Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/419/1123/1978817/
Timestamp: 2019-10-23 02:15:09
Document Index: 5143825

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 621', '§ 14', '§ 633', '§ 633', '§ 2000', '§ 633', '§ 633', '§ 633', '§ 633', '§ 633', '§ 2000', '§ 7', '§ 626', '§ 2000', '§ 633', '§ 633', '§ 633', '§ 881', '§ 633', '§ 881', '§ 884', '§ 633', '§ 9', '§ 633', '§ 633', '§ 633', '§ 633', '§ 633', '§ 633', '§ 633', '§ 633', '§ 17', '§ 16', '§ 626', '§ 633', '§ 2000', '§ 633', '§ 884', '§ 626']

Bertrand v. Orkin Exterminating Co., Inc., 419 F. Supp. 1123 (N.D. Ill. 1976) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › District Courts › Illinois › Northern District of Illinois › 1976 › Bertrand v. Orkin Exterminating Co., Inc.
Bertrand v. Orkin Exterminating Co., Inc., 419 F. Supp. 1123 (N.D. Ill. 1976)
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois - 419 F. Supp. 1123 (N.D. Ill. 1976)
419 F. Supp. 1123 (1976)
Duane BERTRAND, Plaintiff,
*1124 John C. Ruppert, McBride, Baker, Wienke & Schlosser, Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff.
Fred R. Kimmel, Arvey, Hodes, Costello & Burman, Chicago, Ill., for defendant.
Duane Bertrand, the plaintiff in this action, has brought suit against Orkin Exterminating Company, Inc., alleging that he was demoted and constructively discharged by the defendant because of his age in violation of the Federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 et seq. The defendant has moved to dismiss the complaint or in the alternative to strike portions thereof and for a more definite statement.
The motion to dismiss charges that the plaintiff has failed to allege satisfaction of a purported jurisdictional prerequisite set forth in § 14(b) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 633(b).[1] This provision, which is headed "Limitation of Federal action upon commencement *1125 of State proceedings", applies when two conditions are satisfied. (1) The state must have a law prohibiting age-based discrimination. (2) There must be a state authority authorized to grant or seek relief from age-discrimination.
At one extreme may be found a case such as Vaughn v. Chrysler Corporation, 382 F. Supp. 143 (E.D.Mich.1974), which analogizes § 633(b) to the jurisdictional deference provisions of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(c), thereby constituting a bar to plaintiff's cause of action. Somewhat less harsh is the conclusion of the majority in Goger v. H. K. Porter Co., Inc., 492 F.2d 13 (3d Cir. 1974), that while § 633(b) is a jurisdictional requirement, it nonetheless will not compel dismissal of an action where a plaintiff can present an equitable claim justifying the hearing of his cause. Curry v. Continental Airlines, 513 F.2d 691 (9th Cir. 1975), also utilized the analogy of Title VII law to find jurisdictional import in § 633(b), but it strictly construed the words of that section to require a specific legislative mandate to the state authority concerning age-discrimination.
At the other extreme is the more recent opinion in Vazquez v. Eastern Airlines, Inc., 405 F. Supp. 1353 (D.P.R.1975), which concluded that § 633(b) did not establish resort to state law as a jurisdictional prerequisite for a federal age discrimination action. This opinion closely relies on the concurring opinion of Judge Garth in Goger, supra. A similar, but not identical, conclusion was reached in Skoglund v. Singer Co., 403 F. Supp. 797 (D.N.H.1975). Vazquez and the Goger concurrence maintain that the language of § 633(b) applies only to those cases where the plaintiff had already sought relief under state law prior to filing the federal action. This viewpoint holds that in such a situation the plaintiff must give the state authority the required sixty days to attempt to resolve the dispute. However, there is no obligation to utilize the state remedy. Skoglund holds that
As noted, the courts that view § 633(b) as a jurisdictional requirement are greatly influenced by the similarity of the language of that provision to language found in Title VII at § 2000e-5(c).[2] The latter provision has been generally perceived as a jurisdictional *1126 requirement. Abshire v. Chicago and Eastern Illinois Railroad Co., 352 F. Supp. 601 (N.D.Ill.1972). Judge Hunter cited in Goger, supra, portions of the legislative history indicating that Title VII served as a model for the drafting of this portion of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. 492 F.2d at 16 (fn. 13).
