Document: 425 U.S. 840 96 S.Ct. 1949 48 L.Ed.2d 416 Jewell D. CHANDLER, Petitioner,v.Richard L. ROUDEBUSH, etc., et al. No. 74-1599. Argued March 2, 1976. Decided June 1, Syllabus Section 717(c) of Title VII the Civil Rights Act 1964, added by § 11 Equal Opportunity 1972, provides that within a specified period after notice final administrative action on federal employee's discrimination complaint employing agency, or Service Commission (CSC), upon an appeal from agency's order, delay agency CSC, employee "may file civil action" as provided in statute, against head. Petitioner, Negro, claiming her failure to receive promotion Veterans' Administration was sexually and racially discriminatory, exhausting remedies brought suit under 717(c). She not allowed proceed with discovery, District Court having determined "the absence is firmly established clear weight record." The court thereupon granted summary judgment favor respondents. Appeals affirmed. Held: plain meaning reinforced legislative history 1972 amendments, compels conclusion employees have same right trial De novo enjoyed private sector state government amended 1964. Pp. 843-864. 515 F.2d 251, reversed remanded. Joel Selig, Washington, C., for petitioner. Rex E. Lee, Mr. Justice STEWART delivered opinion Court. 1 In Congress extended protection 78 Stat. 253, amended, 42 U.S.C. 2000e Et seq. (1970 ed. Supp. IV), Federal Government. A principal goal amending legislation, Employment Pub.L. 92-261, 86 103, eradicate " 'entrenched service,' Morton v. Mancari, 417 535, 547, 94 2474, 2481, 41 290, 299, strengthening internal safeguards according "(a)ggrieved (federal) applicants . full rights available courts are individuals title VII."1 issue presented this case whether gives employment claims "private sector" enjoy VII. 2 * petitioner, Mrs. Chandler, Negro. she employed examiner Administration. August year applied position supervisory examiner. Following selection procedure designated one three finalists position. awarded Filipino-American male. petitioner subsequently filed alleging had been denied because unlawful basis sex race. After hearing claim, presiding complaints submitted proposed findings effect discriminated but race recommended be given retroactive which applied. rejected finding "substantiated evidence," accordingly no relief.2 timely Board Review, affirmed decision. 3 Within 30 days receiving Commission's decision, present 111, 2000e-16(c) ed., IV). moving unsuccessfully judgment, initiated discovery proceedings filing two depositions request production documents. respondents moved order prohibiting ground judicial authorized limited review record. opposed motion, asserting plenary de novo. adopted holding United States Columbia Hackley Johnson, 360 F.Supp. 1247, rev'd sub nom. Roebush, 171 U.S.App.D.C. 376, 520 108, "trial required (under 717(c)) all cases" record sufficient if "an affirmatively evidence .." F.Supp., at 1252.3 Applying standard review, record" agreeing Court's ruling contemplates "intermediate scope inquiry expounded Johnson ." Chandler 255 (CA9). We certiorari resolve conflict among Circuits concerning nature proceeding 717(c).4 423 821, 34, 46 37. II 4 begin language statute. 717(c), states adverse either (in event permissive taken), 180 Commission, section 706, head department, unit, appropriate, shall defendant." 717(d), 2000e-16(d) goes specify "(t)he provisions 706(f) through (k), applicable, govern actions hereunder." 5 2000e-5(f) authorizes (EEOC) bring "civil actions" behalf district court.5 Alternatively, 706(f)(1) individual sue his own has elapsed EEOC declined represent him its initial determination "there reasonable cause believe charge true 706(b), 2000e-5(b) (k) provide specific rules guidelines private-sector actions." 6 It well 706 1964 accords consideration their claims. Alexander Gardner-Denver Co., 415 36, 1011, 39 147; McDonnell Douglas Corp. Green, 411 792, 798-799, 93 1817, 1822, 36 668, 675-76; Norman Missouri Pacific R. 414 73, 75 n. (CA8). "employee's statutory (of 1964) ," supra, U.S., 38, S.Ct., 1015, L.Ed.2d, 152, embodies congressional decision "vest powers enforce (substantive) requirements VII) Id., 47, 1019, 157. 