under Sec. 1983 presents no more difficulty to a district court than is encountered in any action in which legal and equitable claims have been joined. Finally, although the damages available to a plaintiff are more generous in an action under Sec. 1983, it is commonplace for damage remedies to differ among the different causes of action which are available to a plaintiff. It should also be noted that, as practical matter, retroactive relief will be barred in many cases by the eleventh amendment. See Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 99 S.Ct. 1139, 59 L.Ed.2d 358 (1979).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 Art. 88
 Art. 88
 Art. 88
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.