Vazquez correctly notes that the jurisdictional requirements for a suit brought under the 1967 Age Discrimination Act are found in § 7 of that Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 626(c)-(e). These provisions bear the express label of "jurisdiction" in the United States Code, and are the more likely analogue to § 2000e-5(b)-(d) of Title VII. Both Title VII and the Age Discrimination Act establish as a jurisdictional requirement the filing of notice of a proposed action prior to the commencement of the suit. But while the jurisdictional notice requirement appears in the same section of Title VII with the language dealing with deference to state law remedies, the reference to state law deference in § 633(b) is isolated from the other jurisdictional provisions and is removed to the tail end of the Act. It is found only after the section establishing an annual report from the Secretary of Labor to Congress on age discrimination matters.
*1127 Judge Garth and Judge Pesquera both gave substantial deference to the construction of the statute given by Secretary of Labor Wirtz, which was summarized by Judge Garth as an assertion "that the sole Congressional purpose underlying the enactment of 29 U.S.C. § 633(b) was to give the State time to act on a complaint if an aggrieved individual chose to proceed there first." 492 F.2d at 17-18. This interpretation does buttress the non-jurisdictional thesis, and comports with congressional concern to provide concurrent federal and state alternatives for victims of age discrimination.
It is noteworthy that § 633(a) of the Age Discrimination Act,[3] a provision with no exact counterpart in Title VII, mandates that an action under the 1967 Act will supersede any state action. Judge Garth's comment upon the interaction of these sections is particularly cogent:
Illinois does have "an Act to prohibit unjust discrimination in employment because of age and providing for penalties." Ill.Rev.Stat. ch. 48 §§ 881-7. Section 884(1) renders unlawful the conduct complained of by the plaintiff.[4] The parties agree that this satisfies the first requirement of § 633(b).
However, there is a dispute as to whether Illinois law "authoriz[es] a State authority *1128 to grant or seek relief from such discriminatory practice[s]."
The defendant notes that the Illinois statute against age discrimination refers to a "right to employment otherwise lawful without discrimination because of age", Ill. Rev.Stat. ch. 48 § 881(c) and as a consequence argues that Ill.Rev.Stat. ch. 48 § 884(1) is one of the "laws relating to civil rights" which the Division for the Enforcement of Civil and Equal Rights may enforce.
Reference to the Illinois age discrimination law buttresses the conclusion that this is not a statute which can be enforced by the Division to grant relief to a victim of discrimination. The statute provides a penalty of $50-100 against a perpetrator of illegal age discrimination and denominates a violation of the law a "petty offense". There is no express indication that the victim may obtain damages or other relief. The cases annotated in Smith-Hurd Illinois Annotated Statutes reveal only one reported case where an alleged victim sought relief under this act. In Kennedy v. Com. Unit Sch. Dist. # 7, 23 Ill.App.3d 382, 319 N.E.2d 243 (4th Dist. 1974), the court disposed of the claim based on the age discrimination act by finding that the statute did not cover the specific situation raised by that action. This was a private action, and was not brought by the Division. There is thus no reported case authority affirming that the Division could grant or seek relief under this act, and considerable reason to doubt that such relief is available. And, more pertinent to this action, there is no evidence that the Division has ever attempted to bring any enforcement action under the Illinois Act.
The conclusion that Illinois lacks the state remedies contemplated by § 633(b) is buttressed by the opinion of the Ninth Circuit in Curry v. Continental Airlines, 513 F.2d 691 (9th Cir. 1975), which held that the federal act required a "showing of state concern in the specific area of age discrimination", at 694 (emphasis in original). The *1129 California law considered in Curry made age discrimination in unemployment unlawful and a misdemeanor violation. The California Department of Human Resources Development was given the power of investigation over violations of the Unemployment Insurance Code, which contained the age discrimination provision. The Department also possessed the power to "prosecute actions" with respect to matters within its jurisdiction. While the Ninth Circuit noted that the Department did not assign any personnel to handle age discrimination complaints and referred complainants to local and federal agencies,[5] it emphasized that there was not "any specific legislative mandate directing the Department to act in the field of age discrimination". 513 F.2d at 693. The Illinois statute establishing the Division for the Enforcement of Civil and Equal Rights, Ill.Rev.Stat. ch. 14 § 9, is cast in the same generalized language. A fortiori the court cannot find a specific legislative mandate to act in the field of age discrimination where the statute specifies various anti-discrimination laws which the Division is required to enforce, and where age discrimination is not to be found among the enumerated categories.
