Court Opinion

ID: 9791195
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:07:23.635905+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:34.711299
License: Public Domain

Roe, J.
(concurring specially)—I concur in the analysis and result of Judge Green's opinion.
I state, as an additional reason why this case should be reversed, as follows:
Assuming Betty Sellers established a prima facie case of discrimination which does not come within the BFOQ exception, I would find it necessary to address the issue of damages. The trial court and the tribunal awarded Sellers $7,200 in back pay representing the wages she would have earned from June 21, 1974, through June 18, 1975. Back pay is a well recognized remedy in order to "make whole" the person who has suffered discrimination. Generally, good *808faith or lack of intent is no defense. Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405, 45 L. Ed. 2d 280, 95 S. Ct. 2362 (1975). Nevertheless, under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title 7, an employer does have a defense from liability if he relied on any written interpretation or opinion of the Commission. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-12(b) (1974), reads in part:
In any action or proceeding based on any alleged unlawful employment practice, no person shall be subject to any liability or punishment for or on account of (1) the commission by such person of an unlawful employment practice if he pleads and proves that the act or omission complained of was in good faith, in conformity with, and in reliance on any written interpretation or opinion of the Commission, . . .
(Italics mine.) See Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, supra at 423 n.17.
I note that under our state statute or regulations, no immunity from liability exists. However, I also observe that the Human Rights Commission does absolve one from liability for reliance on the opinions of the executive secretary of the Human Rights Commission and the declaratory rulings issued by the Commission. WAC 162-04-070(5); WAC 162-08-700(8). I believe such reliance should also extend to the Commission's regulations which are published and on which an individual has a right to rely. See Rosenfeld v. Southern Pac. Co., 519 F.2d 527 (9th Cir. 1975); Schaeffer v. San Diego Yellow Cabs, Inc., 462 F.2d 1002 (9th Cir. 1972); Rosenfeld v. Southern Pac. Co., 444 F.2d 1219 (9th Cir. 1971); Stryker v. Register Publishing Co., 423 F. Supp. 476 (D. Conn. 1976); LeBlanc v. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 333 F. Supp. 602 (E.D. La. 1971), aff'd, 460 F.2d 1228 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 990, 34 L. Ed. 2d 257, 93 S. Ct. 320 (1972). Even if Betty Sellers had proved sex discrimination, the damage portion of the judgment against Franklin County would be inappropriate. Because Franklin County believed a male would contribute to the accomplishment of its counseling program and hiring a male would come within the existing BFOQ exception, no back *809pay award should be granted under any disposition of this case.