Court Opinion

ID: 9458560
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 20:55:20.763339+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:35:48.492637
License: Public Domain

DAUGHERTY, District Judge
(dissenting) :
I dissent to vacating the judgment and remanding the case for further proceedings as I feel that the majority opinion in Sparton Southwest, Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, et al., 461 F.2d 1055 (Tenth Cir. 1972) relied on herein by the majority opinion, has been incorrectly decided.
It seems crystal clear to me that by the language of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(a) 1 Congress intended to differentiate between the contents of a charge filed by an aggrieved person or employee and a charge filed by a member of the Commission. More is required in a charge filed by a member of the Commission. His charge must set forth the facts upon which it is based. This is clearly the Congressional mandate. This is not required of an aggrieved person or employee. He may indulge in bald conclusions. The reasons for such a differential are readily apparent and the distinction has a rational basis. The language of Congress intending the difference is clear.
To fail to recognize this pertinent statutory distinction is to ignore Congress and usurp its legislative function. This I decline to do. I believe the dissenting opinion in Sparton Southwest, supra, correctly decides the point in issue.