Opinion ID: 420749
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Scope of Prejudice.

Text: 51 The standard articulated in Massey-Ferguson is predicated on language in Occidental Life Insurance Co. v. EEOC, 432 U.S. 355, 97 S.Ct. 2447, 53 L.Ed.2d 402 (1977), in which the Court held that neither Title VII nor state statutes of limitations set an inflexible limit for the EEOC's filing of an action after exhaustion of its conciliation efforts. Id. at 366, 370-71, 97 S.Ct. at 2454, 2456-57. The Court noted that the absence of inflexible time limitations should not prejudice defendants. After enumerating various procedural safeguards, the Court stated: 52 It is, of course, possible that despite these procedural protections a defendant in a Title VII enforcement action might still be significantly handicapped in making his defense because of an inordinate EEOC delay in filing the action after exhausting its conciliation efforts. If such cases arise the federal courts do not lack the power to provide relief. 53 Id. at 373, 97 S.Ct. at 2458. There is no indication, however, in either the Occidental Life or the Massey-Ferguson opinion that the prejudice standard applicable to laches in a suit filed by a party other than the EEOC need be limited to the defendant's ability to present his defense. 54 First, the Occidental Life opinion did not utilize the term laches. Instead, the Court referred generally to the power inherent in the federal courts to alleviate any prejudicial impact resulting from delay by the EEOC. 432 U.S. at 373, 97 S.Ct. at 2458. Second, the Occidental Life Court made no reference to, and certainly no attempt to distinguish, cases such as Holmberg v. Armbrecht, 327 U.S. 392, 66 S.Ct. 582, 90 L.Ed. 743 (1946), in which the prejudice prong of the laches defense had been stated more broadly. These factors strongly suggest that both the Supreme Court, in Occidental Life, and this court, in Massey-Ferguson, were merely articulating the rule appropriate to an action in which the EEOC is the plaintiff and that neither court intended its language to limit the availability of laches in a non-EEOC action. 55 This conclusion is further supported by the rationale of Occidental Life. The Court relied upon the unique circumstances surrounding an EEOC case: the relatively short and well defined time limits governing the plaintiff's filing of his charge with the agency, the sizeable backlog of cases handled by the EEOC, and the on-going notice to a potential defendant once the initial charge is filed with the agency. 432 U.S. at 370, 372-73, 97 S.Ct. at 2456, 2457-58. These factors together mandated flexible time limits in any case brought by the EEOC. One aspect of that flexibility is that a court's power to grant relief because of the EEOC's delay is limited to the situation in which the defendant's ability to present a defense is curtailed. These factors are absent, however, in a private action and, as a result, there is no basis for so limiting a court's equitable power to grant relief from delay. 56 The instant appeal is not an action filed by the EEOC, or by any administrative agency. It is a private discrimination suit. Cannon's having sought administrative action against Rush and SIU in 1975 and 1976 does not bring this case within the Massey-Ferguson rule. Whatever notice the two defendants might have received from administrative authorities is insignificant in light of the total lack of communication between the Office of Civil Rights and any defendant between 1976 and 1979. The on-going communication that characterized an EEOC action in the view of the Occidental Life court is completely absent in the present case. The sizeable backlog carried by the EEOC, another factor in which the Occidental Life 10 Court relied, is irrelevant to this action filed by Cannon. 57 In order to prevail on a defense of laches, the defendants in this case must demonstrate some prejudicial  'change in the condition or relations of the ... parties.'  Holmberg v. Armbrecht, 327 U.S. 392, 396, 66 S.Ct. 582, 584, 90 L.Ed. 743 (1946) (quoting Galliher v. Cadwell, 145 U.S. 368, 373, 12 S.Ct. 873, 875, 36 L.Ed. 738 (1892)), but need not necessarily demonstrate that they are unable to conduct their defense as a result of the delay. 58