7 amendments reflects character even more clearly than did version.6 706(f)(4), 2000e-5(f)(4) instance, requires chief judge pending "immediately designate such hear determine case." so must "assign earliest practicable date 706(f)(5). If "scheduled hundred twenty joined," then may appoint special master it. Ibid. And, version, "finds" respondent intentionally committed practice, appropriate relief. 706(g), 2000e-5(g) terminology hearing," trial," indicates entitled version 8 Since federal-sector "file (42 2000e-5 IV))" since novo, it would seem follow syllogistically Appeals, however, held contrary result indicated words "as applicable" 717(d) 717, support further argue routine trials employees' clash Act's delegation enforcement responsibilities contravene view "de generally presumed." Consolo FMC, 383 607, 619 17, 1018, 1026, 16 131, 140. 9 A. Meaning Phrase "As Applicable" 10 relied here, expressed phrase evidences intent restrict qualify 1252 9. careful reading refers indicates, intended merely reflect fact certain pertain aspects scheme possible relevance involving employees. set forth procedures followed Several these could possibly apply (1), any government, governmental political subdivision" Attorney General subdivision. complainant retains intervene suits General. maintained employer, General, respectively, permitted "upon certification general public importance." These provisions, allowing intervention application job applicant only party who can institute maintain subsection. 12 Similarly, provision 706(f)(2) permitting "bring temporary preliminary relief disposition" where "conclude(d) investigation prompt necessary carry out purposes Act" without modification employees, responsibility investigating prosecuting 13 most natural inapplicability detailing General.7 cannot, therefore, agree used voice disallow aggrieved received prior hearings. As Circuit reversing interpretation require strained unnatural §§ (k). Roudebush, U.S.App.D.C., 389, F.2d, 121. This pointed Lynch Alworth-Stephens 267 364, 370, 45 274, 276, 69 L.Ed. 660, 662, 'the plain, obvious rational statute always preferred curious, narrow, hidden sense nothing exigency hard ingenuity study acute powerful intellect discover.' To read obliquely qualifying rather reflecting relating violate elementary canon construction. 14 reinforces confirms accord governments subdivisions 15 Two themes dominated debates, proposals, committee reports preceded enactment 1972. first inadequacy individually instituted technique 1964.8 second lack adequate Congress' perception access raise discrimination.9 1971, House Committee Education Labor Senate Public Welfare reported bills designed remedy deficiencies. bills, H.R. 1746 S. 2515, gave cease-and-desist while retaining complainant's preexisting instances.10 grant power provoked strong dissenting statements both reports. While nearly members committees agreed should sector,11 there sharp disagreement over actually adjudicate controversies subject substantial-evidence appeals. 17 favored approach. Senator Dominick put minority statement Report: 18 "The longer we need VII, what form needed best protect parties involved. accomplish end types machinery choose vesting cease desist giving authority directly Courts. 19 ". Determination deserves non-partisan judgment. afforded judges who, shielded influence life tenure, likely withstand pressures render decisions climate tempered reflection supported historical independence."12 20 response criticisms justification position, majority considerable detail reasons choosing approach adjudication appellate review. thought "better equipped handle complicated issues involved suited rapid resolution complex Courts." addition, tribunal offer procedural advantages "less technical governing matters pleadings motion practice less constrained formal ."13 Report spelled greater perceived differences between "enforcement hearings review,"14 stressing delays occasioned expertise recognizing remedying forms discrimination.15 stated "full consideration" "alternative measure providing VII" proposal approach.16 21 backdrop