Opinion ID: 326959
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Variance between Charge to EEOC and Complaint

Text: 51 The switchmen at the Railroad complained in 1966 to the EEOC 52 in regard to the discrimination that exists because of race on this property. . . . The discrimination referred to in this complaint is chiefly the fact that negro switchmen are not allowed to promote to conductor because of race. 53 The EEOC investigated the charge and determined that there was reasonable cause to believe that the Railroad had violated Title VII. It found in its 1968 decision that 54 (r)easonable cause exists to believe that Respondent Employer is in violation of section 703(a)(1) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, by denying promotional opportunity to negro switchmen, as alleged. 55 The district court found that the switchmen had complained only about not being allowed to promote to conductor, to participate in the extra board, or to join the union. The switchmen did not specify in their complaint that they were not allowed to promote to supervisor. The district court heard evidence on the question of supervisory promotions, but throughout the hearing declared it to be outside the permissible scope of the trial. The evidence showed that virtually all supervisors were chosen from the conductor roster (the only ones not so chosen came from non-yard jobs, such as engineer). There was also evidence of the manner, largely the subjective decision of a few high-ranking officials, in which promotional decisions are made. No black had ever reached the supervisory level. 56 The Railroad urges here that the district court was correct in limiting the scope of the trial to the conductor question, because the original charge to the EEOC contemplated no more. The switchmen argue that the charge was broad enough to include all promotional opportunity denied them. The law in this Circuit regarding variance between charges and complaints is governed by Sanchez v. Standard Brands, Inc., 5 Cir. 1970, 431 F.2d 455, on which both parties rely. In that case, the complainant had originally charged sex discrimination, but the EEOC investigation revealed national origin discrimination. The complaint in federal court alleged the latter. This Court held that there was sufficient continuity running through the original charge and the amended charge to the judicial pleadings which followed to allow the complaint to stand. Id. at 465. We held that the allegations in the judicial complaint may encompass any kind of discrimination like or related to allegations contained in the charge and growing out of such allegation during the pendency of the case before the Commission. Id. at 466, citing King v. Georgia Power Co., N.D.Ga.1968, 295 F.Supp. 943, 947. 57 We found in Sanchez that the purpose of the charge is to trigger the investigatory and conciliatory procedures of the EEOC. It was logical to limit the scope of the civil action to the scope of the EEOC investigation which can reasonably be expected to grow out of the charge of discrimination. Sanchez v. Standard Brands, Inc., supra at 466. We further emphasized the importance of the Commission's role in obtaining voluntary compliance. On the other hand, we also emphasized our reluctance to allow procedural technicalities to bar claims under the Act, id. at 461, 465, and that the scope of an EEOC complaint should not be strictly interpreted. Id. at 465; see also Tipler v. E. I. duPont, 6 Cir. 1971, 443 F.2d 125, 131. 58 Sanchez does not completely answer the question posed in this case. The Sanchez court was faced with an EEOC investigation, and a complaint based thereon, which exceeded the scope of the original charge to the EEOC. Ours is a somewhat different situation, in that the complaint is said to exceed both the charge and the EEOC investigation. If charges are to be liberally construed, then the complaint that I was not allowed to promote to conductor implicitly includes the complaint that I was not allowed to promote to supervisor, since supervisors are chosen from the ranks of conductor. See Tipler v. E. I. duPont, supra at 131; Burney v. North American Rockwell Corp., C.D.Calif.1969, 302 F.Supp. 86, 89. The supervisor complaint is certainly like or related to the conductor complaint and an investigation of the supervisor situation could reasonably be expected to grow from the original complaint. Nevertheless, the EEOC apparently did not in fact investigate beyond the conductor charge. This, says the Railroad, limits the permissible scope of the complaint in the federal court. 59 The Railroad further urges that it has a right to attempt conciliation on the supervisor question. As we have indicated, the statutory scheme contemplates conciliation. But we have clearly held that conciliation efforts by the EEOC are not a jurisdictional prerequisite to a Title VII suit. 60 It is now too well settled to discuss that no EEOC effort to conciliate is required before a federal court may entertain a Title VII action. 61 Danner v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 5 Cir. 1971, 447 F.2d 159, 161; Miller v. International Paper Co., 5 Cir. 1969, 408 F.2d 283, 288-91; Dent v. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co., 5 Cir. 1969, 406 F.2d 399. We have also held that a plaintiff may maintain a suit even when the EEOC has found no reasonable cause to believe discrimination has occurred. 5 Beverly v. Lone Star Lead Construction Corp., 5 Cir. 1971, 437 F.2d 1136. See also Johnson v. ITT-Thompson Industries, Inc., N.D.Miss.1971, 323 F.Supp. 1258. Therefore, although conciliation is encouraged, it is not an inalienable right of a defendant, especially where, as here, conciliation attempts with the defendant on a similar question failed. 62 Other policies besides conciliation should be considered. We and other courts have been solicitous of the Title VII plaintiff: 63 We must ever be mindful that the provisions of Title VII were not designed for the sophisticated or the cognoscenti, but to protect equality of opportunity among all employees and prospective employees. This protection must be extended to even the most unlettered and unsophisticated. 64 Sanchez v. Standard Brands, supra at 463. 65 (T)he Civil Rights Act is designed to protect those who are least able to protect themselves. Complainants to the EEOC are seldom (represented by) lawyers. To compel the charging party to specifically articulate in a charge filed with the Commission the full panoply of discrimination which he may have suffered may cause the very persons Title VII was designed to protect to lose that protection because they are ignorant of or unable to thoroughly describe the discriminatory practices to which they are subjected. 66 Willis v. Chicago Extruded Metals Co., N.D.Ill.1974, 375 F.Supp. 362, 365; Tipler v. E. I. duPont, supra at 131; Graniteville Co. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 4 Cir. 1971, 438 F.2d 32. 67 Another policy at work here is that of judicial economy. The lengthy process undergone by these litigants was recounted earlier. We see little to be gained by sending the plaintiffs back to the EEOC to begin anew with the supervisor claim. 6 We need not reiterate the remedial purpose of the statute. In light of that purpose and in the interest of judicial economy, we hold that the district court should have considered the switchmen's claim as to supervisory promotions. The question was like or related to the original charge before the EEOC. The discrimination alleged is of the same type and character as that originally charged, and the same plaintiffs are involved. See Danner v. Phillips Co., supra at 162; Burney v. North American Rockwell Corp., supra at 89-90. If blacks cannot be promoted to conductor, then a fortiori they cannot be promoted to supervisor, and in fact have not been. 68 However, although evidence was heard on this question, the district court repeatedly declared its intention to ignore it because it believed the supervisor question was not properly part of the suit. The Railroad therefore presented no defense of its promotional policies. The supervisory positions are obviously different from those of conductor. There are a definite number of positions available, as opposed to the pool of conductors. There is no objective test given for supervisor, as there is for conductor. The decision to promote is a much more subjective one in that it is made by a very few representatives of management for admittedly subjective reasons, whereas conductors, except for race, are promoted in order of their seniority. Therefore, the guidelines here established for conductors are not adaptable to supervisors. 69 We remand this question for further consideration in light of this opinion. The district court should take into account any business necessity which the Railroad may offer and the standards used to determine who will be promoted. 70 Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 71 Reversed and remanded.