A review of the litigation spawned by § 633(b) reveals that this section has proved more successful as a trap to the unwary litigant than as a gesture of respect towards state remedies. It is also evident that the federal judiciary has proved extremely reluctant to permit such an obscure technicality, such a token tip of the hat towards federalism, to deprive complainants of the congressionally intended remedy for age-based discrimination. Of the cases cited by the parties to construe the import of § 633(b), it is significant that only in Vaughn v. Chrysler Corporation, supra, was the action actually dismissed. And Chief Judge Kaess agreed in Vaughn that the requirements of § 633(b) may be waived under the principles of equity. The majority in Goger v. H. K. Porter Co., Inc., supra, vacated the district court's dismissal of the action because the plaintiff had relied upon the advice of the Secretary of Labor and because the jurisdictional nature of § 633 had not been clearly indicated by the courts. As the court noted in Skoglund v. Singer Co., supra, many of the requirements of Title VII and the Age Discrimination Act have been treated as "jurisdictional but subject to equitable modification." Culpepper v. Reynolds Metals Co., 421 F.2d 888 (5th Cir. 1970); Reeb v. Economic Opportunity Atlanta, Inc., 516 F.2d 924 (5th Cir. 1975).
The Age Discrimination Act is a remedial statute enacted by Congress to combat an unjust and injurious employment practice. Such statutes are liberally construed to achieve their ends. Skoglund, supra, at 804. *1130 As the Vazquez court noted, defendants frequently seek to utilize § 633(b) as a
The court will not allow this to happen in the instant case. As the discussion of the law, supra, reveals the construction of the provisions of § 633(b) as well as the relevant state statutes is not easy, and there have been no definitive interpretations of these laws either from the Illinois courts or the Seventh Circuit. In these circumstances it would not be equitable to deprive plaintiff Bertrand of his day in court because he failed to comprehend the details of these laws better than many judges.[6]
The court therefore notes that, regardless of the jurisdictional significance of § 633(b), under equitable principles it would not have dismissed the instant action. Rather, it would have retained jurisdiction for a period sufficient to allow the plaintiff to defer to the available state administrative procedures for the sixty days indicated in § 633(b). The plaintiff would be allowed to return to the federal remedy after the expiration of the token sixty-day deference period. This accords with the favored practice of other courts when confronted with the failure of a plaintiff to comply with the Title VII deferral requirements. Oubichon v. North American Rockwell Corporation, 482 F.2d 569 (9th Cir. 1973); Parker v. General Telephone Co. of the Northwest, Inc., 476 F.2d 595 (9th Cir. 1973); Mitchell v. Mid-Continent Spring Co. of Kentucky, 466 F.2d 24 (6th Cir. 1972); Motorola, Inc. v. EEOC, 460 F.2d 1245 (9th Cir. 1972). See also, Crosslin et Vir v. Mountain States Tel. & Tel., 400 U.S. 1004, 91 S. Ct. 562, 27 L. Ed. 2d 618 (1971).
The language of the statute thus expressly contemplates the availability of "legal" relief which, in contrast to "equitable" rights, are protected by the Seventh *1131 Amendment guarantee of adjudication by a jury. Statutory rights may be "legal rights", Curtis v. Loether, 415 U.S. 189, 94 S. Ct. 1005, 39 L. Ed. 2d 260 (1974), and in actions raising both legal and equitable claims the issues underlying a legal claim for damages must be tried to a jury. Dairy Queen v. Wood, 369 U.S. 469, 82 S. Ct. 894, 8 L. Ed. 2d 44 (1962); Beacon Theatres v. Westover, 359 U.S. 500, 79 S. Ct. 948, 3 L. Ed. 2d 988 (1959). The Supreme Court has endorsed a three-pronged test for the determination of whether an action can be characterized as "legal" or "equitable".
". . . the `legal' nature of an issue is determined by considering first, the premerger custom with reference to such questions; second, the remedy sought; and third, the practical abilities and limitations of juries." Ross v. Bernhard, 396 U.S. 531 at 538, fn. 10, 90 S. Ct. 733, 738, 24 L. Ed. 2d 729 (1970).
The Court has also indicated that the strong federal policy favoring jury trials requires that all doubts should be resolved in favor of granting a trial by jury. Ross v. Bernhard, supra; Simler v. Conner, 372 U.S. 221, 83 S. Ct. 609, 9 L. Ed. 2d 691 (1963).
