Legal Document

404 U.S. 522 92 Supreme Court Reporter 616 30 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 679 Earl Atlantic LOVE, Petitioner,v.The PULLMAN COMPANY. UNITED STATES et al., Petitioners, versus The Nos. 70—5033, 70—37. Argued Nov. 16, 1971. Decided Jan. 17, 1972. Syllabus Procedure whereby the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), after having received a written charge from complainant of discrimination in violation Title VII Civil Rights Act 1964, orally referred it to appropriate state agency, waited until that agency had terminated its jurisdiction, and then formally filed on behalf without obtained an additional within days termination proceedings held satisfy requirements § 706(b) (d) Act, which have purpose affording agencies prior opportunity consider complaints ensuring their prompt filing disposition by EEOC exhaustion remedy. Pp. 523 527. 10 Cir., 430 Federal Reporter, 2nd 49, reversed. Hugh Judge McClearn, Denver, Colo., for petitioner Number 70 5033. Lawrence G. Wallace, Washington, D.C., petitioners Edward C. Eppich, respondent. Mr. Justice STEWART delivered opinion Court. 1 A person claiming be aggrieved 78 Statutes-at-Large 253,1 may not maintain suit redress federal district court he has first unsuccessfully pursued certain avenues potential administrative relief. In this litigation employee complaint District Colorado, alleging his employer, respondent Pullman Company, engaged employment practices violative VII. dismissed complaint, holding statutory prerequisites maintenance been met. Appeals affirmed, we granted certiorari question law presented. 401 907, 91 873, 27 805. 2 was employed Company as 'porter-in-charge.' 1963 again 1965, complained Colorado Commission, porters-in-charge, most whom, like petitioner, were Negroes, performed same functions conductors, whom white, yet at lower pay. 1965 reaching resolution controversy satisfactory petitioner. On May 23, 1966, 'letter inquiry' alleged discrimination. accord with usual practice,2 treated letter but did file it. Instead insure compliance VII's procedural requirements, advised By June 1, informed waived take further action petitioner's grievance, proceeded own investigation. investigation resulted finding probable cause believe true, unsuccessful attempts obtain Pullman's voluntary compliance. This lawsuit followed. 3 basis 'filed' conformity Act.3 Two such are critical here. Section 42 Code KF62 2000e—5(b), provides where there exists or local authorized grant seek relief against discrimination, 'no (with EEOC) before expiration sixty commenced under State law, unless earlier . ..' 706(d), 2000e—5(d), requires 'shall two hundred ten unlawful practice occurred, thirty receiving notice whichever is 4 takes position these fulfilled procedure followed case, remedy once indicated would decline action. Appeals, other hand, regarded 'manipulation date,' contemplated permitted statute regulations force. 5 We hold here fully complied intent thus reverse judgment Appeals. Nothing suggests initiated acting rather than himself, nor any requirement made writing oral referral.4 Further, cannot agree respondent's claim properly 'suspended animation,' automatically upon proceedings.5 6 see no reason why party should required. complies both 706(b), give complaints, ensure expedition handling those complaints. makes showing prejudice interests. To require second 'filing' serve creation technicality.6 Such technicalities particularly inappropriate scheme laymen, unassisted trained lawyers initiate process. 7 Reversed. 8 POWELL REHNQUIST took part consideration decision cases. §§ 701—716(c), 2000e 2000e-15. 29 Regulations 1601.11(b) (1971) provides: '(A) deemed when receives statement sufficiently precise identify parties describe generally of. .' adopted reasoning Court: commission July failed complain 30-day time period prescribed 2000e—5(d). Regarding jurisdictional, complaint. When Government entered case petition rehearing pointed out gone into effect events underlying applications commission. Thus, commission's toll appeal EEOC. Respondent cites following language 2000e—5(b): 'If commencement imposed authority signed facts proceeding based, shall purposes subsection sent registered mail authority.' implies complaint; guards difficult commence, ones easily begun. expressed concern if could ignore received, whenever chose, thereby nullifying various requirements. But prohibition charges necessarily creates exception regulation requiring receipt. See Comment, Look Love Pullman, 37 U.Chi.L.Rev. 181, 188 (1969). member EEOC, party, files 'the shall, taking respect charge, notify officials and, request, afford them reasonable time, less alleged.' VII, 706(c), 2000e—5(c). It clear Congress found nothing wrong, circumstance, EEOC's abeyance given chance act. There think disapprove parties; difference wording between 706(c) seems only reflection different persons who charge. Developments Law, Discrimination 84 Harv.L.Rev. 1109, 1214 n. 117 (1971).

Classification Label: 1