Court Opinion

ID: 9457744
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 20:32:05.97125+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:35:29.762058
License: Public Domain

RONEY, Circuit Judge
(dissenting):
The primary issue on this appeal is whether the three words “segregating the patients,” and nothing more, except that the claimant is a Spanish Surnamed American, allege an unfair unemployment practice against Mrs. Josephine Chavez under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. In the investigation of a charge filed by Mrs. Chavez, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission seeks information and records concerning applications of patients for service.1 The obvious thrust of the Commission’s investigation is to determine whether the records show that Negro patients are treated differently from others.2 The employer Texas State Optical objects to this line of investigation. Before EEOC is entitled to information which would show whether or not Texas State Optical segregated its patients according to race, it must be demonstrated that the evidence “relates to unlawful employment practices covered by this subchapter and is relevant to the charge under investigation.” 3 We are not faced with, broad questions concerning the legality, morality or propriety of customer discrimination, but the narrow decision as to whether the employer is required by this statute to reveal this information to the EEOC.
The first question then is, “What charge is under investigation?” The second question is whether that charge is an unlawful employment practice covered by this subchapter of the Act. The third question is whether the evidence is relevant to the charge.
It is suggested that the three words “segregating the patients” may be interpreted to constitute a charge that the claimant, because of her national origin as a Spanish Surnamed American, was permitted to have contact with patients of one ethnic or racial group only. It is not argued that such a charge is not covered by the Act. The records would obviously be relevant to such a charge. So this point turns on the threshold question of whether this charge has actually been made and is under investigation. This interpretation was only suggested, not argued, in the court below and on *244this appeal. It seems clear that the district court was correct in holding that the words “segregating the patients” did not, and were not intended to, constitute an allegation that Mrs. Chavez was permitted to have contact with only one group of patients.
In the first place, there is not the slightest indication in the entire record before us that Mrs. Chavez had any contact with the patients at all. In the second place, these words would not be key words to such a charge. If Mrs. Chavez were permitted contact with only one class of patients, the issue as to unfair employment practice would not turn on whether the patients were segregated. Segregation of patients would not be a necessary element to such a charge. These are not key words, the mere mention of which gives notice of the allegation of a well-known kind of discrimination. In the third place, it would seem easy enough for Mrs. Chavez to give some clearer indication that she was discriminated against in this manner, if such were the case. Mrs. Chavez knows better than anyone whether she had contact with patients of but one ethnic group, if that be her complaint. It does not seem to violate any reasonable approach to the informal procedures involved for the EEOC to find out at least that fact from Mrs. Chavez before it launches into an investigation of whether such practice discriminated against her because of her national origin. This court has recognized the authority of the EEOC to amend and amplify a charge by having the charging party set forth her allegations in greater detail. Sanchez v. Standard Brands, Inc., 431 F.2d 455 (5th Cir. 1970). The fact that it did not obtain clarification and thus avoid this protracted litigation bolsters a decision that such a charge was not “under investigation” by the EEOC.
The main difficulty with granting the EEOC access to the records on this interpretation of the charge seems to be simply that it gives access to records which relate to a charge that apparently neither Mrs. Chavez nor the EEOC is making.
On essentially this same objection I would dispose of the argument that the records of patient discrimination would be relevant evidence to the charge that the firing of Mrs. Chavez was ethnically motivated. Although this charge was clearly made in the first part of her complaint, it seems to have nothing to do with the records sought by the EEOC in this investigation.4 First, she is Spanish Surnamed American, and the EEOC seeks records to show discrimination against Negroes. Second, her statement about being fired because of friction with Caucasian females reasonably negates the relevance of the records to the problem involved. Third, the cases cited by EEOC merely indicate that evidence of other employment discrimination may be relevant to a particular charge of discrimination.5 Such cases are not concerned with customer records. Fourth, and this is perhaps the most persuasive reason for sustaining the district court, the point was not argued below and seems to be asserted here to try to justify a request for the records for actual use in the investigation of an entirely different kind of complaint.
In the way this case has been presented, it is quite obvious that the EEOC wants the records for the purpose of investigating the charge that the segrega*245tion of patients was an unfair employment practice against minority group employees under Title VII. The case should be dealt with on that basis.
There is serious doubt as to whether the mere words “segregating the patients” are adequate to state an unfair employment charge sufficient to meet the most meager requirements of due process. These words do not necessarily relate to employment at all, and could mean so many things that, standing alone, they cannot be said to charge any particular employment discrimination. In each of the cases cited to us by the EEOC, the charge contained words relating to hiring; firing and promoting of employees with at least some conelu-sionary suggestion that there was discrimination in one of these areas because of the race, color, religion, sex, or national origin of the employees.6 Even though we are committed to a policy that requires little in the way of stating a charge,7 where, as here, the words in the charge do not on their face speak to employment practices, the claimant should at least be required to indicate how the facts alleged relate to her employment, and how it can reasonably be inferred that she has been discriminated against because of her national origin.
However, by permitting the words to be embellished by the argument of the EEOC as to the charge that it says it is investigating, we get to the question of whether such a charge is included within the ambit of unlawful employment practices proscribed by Congress in Title VII. We must decide whether there is any legal basis for a claim that an employer’s discriminatory practices against patients can constitute an unlawful employment practice against a minority group employee under this statute. The question of whether or not the relationship between an employee and his working environment is of such significance that it ought to be cloaked with statutory protection as an employment practice is a question for Congress, not for the EEOC, and not for us. The question we must answer is whether Title VII, as written, does give that relationship statutory protection. Not whether it could or should —but whether it does.
The answer to this question must come from the following provision of the statute:
§ 2000e-2. Unlawful employment practices — Employer practices
(a) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer—
(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or
(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual, of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
