Document: 429 U.S. 229 97 S.Ct. 441 50 L.Ed.2d 427 INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ELECTRICAL, RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 790, Petitioner,v.ROBBINS & MYERS, INC., et al. Dortha Allen GUY, Petitioner, v. ROBBINS Nos. 75-1264, 75-1276. Argued Nov. 9, 1976. Decided Dec. 20, Syllabus Two days after her discharge by respondent company, petitioner Guy, a Negro, caused grievance alleging "unfair action" to be filed on behalf pursuant procedures in collective-bargaining agreement between union and respondent. On February 10, 1972, 84 the company under those had denied grievance, but 108 discharge, Guy charge of racial discrimination relating with Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which November 1973 concluded that race not figured discharge. Petitioner then brought this suit Title VII Civil Rights Act 1964 District Court, thereafter dismissed ground EEOC within 90 "after alleged unlawful practice occurred," as required § 706(d) (a period later extended 180 when, effective March 24, 1972 amended limitations provision), Guy's resort contractual procedure did extend time file charge. Section 14 amendments provides "shall applicable respect charges pending date enactment all thereafter." The Court Appeals, affirmed, also extension could "revive" claim was "barred extinguished" before extension's date. Held: 1. Petitioners' contention, raised explicitly for first conclusion procedures, "final" "the practice," is without merit being contrary understanding parties themselves courts below. Pp. 234-235. 2. existence utilization does toll running would otherwise begin firing, remedies independent other pre-existing available an aggrieved employee. Alexander Gardner-Denver Co., 415 36, 94 1011, 39 147; Johnson Railway Express Agency, 421 454, 95 1716, 44 295. 236-240. (a) pursuing asserting based contract right no way thereby prevented from filing Application equitable principles 90-day completion therefore inappropriate here. Burnett New York Central R. 380 424, 85 1050, 13 941, distinguished. 237-238. (b) Congress clearly intended retain "against private employment separate more elaborate time-consuming VII," supra, at 465-466, 1722-1723. 239-240. 3. their legislative history demonstrate apply 180-day such where these became effective, still when discriminatory occurrence amendment. 241-243. 4. Lifting bar statute so restore remedy lost through mere lapse per se unconstitutional. Cf. Chase Securities Corp. Donaldson, 325 304, 311-312, 65 1137, 1141, 89 L.Ed. 1628. 243-244. 6 Cir., 525 F.2d 124, reversed remanded. Winn Newman, Washington, D. C., petitioners. Fletcher L. Hudson, Memphis, Tenn., respondents pro hac vice, special leave Court. Mr. Justice REHNQUIST delivered opinion 1 Petitioners seek review decision Appeals Sixth Circuit holding barred failure (EEOC) statutory period. They present three contentions: postpone allegedly firing took place; firing; VII, 86 Stat. 103 (Mar. 1972), extending days, case. 2 * Respondent Robbins Myers, Inc. (hereinafter respondent), terminated October 25, 1971, assigned its reason doing comply contained pertaining leaves absence. accordance provisions force Local 790 International Union Electrical, Radio Machine Workers (Local 790) That agreement's dispute-resolution procedure, commenced "five (5) working commission act originating grievance," consists steps followed one arbitration step. processed third step it 18, finding termination been agreement. 3 denial stage, who black, directed against both 790. 1973, issued determination "right sue" letter, there "no believe factor discharge" Guy. Her United States Western Tennessee 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5, met motion dismiss ground, inter alia, because 706(d), 2000e-5(d).1 action,2 affirmed judgment divided vote, 124 (1975). court felt "utterly inconsistent" our opinions 295 (1975) 147 (1974), hold pursuit operates "which employee has concurrently." 126. Then, noting question applicability amicus curiae (also "(s)ince issue any party case, we are consider it"), stated: 4 "Plaintiff January 1972. She until increasing become 2000e-5(e) (1970 ed., Supp. V). subsequent increase enacted revive plaintiff's previously extinguished." F.2d, 128. 