Opinion ID: 439951
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: the limitation period on title vii backpay

Text: 92 In the 1972 amendments to Title VII, Congress limited back-pay liability to no more than two years prior to the filing of charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Laffey I held that the 1972 amendments did not apply to this case and directed the district court on remand to determine the local statute of limitations most appropriate to this case, 567 F.2d at 469. On remand, the district court referred to District of Columbia law, noted that the District has no borrowing statute and generally applies its own statute of limitations as a procedural prescription, and determined that the most relevant statutes are the D.C. Minimum Wage Law, D.C.Code Ann. Sec. 36-416 (1973) (now codified at D.C.Code Ann. Sec. 36-216 (1981)), and the general statute of limitations, D.C.Code Ann. Sec. 12-301 (1981). See Laffey v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 481 F.Supp. 199, 200-01 (D.D.C.1979). Both of these laws provide for a three-year limitations period. 93 Were we writing on a clean slate, we might well decide that the two-year rule specified in the 1972 Title VII amendments should apply, if not directly, then at least by analogy, as the best indicator of the federal legislators' view of the appropriate back-pay liability limitation period. We are reluctant, however, to depart from the law of the case on the nonretroactivity of Title VII's current two-year limitation. Nevertheless, we modify the district court's decision specifying a three-year period borrowed from the District of Columbia's minimum wage law or general statute of limitations. In the unique circumstances presented here, we hold that the time frame most appropriately borrowed is Minnesota's two-year limitation on the recovery of wages ... under any federal or state law. Minn.Stat.Ann. Sec. 541.07(5) (West Supp.1982-1983). 94 Absent a federal limitation period which we can apply, we generally borrow the limitation period of the state in which the federal trial court sits. If a traditional statute of limitations were needed here, we would be required to employ a District of Columbia statute of limitations. See Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder, 425 U.S. 185, 210 n. 29, 96 S.Ct. 1375, 1389 n. 29, 47 L.Ed.2d 668 (1976); Forrestal Village, Inc. v. Graham, 551 F.2d 411, 413 (D.C.Cir.1977). However, what is at issue is not a statute of limitations in the usual sense but rather a substantive cap on the amount of backpay that may be awarded. 95 Having refused to apply the federal two-year limit, Laffey I stated: 96 [T]he problem at this point is simply that of fashioning a federal common law period of limitations. Most often this is effected by adopting the period prescribed by the most analogous state statute.... [A]doption of the state limitation period is proscribed only when it would create important conflicts with the federal policy underlying the cause of action or when it would amount to a discriminatory restriction of a federal right of action. Neither of those conditions exists here. 97 567 F.2d at 468-69 (footnotes omitted). The current two-year federal statutory cap on recovery, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e-5(g), for which Laffey I wished to find a federal common law substitute, is not addressed, as a statute of limitations would be, to the timeliness of the filing of charges or the institution of a lawsuit. Timeliness of filing with the Commission is governed by section 2000e-5(e) and that of the institution of a lawsuit by section 2000e-5(f)(1). But when those provisions are satisfied by timely filings, and when a plaintiff has made his substantive case, section 2000e-5(g) comes into play for the first time to define the maximum remedy. As the court stated in Miller v. Miami Prefabricators, Inc., 438 F.Supp. 176, 181 (S.D.Fla.1977): 98 When measured against the broad make whole purposes of Title VII it becomes evident that the two year cap on back pay contained in 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e-5(g) is not a statute of limitations. Rather, that provision was inserted by Congress in an attempt to limit the back pay which could be recovered from employers who have been engaged in discrimination for many years. 99 As a limit on liability rather than a statute of limitations, section 2000e-5(g) is a substantive rather than a procedural measure. Where there is no similar back-pay cap in state law, a state statute of limitations will be used for federal purposes, here a substantive purpose. Where the issue is substantive, the District of Columbia does not automatically apply its own prescription. See In re Air Crash Disaster at Washington, D.C., 559 F.Supp. 333, 341-42 (D.D.C.1983); Williams v. Williams, 390 A.2d 4, 5 (D.C.1978). 100 In this case, we have been pointed to no jurisdictions other than Minnesota and the District of Columbia that have a relevant connection to the parties and actions involved in this litigation. 35 The District of Columbia is obviously a jurisdiction whose laws should be examined. But of the two conceivably applicable D.C. statutes, neither manifests a policy closely analogous to the one at stake here. The Minimum Wage Law, D.C.Code Ann. Sec. 36-203, on which the district court relied, is not designed to prevent sex discrimination but rather to establish minimum hourly wages, maximum hours, and overtime compensation rates. That statute's three-year limit on minimum wage claims, D.C.Code Ann. Sec. 36-216, seeks merely to prevent the prosecution of stale claims--a policy not implicated here. Likewise, the D.C. three-year catch-all statute of limitations, D.C.Code Ann. Sec. 12-301, on which the district court also relied, serves to limit the bringing of stale claims and evinces no particular interest in preventing sex discrimination. 101 Minnesota law is more to the point and there is no doubt that the parties and actions at issue touch and concern that state. Appellant is a Minnesota corporation; appellant's headquarters are in Minnesota; the wage scales challenged in this case were all set by collective bargaining agreements negotiated and signed in Minnesota; the employment relationship of every member of the appellee class was established in Minnesota and was controlled by decisions taken there; all interviews and hiring occurred in Minnesota; the employment contract of each appellee class member stated that it was to be viewed as a Minnesota contract of employment governed by the laws of that state in every respect; and, when this case was certified as a class action, notice was directed to 2,634 stewardesses, of whom only ten lived in the District of Columbia while 1,694 lived in Minnesota. See Declaration of James A. Abbott, R. 61 at paragraphs 2-4. 102 In contrast to the District of Columbia, Minnesota does have a statute closely analogous to Title VII, i.e., the Minnesota Human Rights Act, Minn.Stat.Ann. Sec. 363.01 (West 1983). Like Title VII, the Minnesota Human Rights Act extends its protection beyond sex-based classes to other groups and prohibits discrimination in aspects of employment besides compensation. The Minnesota Equal Pay Act that appellant would have us adopt merely prohibits wage differentials and protects only sex-based groups. Minn.Stat.Ann. Sec. 181.67 (West 1983). Significantly, the Minnesota Supreme Court, in discussing the Minnesota Human Rights Act, has applied case law interpreting Title VII. See Brotherhood of Railway & Steamship Clerks v. State, 303 Minn. 178, 188-91. 229 N.W.2d 3, 9-11 (1975). 103 The Minnesota Supreme Court has decided that Minn.Stat.Ann. Sec. 541.07(5) (West Supp.1982-1983) is the statute of limitations that should govern claims of discrimination brought under the Human Rights Act. See Brotherhood of Railway & Steamship Clerks, 303 Minn. at 195-96, 229 N.W.2d at 13-14. Section 541.07(5) prescribes a two-year limitations period for the recovery of wages or overtime or damages, fees or penalties accruing under any federal or state law respecting the payment of wages or overtime or damages, fees or penalties.... We find that the limitations period for recovery of backpay should be established by recourse to that statute. Accordingly, the recovery period is two years.