Opinion ID: 382784
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Facts Evident From the Record

Text: 3 Mrs. Doris Whitehead, a white female, claims that her employer, Reliance, discriminated against her on account of her sex. The alleged incident occurred in February 1977. On March 7, 1977-within about three weeks of the allegedly discriminatory act-she filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) a charge that stated:I believe that Reliance Insurance Company has discriminated against me because of my sex, Female, by denying me a promotion to supervisor of Personal Lines. I have worked in the insurance field since September 1969. A male with three years in the insurance field was awarded the position. 4 Reliance management personnel immediately met with Mrs. Whitehead, and the parties reached an agreement that was satisfactory to her. The EEOC did not participate in these negotiations and was not a party to the settlement; so far as can be determined from the record, it had not yet begun an investigation of the charge. According to Mrs. Whitehead's deposition testimony, she telephoned the EEOC to inquire about the procedure for withdrawing a charge, and was told by an EEOC employee that she would have to submit a request on an EEOC form; this same EEOC employee, however, told her unequivocally that she could reactivate the charge at any time after requesting its withdrawal. 5 In response to her call, the EEOC sent Mrs. Whitehead a preprinted form that was entitled Request for Withdrawal of Charge of Discrimination. The form begins with this notice to the complaining party: 6 You recently indicated a desire to withdraw your charge. In order to initiate such action, furnish the information below and return this form in the enclosed envelope. Since a request for withdrawal of a charge is subject to the approval of the Commission, your request will be considered and acted upon when received by this office. Please note that the Commission is still prepared to proceed with your case if you so desire. 7 (Emphasis added.) The form continues with the following acknowledgement, which the complaining party adopts by signing and filing the form: 8 I am aware that the Federal Government protects my right to file a complaint and have been advised that it is unlawful for any person covered by Title VII to threaten, intimidate or harass me because I have a complaint. I have not been coerced into requesting this withdrawal. 9 Mrs. Whitehead wrote in the blank lines following this acknowledgement the following reasons for her request to withdraw the charge: 10 Meeting with Management resulted in a mutual understanding and a definite program for immediate promotion. A training path has been established for future upward mobility. 11 The form was signed by Mrs. Whitehead and dated March 22, 1977. The EEOC's only response was to send to Reliance a letter, dated April 5, 1977, the text of which read as follows: 12 Some time ago you were notified that a charge with the file number shown above had been filed against your establishment. 13 This office has administratively closed the cited charge, without prejudice to any party and with no determination, whatever, as to the charge's merits. So far as is known at this time, no further action will be taken on it. 14 There is a remote chance that this charge will be re-opened in the future. Should this happen, you will be immediately notified. 15 (Emphasis added.) There was no indication on the letter itself that a copy was being sent to Mrs. Whitehead, and she was very uncertain in her deposition testimony as to whether she had received a copy of this or some similar letter; she had been unable to find among her papers any written notice to the effect that the EEOC was administratively closing the charge, and she does not recall when she first learned of the EEOC's decision. 16 Following Mrs. Whitehead's request to withdraw the charge and the EEOC's decision to administratively close the charge, Reliance apparently took certain steps in accordance with the agreement it had reached with Mrs. Whitehead. In February 1978, however, Mrs. Whitehead was again passed over for promotion to the supervisorship of her local department, although this time the vacancy was filled by another female employee, who was transferred from another of Reliance's branch offices. Mrs. Whitehead for the first time consulted a lawyer. He requested and received from the EEOC a right to sue notice with regard to the original discriminatory act in February 1977. The EEOC sent Reliance a copy of the right to sue notice, along with a letter which explained that under established EEOC procedures, all information relating to the original charge had been destroyed because the charge had not been reopened within six months of the date on which it was administratively closed. The letter notified Reliance that the Commission is reopening this matter for the express purpose of honoring (Mrs. Whitehead's) request for a Notice of Right to Sue, in that the charge itself cannot be administratively processed due to its destruction. Copies of the letter were sent to Mrs. Whitehead and her counsel. As far as can be determined from the record on this interlocutory appeal, the EEOC has had no connection with the litigation other than reopening the charge so that it could issue the right to sue notice; there is no indication that the EEOC has reinstituted proceedings or begun its own investigation with regard to the original charge.