focused debate versus wholly area extending "aggrieved" dealing discrimination. employee, action," benefit improved safeguards, including "appropriate impartial (agency) complain(t),"17 might rationale reposing primary adjudicative courts. But chose permit mere determinations: Bills, sections accorded following referred applicable orders other retained circumstances.18 inconceivable committees, were keenly aware consequences responsibility, act knowing deliberate manner thus equating eschewing reference legislation appeals.19 22 short, Committees accompanying Reports reveal thorough meticulous question particular categories unambiguous choice courts.20 23 Bill floor placed also responsible complaints. Opponents contended commingling functions bias adjudications.21 argument prevailed, 9247,22 orders.23 amendment changed important respect: deleted employees.24 passed House.25 24 like counterpart, strongly floor. House, controversy centered sector.26 Early four-week passage introduced replace EEOC's employees.27 conformed views he Report.28 aim separate prosecutorial proceedings.29 25 central theme Dominick's argument, stressed repeatedly debate, already contemplated adjudication. Speaking committee's deliberations, when "examined situation" 26 "pointed again creating czar personnel policies agencies I doubted wisdom omnipotent agency. some discussion able work agreement whereby feels go still dissatisfied, empowered existing Reviews court. So major groups covered legislation; namely, State local hand, other, itself grievance courts; yet they say, 'No, you cannot that. will do itself.' That itself, bill; strikes me things least jobs, plane rights, opportunities, equality make sure being enforcement, investigatory carried way. 27 said earlier, seems wrong say 'Certainly your case. investigating. charges. everything else, get years.' justice. equal opportunity. investigator saying legitimate complaint, priority treatment there, matter decided half time take 28 "It principle. terms procedures. conforms employees."30 29 reiterated remedial disparity throughout arguing complainants: latter court, adjudication, contended, former treated similarly.31 eventually adopted32 Senate.33 1746, differed went conference committee, Bill's employees.34 bill enacted House. 31 Congress, helpful here.35 sequence amendment, 2515 shows unmistakably private- mechanism advocated federal-, private-sector, No changes made respect allow "substantial evidence" dispositions On contrary, served model alteration provisions. subsequent approval achieved parity employees.36 32 faced demand determine, pretrial otherwise, why plaintiff believes necessary," 255, concluded "nothing before indicate useful purpose novo." substantially parallels Johnson: 33 cases. examine utmost care. determines record, new tri required. exacting met, shall, discretion, remand, testimony supplement 1252. 34 Nothing chameleon-like character, fragmentary "appropriate," Ibid., otherwise options considered entirely straightforward. based traditional standards selected proper means resolving broadened category include those Senate's treat alike ratified whole. C. Presumption Against Novo Review 35 Given expression intent, revealed 717 find unpersuasive respondents' reliance indicating "De 140; Carlo Bianchi & 373 709, 715, 83 1409, 1413, 652, 657. Administrative Procedure "a reviewing 'set aside action, findings, conclusions found (1) arbitrary, capricious, (or) abuse discretion (5) unsupported substantial .' 619, context, observed: "We below direct proceeding, conduct equities reparation award. Shipping Act, Hobbs authorize circumstances, authorization, Here, contrast, "specific authorization" novo.37 37 contention would, unlike arbitral collective-bargaining agreements "no cause," typically furnish overcome import history. complain(t),"38 give equivalent employees.39 be, argued, tend ultimately defeat, advance, basic scheme. choice, us disturb 38 erroneously does remanded consistent opinion. ordered. S.Rep.No.92-415, p. (1971) (hereinafter cited Report). accepted examiner's "exacting standard" necessarily Rather could, "in Four Courts Abrams 534 1226 (CA6); Caro Schultz, 521 1084 (CA7); 108; Sperling States, 465 (CA3). Three Haire Calloway, 526 246 (CA8); 251 (CA9) (opinion below); Salone 511 902 (CA10). instituting governments, agencies, subdivisions. 