As in the case with many critical aspects of litigation under this statute, there is a dearth of precedent on these matters. However, the two cases most closely in point both concur that back pay should be treated as a "legal" claim, triable by jury. Chilton v. National Cash Register Co., 370 F. Supp. 660 (S.D.Ohio 1974), and Cleverly v. Western Electric Co., 69 F.R.D. 348 (W.D. Mo.1975), are both thoughtful and detailed opinions which focus on the availability of a jury trial in private actions for back pay under the Age Discrimination Act.
The defendant has not cited any case that reaches a contrary conclusion with respect to the Age Discrimination Act. Of the cases cited, the most interesting is O'Connell v. Ford Motor Co., 11 F.E.P. Cases 1474, 1475 (E.D.Mich.1975), which says in dicta that "[b]asically, an award of back pay has been held to be equitable when it is statutorily part of the restitution remedy of reinstatement." However, the court did not decide this issue because it found that the plaintiff had indicated in his complaint that he only sought equitable remedies. Furthermore, the analogy to Title VII upon which Judge Pratt relied is of doubtful validity in light of the different language of the statutes. Accord, Cleverly, supra, 69 F.R.D. at 351. For the same reason, the host of Title VII cases cited by Orkin Exterminating are not in point.
The defendant argues that because Bertrand has also demanded reinstatement, his claim for back wages should not be viewed as a legal action for monetary damages but should be treated as part of the equitable remedy of restitution. However, Cleverly was brought by a plaintiff seeking reinstatement as well as back pay. Nor is the very brief order of Judge Lynch in Brennan v. International Harvester, 7 E.P.D. ¶ 9171 *1132 (N.D.Ill.1974), persuasive that Cleverly is wrongly decided on this point. While the latter case holds that the inclusion of a prayer for back wages does not transform an equitable proceeding into a case legal in nature, International Harvester was tried pursuant to the powers, remedies, and procedures provided in § 17 of the Fair Labor Standards Act, which establishes an equitable proceeding. However, the instant action seeks enforcement pursuant to § 16 of FLSA, as is permitted under 29 U.S.C. § 626(b).[7] Actions under the latter section afford the right to a jury trial. Chilton, supra, 370 F. Supp. at 664.
In contrast, the plaintiff cites Rogers v. Exxon Research and Engineering Co., 404 F. Supp. 324 (D.N.J.1975), which contains a long discussion of this very issue. Rogers concludes that a plaintiff under the Age Discrimination Act is entitled to demonstrate damages for pain and suffering. Noting that the statute sought to "make whole" victims of discrimination, the court stressed that
Rogers is the only case in point on this issue, and the court finds it persuasive. Accordingly, *1133 the motion to strike those portions of the complaint seeking damages for physical and mental suffering is hereby denied.[8]
Certainly, if Orkin Exterminating is not an employer within the contemplation of the Act, the defendant has no need of facts pleaded by the plaintiff to obtain the information regarding its own business necessary to raise a jurisdictional defense. Shultz v. Manor House of Madison, Inc., 51 F.R.D. 16 (W.D.Wisc.1970).
The basis for the allegations of paragraphs 11 and 12 may be understood by a perusal of the entirety of the complaint. To the extent that Orkin Exterminating is surprised by these allegations, it has the right to aver that it is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation. EEOC v. Wah Chang Albany Corp., 499 F.2d 187, 190 (9th Cir. 1974). In any case, it is manifestly improper to burden a plaintiff with an obligation to amend a complaint as a means of obtaining discovery. Hodgson v. Orson E. Coe Pontiac, Inc., 55 F.R.D. 133, 134 (W.D. Mich.1971); Mitchell v. E-Z Way Towers, Inc., 269 F.2d 126 (5th Cir. 1959).
[1] § 633(b) provides:
[2] 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(c) provides:
[3] § 633(a) provides:
[4] Ill.Rev.Stat. ch. 48 § 884(1) provides:
[5] The hearsay affidavits excluded by the court sought to introduce evidence concerning the manpower allocated by the Division for the Enforcement of Civil and Equal Rights to age discrimination cases, and the practices of the Division with respect to such complaints. There is no admissible evidence before the court with respect to these questions of fact.
[6] The court notes that if this action were dismissed, the statute of limitations would bar the plaintiff from reinstituting suit following recourse to the state law remedies.
[7] § 626(b) provides in part:
[8] Since the question of damages for physical and mental suffering raises a legal issue which is triable by a jury, the conclusion that the Act permits such relief provides an alternate basis for the court's denial of defendant's motion to strike Bertrand's jury demand.