5 dissenting judge disagreed point, believing case should remanded consideration effect amendments. We granted certiorari, 425 950, 96 1723, 48 193, resolve apparent conflict two issues: tolling during pendency collective-bargaining-contract's mechanism,3 than less effective. II 7 Before reaching either questions, however, petitioners assert complaint timely filed, concept, simply occurred" grievance-arbitration procedures. Until time, told, 25 (although itself "occurrence" allowing immediate EEOC) "tentative" "non-final," remained she process, transpired.4 As consequence, according petitioners, unfavorable making "final," constituted enabling start 8 While conceivably have agreed management's ultimate adoption supervisor's recommendation deemed relevant "occurrence," contract. For appears fired understood. stopped work ceased receiving pay benefits Unless resulted reinstatement, entitled paid were implemented.5 lodged 27, protests action Co. (emphasis added), while alleges disagreement, learning "with Company's 'voluntarily quit,' " added). Throughout proceedings sides appear assumed, courts, 1971. There indication viewed anything "final,"6 certainly us now torture mutual accepting bare assertions Court.7 III 9 think petitioners' arguments or virtually foreclosed decisions In held arbitrator's binding individual seeking pursue his court. reasoned rights provided "have legally origins equally employee," U.S., 52, 1022,8 concluded: 10 "(I)n instituting decision. Rather, he process." Id., 54, 1022. 11 One Term later, reaffirmed independence 706 action, same facts, 1981. reaffirming remedies, noted might occasionally two-edged sword,9 "in face congressional emphasis upon remedies," disinclined "to infer positive preference over other, definite expression legislation enacted," 461, 1720. 12 insist notwithstanding decisions, applied litigation, application This so, they say, here "policy repose, designed protect defendants." 428, 1055, 941 (1965), "outweighed (because) interests justice require vindication rights." But quite different situation Burnett, supra.10 plaintiff Federal Employers' Liability asserted FELA state concurrent jurisdiction federal misfortune Ohio State venue lie law. sufficient period, even though state-court improper new ultimately said: "Petitioner sleep competent jurisdiction. Service process made notifying him cause action." 429, 1055. 15 Here forum, nor giving notice claim, right, 53-54, 56-58, cannot aid petitioner, see 467, n. 14, 1724.11 16 advance corollary argument premise substantial policy considerations, central role labor-management relations, Steelworkers American Mfg. 363 564, 80 1343, 1403 (1960); Textile Lincoln Mills, 353 448, 77 912, 972 (1957), dictate tolled situation. Similar employer urging superiority pre-eminence rejected find reasoning controlling rejecting 17 related danger possible result latter former proceeds conclusion. these, albeit 1981 labor agreements, were, Johnson. language used dispose claim: 18 "(I)t conceivable, perhaps almost expected, will pressing civil complainant values into completed administrative proceeding. answer this, although highly satisfactory one, may ask stay efforts conciliation voluntary compliance completed. fundamental petitioner's lies fact presumably happy claimant retained consuming VII." 1722. 19 contend some length impose costs, delays occasioned "slight,"12 maximum delay invoking three-stage including step) 35 days. principal contention already spoken what considers acceptable established gave considered "slight" acceptable. defining VII's jurisdictional prerequisites precision," 47, S.Ct., 1019, "slight."13 20 provide 706(b) exception run additional 120 existed "a local law prohibiting establishing authorizing authority grant relief institute criminal thereto thereof." Where much closely pursued firmly limited thereto, taken together do carry weight overcome negative implication Congress, cf. 1720.14 IV 21 103, EEOC, 706(e). expanded complaining place agree. 