706(f)(1), 2000e-5(f)(1) 259. See 387-388, 119-120. B. Legislative History striking deficiency judicially enforceable back up race, religion, color, national origin, 'informal methods conference, conciliation persuasion.' consequence, unless Department concludes pattern resistance involved, burden obtaining rests each victim discrimination, into party, expense entails, secure promised law. Thus, persons whose economic disadvantage prime reason opportunity recourse face unyielding consuming, burdensome, too often, financially prohibitive." 4. stated: Subcommittee reflected confidence effectiveness part Complaints skepticism regarding just resolutions remedies. has, turn, discouraged fear doing antagonizing supervisors impairing future hope advancement." 14. notwithstanding, many cases, U. Government defense sovereign immunity exhaust certainty steps Moreover, doubt." 16. Under 60 dismissed issued entered acceptable agreement. 92d Cong., 1st Sess., 8(j) Bill); 4(a) Bill). Representatives Ashbrook Landgrebe granting authority. H.R.Rep.No.92-238, 70 Report), U.S.Code Cong. Admin.News 2137. 85. Similar committee. 58-63. 10-11, 2146. 18. 17-19. 17. 26, 2160. Bill, Supra, 10, relevant disposition 715 11. bil preserved circumstances. 8(j). Supra. 706(q) instances. 4(a). Bills themselves evince detailed awareness interaction pre-existing 8(j); 12; 4(a); 24. conditional "rights VII," 16, follows circumstances analogous I. e., charge. overlooks contained draft pertained g., 117 Cong.Rec. 31958-31959 (remarks Rep. Martin); 31969-31970 Railsback); 31972-31973 Erlenborn); 32091-32092 Ford); 32106 Broomfield); 32107-32108 Shoup); 32109-32110 Fisher). 32111-32112. 9247, 3(c) (1971). Id.; S.Conf. 92-681, pp. 20-21 (1972) Conference 32113 118 311-312 Sen. Ervin); 595 Tower); 731-732 Saxbe); 732 Brock); 735 Williams); 928-929 Mondale); 930 Javits); 931-932 Allen); 933 Thurmond); 943-944 Talmadge); 944 Chiles); 1384 Weicker). 591-592. 86-87. 592-593 Dominick). 594. 595, 942, 943, 3389, 3809, 3967. 3979-3980. 4944. 20-21. 413, 145; 473. Williams purportedly Cranston intend proceedings. Near close spoke follows: "Finally, written expressly law enabling dissatisfied Previously, unrealistically high barriers prevented taking There sector, acted wisely regard." 4922 (emphasis added). expanded printed Congressional Record. 4923. Despite original sponsors manager, decline controlling quoted reasons. First, self-contradictory: characterizing "review record," breath "(t)here Yet bill. Second, precisely proposed. Indeed, specifically applauded "acted omitted orders. unaltered probative casual remark single debate. Cf. Automobile Workers, 352 567, 585, 77 529, 538, 563, 574; 480. Finally, himself acknowledged earlier architect service (1972). immediately during portion daily edition Record statement: "For time, (my EEO would) cases theory immunity, CSC and/or 2287 (daily Feb. 22, 1972) Approximately months informed word 'not' misplaced" "set correct manner" italicized 119 1219 Jan. 23, 1973). corrected, see 4929. belated correction probative. Eighth Circuit, 248 4, uncorrected originally Record, Is Williams' remark, equated federal- characterize "not Was equate fleeting Wunderlich arising "disputes" clause contract conclusive 'unless fraudulent capricious arbitrary grossly erroneous imply bad faith, evidence.' 714, limit observed simply setting followed, confined held." Here "simply review" chosen instances, course, intends use term "become art describe judged court." 1414, 658. (scope-of-review Act); 1848 Governors Reserve System); 21(c) Interstate Commerce Communications Aeronautics Board, Trade Commission); 371(f)(3) Secretary Health, Education, Welfare). compensate create(s) built-in interest examining Government's program structural defects opportunity." 15. Prior claim may, admitted Fed.Rule Evid. 803(8)(C). 21, 1025, 147, 165. expected that, light proceedings, potential eliminated stipulation course

Category: 1