There is nothing here to indicate that Congress intended by this subchapter to deal with any general condition of employment applicable to all employees regardless of their race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The section is restricted to employment practices and does not encompass general business practices. The claimant must be the ob*246ject of some special discriminatory practice which operates against her opportunities of employment because of her race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. These are all clearly discernible, objective employee characteristics, which an employer can readily ascertain. The Act does not include in this list any reference to the emotional and psychological make-up of an individual employee. No race, color,' religion, sex, or national origin carries with it a monopoly on sensitivity to an employer’s discrimination against customers. Once the employment practices are such that the opportunities for employment in a business are not unequal because of an individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, this particular subchapter has done its job. The Act does not proscribe business practices which result in unequal employment opportunities because of personal, emotional or psychological characteristics that might be common to various employees regardless of their race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. There is no indication in the Act or the legislative history that Congress in passing Title VII was concerned about whether an employer’s business presents conditions for employment that are environmentally attractive to all, whether the manner of his operation suits everyone, or whether a particular individual might be uncomfortable or have feelings of unhappiness in his employment. The merit of this kind of approach is not up for decision. Congress has simply not given this scope to its legislation.
Any construction of Title VII that permits discriminatory conditions in. customer service to constitute an unfair employment practice would make the Civil Rights Act of 1964 internally inconsistent. For example, Title II of the Act deals with customer discrimination in public accommodations, providing that the subchapter does not apply to certain establishments. 42 U.S.C. § 2000a(e). However, under the construction suggested here customer discrimination in any of those excluded establishments could become an unfair employment practice which would permit the employee to bring suit to end the discrimination. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5. It is not reasonable to assume that Congress intended to exclude certain establishments from the direct prohibition against customer segregation under one section of the statute, only to have them included in another section which indirectly proscribes such a practice. Finding discrimination in customer service which is offensive to employees to constitute an unfair employment practice would permit the EEOC to investigate and conciliate matters in the customer service area of public accommodations. This also would present a conflict within the Civil Rights Act since the Community Relations Service is charged with seeking voluntary compliance under the public accommodations subchapter. 42 U.S.C. § 2000a-3 (d). Where such inconsistencies have not been clearly created by Congress, they should not be unnecessarily created by judicial decision.
The EEOC argues that an employee “who claims to be aggrieved by an alleged unlawful practice need not be the direct victim of such practice.” Insofar as being helpful in the decision of this case, the argument overlooks two points: first, the unlawful practice alleged must be an unlawful employment practice, if the claim is made under Title VII. There must be a determination that there is an employment practice involved before we get to the question of who is aggrieved thereby. Certainly this statute was not intended to encompass every unlawful practice that an employer might engage in. Second, even if Title VII were stretched to include a business practice which is not an employment practice, the employer in this case argues, while denying that it segregates patients, that it is not covered by any law directly prohibiting such segregation. The EEOC cites no authority to the contrary. This makes inapplicable the cases relied upon by EEOC in which a union files a discrimination suit for unlawful employment *247practices,8 an applicant for employment challenges employment practices which affect only incumbent employees,9 persons of one national origin complain of employment practices affecting persons of another race or national origin,10 or an employee in one plant complains of employment discrimination in another plant.11 Equally inapplicable are the cases in which a patient has been allowed to challenge unlawful employment practices in a hospital,12 or which concern the standing of certain individuals to challenge a discriminatory school system.13
In all of these cases the discrimination complained of was unlawful and it was a question of who could complain. This line of authority is not helpful in determining the fundamental question of whether the employer is engaged in an unlawful employment practice.
The notion that customer segregation might be utilized as a subtle scheme to purposely discriminate against minority group employees presumes that were it not for the employer’s bent on perpetrating discrimination among employees, it would not engage in customer segregation. Under this argument the reason that Texas State Optical segregates patients is to discriminate against Mrs. Chavez. If it were not for its desire to discriminate against Mrs. Chavez, it would not segregate its patients. Even if such a situation could raise customer segregation into the realm of an employment practice, the argument is so contrary to human nature and the real-life world of discrimination that it furnishes an unreliable base for judicial decision. Certainly it is unrealistic enough to at least require a specific charge that this was done before an employer should have to respond to an investigation.
It is pertinent to note that there are disadvantages to wide-ranging investigation by the EEOC.
“ . . . While a respondent might be cooperative in complying with the EEOC’s narrowly focused informational demands, he might, if made the subject of a ‘wholesale fishing expedition,’ become intractable. In addition, if the EEOC broadens its investigations to the limit of a liberal discovery standard in its zeal to vindicate the public interest in ferreting out all discrimination, the private interest of the complainant may suffer for it. The resolution of his specific complaint may be needlessly delayed.140 Thus, although there are persuasive arguments for giving the EEOC sweeping investigatory power, there are countervailing considerations which should lead the Commission to be careful in exercising its discretion.”
Developments in the Law, Employment Discrimination and Title YII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 84 Harv.L. Rev. 1109, 1218 (1971).
This perception was especially accurate in this case. Mrs. Chavez’ real complaint was that she lost her job due to friction in the office because of her Spanish heritage. The relief she obviously wanted was to have her job back as quickly as possible. She filed her complaint the day after she was fired. Office friction because of intolerance between co-work*248ers seems a type of complaint especially suitable for conciliation. As to that charge, the record indicates a co-operative attitude by the employer in supplying the information sought by the EEOC. The breadth of the EEOC’s investigation appears to have lost view of the private interest that Mrs. Chavez had in being reinstated to her job.
Since the records concerning its patients were not relevant to any unfair employment charge covered by Title VII, Texas State Optical should not be put to the time, expense and inconvenience of revealing such records to governmental authority. I would affirm the decision of the district court.