22 113, states: 23 "The section shall 24 asserts added amendment bill floor House Senator Javits, 118 Cong.Rec. 4816 (1972), sole purpose having enforcement powers given charges, letter Feb. David Norman, Assistant Attorney General, Division Department Justice, Dominick, quoted Christiansburg Garment 376 F.Supp. 1067, 1074 (W.D. Va.1974). However, explicit applies 706, provisions. Javits limit remarks indicate 14's retroactivity only provisions,15 make unusual cases infer, actually used, scope S.Rep.No.91-1137, p. 31 (1970). contends since, untimely "pending Act." reading "pending" confining meaning word, largely rebutted history,16 renders meaningless insofar enlarged concerned. Since whether "filed thereafter," presume created odd hiatus suggested unless intent conveyed precise "pending," Love Pullman 404 522, 92 616, 30 679 (1972). "Pending" term art unambiguously carries precisely suited situation; logical, example, interpretation read mean yet rejected," Legis.Hist., 16, 1851. prior Act.17 26 contends, finally, constitutional power revive, enactment, which, rests unwarrantedly broad William Danzer Gulf Ship Island 268 633, 45 612, 69 1126 (1925). narrow 312, 8, 1628 (1945). states test language: 27 Fourteenth Amendment void merely retrospective operation. What forbid taking life, liberty property due . Assuming statutes limitation, like types legislation, manipulated retroactive effects offend Constitution, said lifting limitation offense Amendment." 315-316, 1143. 28 Applying constitutionally enacted. 29 thus contentions, favor. reversed, further consistent opinion. Reversed BRENNAN, STEWART, MARSHALL, STEVENS agree reverse addressing questions discussed Parts Court's At stated, pertinent part: "A subsection (of section) ninety occurred ." renumbered 706(e), V), Act. Whenever cited opinion, refers pre-1972 version By order dated May 30, 1974, meet limitations. No appeal McDonald Santa Fe Trail Transp. 273, 277-278, 2574, 2576-2578, 49 493 (1976), decided lower presented decide. assertion, adopted curiae, premised proposition "(u)se resolution 'appeal' 'final' decision, method obtaining higher management retained," Brief Amicus Curiae 21; pp. 17-18. Tr. Oral Arg., 14. Nor that, mechanism utilized, sort "formalized" final final. acknowledges, employer's foremen usually can fire Guy," 19. Even raising briefs See, e. g., ("The following day (October 1971) Company discharged complied embodied collective bargaining return absence"); quit' "). oral argument, told assertion articulated Moore Sunbeam Corp., 459 811 (C.A.7 court, Arg. 11-12. hardly get recognized implicit assuming, arguendo, thought it. See 48-49, 1020: "Title supplement, rather supplant, existing laws institutions discrimination." clear respect, see, 110 7205, 13650-13652 (1964); H.R. 9247, 92d Cong., 1st Sess. (1971); H.R.Rep.No.92-238 S.Rep.No.92-415, (1971). "Conciliation persuasion (e. VII), sure, often constitute desirable approach settlement disputes sensitive emotional invidious discrimination. recognize, too, lawsuit tend deter conciliation, lack success legal weaken Commission's induce compliance, privately oriented narrow, broad, application, successful tends be. natural choice conferring judicial remedies. valuable one," "been asserting" rights, "prevented" 1971; indeed, conceded urged day, wished. "(o)nly complete identity causes protections necessarily exist opportunity assess influence repose inherent period," 468 1724. infra. vast majority agreements stringent restrictions stages, 38-39; 13. own favorable If dispute-settlement speedy suggested, real need shown. instant stage 66 advanced why ample time. Adherence assures prompt notification violation 706(b). comparable notice. if discussed, properly involves fortuitously implicate standards, 1022; 467-468, respecting policies behind bargaining, moreover, Emporium Capwell Community Org., 420 50, 66-67, 977, 987, 43 (1975); 56, 59-60, 1025; Boys Markets, Retail Clerk's Union, 398 235, 1583, 199 Yet, assurance lacking. Indeed, comment implied opposite: "MR. JAVITS. President, whatever enact cases. requested minority leader; my offering it." stated cover "charges Act," Senate Committee Labor Public Welfare, 2d Sess., Legislative History 1851 (Comm.Print 1972); id., 1777. Accordingly, decide redounds benefit persons 90, 180,

Category: 1