 No argument lias been made that the segregation of patients is illegal under either state or federal law.

 “6. A written response to the following questio’ns:
“a. Does Texas State Optical instruct its employees at any of its Houston facilities to fill in Negro patients’ applications for service with red ink or red pencil and to use black or blue ink or pencil for patients other than Negroes?
“b. Has Texas State Optical ever so instructed its employees at any Houston facility or elsewhere?
“c. Do Texas State Optical records of patients for service at its 306 Northline Mall, Houston, Texas, facility now contain, or have they within the last two years contained, any application filled out in red ink or pencil? “d. If the answer to ‘c’ is ‘yes,’ why were they filled out in red?
“7. Respondent Texas State Optical is to make available to a representative of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission its records of patients’ applications for service at its 306 Northline Mall, Houston, Texas, facility for purposes of inspection.”

. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-8(a). “In connection with any investigation of a charge filed under section 2000e-5 of this title, the Commission or its designated representative shall at all reasonable times have access to, for the purposes of examination, and the right to copy any evidence . of any person being investigated or proceeded against that relates to unlawful employment practices covered by this sub-chapter and is relevant to the charge under investigation.”

. “The above company lias discriminated against me because of my national origin Spanish Surnamed American by:
a. Terminated me from my job without a reason. I was the only Spanish Surnamed American employed with seven Caucasian females who abused me. The manager told me my work was allright but he had to let me go because of friction.-
b. segregating the patients”

. Blue Bell Boots, Inc. v. EEOC, 418 F.2d 355 (6th Cir. 1969); Parham v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., 433 F.2d 421 (8th Cir. 1970); United States by Clark v. Dillon Supply Co., 429 F.2d 800, 804 (4th Cir. 1970); Jenkins v. United Gas Corp., 400 F.2d 28 (5th Cir. 1968).

. All of the eases cited to us contain charges relating to hiring, firing or promotion of employees: General Employment Enterprises, Inc. v. EEOC, 440 F.2d 783 (7th Cir. 1971) ; Graniteville Company, (Sibley Division) v. EEOC, 438 F.2d 32 (4th Cir. 1971); Local No. 104, Sheet Metal Workers International Assoc., AFL-CIO v. EEOC, 439 F.2d 237 (9th Cir. 1971); Georgia Power Co. v. EEOC, 412 F.2d 462 (5th Cir. 1969); Blue Bell Boots, Inc. v. EEOC, supra; Jenkins v. United Gas Corp., supra; Sanchez v. Standard Brands, Inc., supra; and Parliament House Motor Hotel v. EEOC, 444 F.2d 1335 (5th Cir. 1971).

. Parliament House Motor Hotel v. EEOC, supra.

. International Chemical Workers Union v. Planters Mfg. Co., 259 F.Supp. 365, 368 (N.D.Miss.1966); Local 186, International Pulp, Sulphite and Paper Mill Workers v. Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co., 304 F.Supp. 1284 (N.D.Ind.1969).

. Carr v. Conoco Plastics, Inc., 423 F.2d 57 (5th Cir. 1970), affirming 295 F. Supp. 1281, 1289 (N.D.Miss.1969) ; Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express Co., 417 F.2d 1122 (5th Cir. 1969).

. Sanchez v. Standard Brands, Inc., supra.

. Jenkins v. United Gas Corp., supra, 400 F.2d at p. 31, fn. 5.

. Marable v. Alabama Mental Health Board, 297 F.Supp. 291, 297 (M.D.Ala. 1969) ; see also Cypress v. Newport News General & Nonsectarian Hospital Ass’n, 375 F.2d 648, 653 (4th Cir. 1967).

. United States v. Montgomery County Board of Education, 395 U.S. 225, 231-232, 89 S.Ct. 1670, 1674, 23 L.Ed.2d 263 (1969).