Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 76 views

    Erlene Crosslin Et Vir. v. The Mountain States Telephone and Telegraph Company, 400 U.S. 1004 (1971)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is a dissenting opinion from a Supreme Court case regarding whether plaintiffs must first file a complaint with a state agency before bringing a Title VII employment discrimination claim to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The dissent argues that the lower court erred in rejecting the EEOC's interpretation that initial filing with a state agency is only required if that agency can provide adequate relief. The dissent believes this is an important issue that could undermine the national commitment to end racial discrimination if plaintiffs are forced to first pursue inadequate state remedies before bringing federal claims.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as COURT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Erlene Crosslin Et Vir. v. The Mountain States Telephone and Telegraph Company, 400 U.S. 1004 (1971)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    76 views2 pages
    This document is a dissenting opinion from a Supreme Court case regarding whether plaintiffs must first file a complaint with a state agency before bringing a Title VII employment discrimination claim to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The dissent argues that the lower court erred in rejecting the EEOC's interpretation that initial filing with a state agency is only required if that agency can provide adequate relief. The dissent believes this is an important issue that could undermine the national commitment to end racial discrimination if plaintiffs are forced to first pursue inadequate state remedies before bringing federal claims.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1971-01-18 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 400 U.S. 1004 Docket: 326

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    COURT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document is a dissenting opinion from a Supreme Court case regarding whether plaintiffs must first file a complaint with a state agency before bringing a Title VII employment discrimination claim to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The dissent argues that the lower court erred in rejecting the EEOC's interpretation that initial filing with a state agency is only required if that agency can provide adequate relief. The dissent believes this is an important issue that could undermine the national commitment to end racial discrimination if plaintiffs are forced to first pursue inadequate state remedies before bringing federal claims.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as COURT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as court, pdf, or txt
    76 views2 pages

    Erlene Crosslin Et Vir. v. The Mountain States Telephone and Telegraph Company, 400 U.S. 1004 (1971)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is a dissenting opinion from a Supreme Court case regarding whether plaintiffs must first file a complaint with a state agency before bringing a Title VII employment discrimination claim to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The dissent argues that the lower court erred in rejecting the EEOC's interpretation that initial filing with a state agency is only required if that agency can provide adequate relief. The dissent believes this is an important issue that could undermine the national commitment to end racial discrimination if plaintiffs are forced to first pursue inadequate state remedies before bringing federal claims.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as COURT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as court, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    400 U.S.

    1004
    91 S.Ct. 562
    27 L.Ed.2d 618

    Erlene CROSSLIN et vir.


    v.
    The MOUNTAIN STATES TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH
    COMPANY.
    No. 326.

    Supreme Court of the United States


    January 18, 1971

    On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals


    for the Ninth Circuit. The motion of the National Association for the
    Advancement of Colored People for leave to file a brief, as amicus curiae,
    is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is also granted and the
    judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is
    vacated. The case is remanded to the United States District Court for the
    District of Arizona for reconsideration in light of the suggestions
    contained in the brief of the Solicitor General, as amicus curiae, filed
    November 19, 1970. By this remand this Court intimates no view as to the
    merits of the Solicitor General's position.
    Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, dissenting.

    Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 establishes methods of securing relief
    for individuals complaining of discrimination in employment. An individual
    may bring court action to enforce his rights under Title VII only after he has
    filed a timely charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
    (EEOC). Section 706(b) of the Act provides no charge may be filed with the
    EEOC until 60 days after the commencement of proceedings (unless they are
    terminated earlier) before a state or local agency, if one exists, which has power
    'to grant or seek relief' or to 'institute criminal proceedings' with respect to the
    complaint. The EEOC has interpreted 706(b) as requiring initial submission
    of the complaint to state agencies only where the agency can provide adequate
    relief. At present Arizona and six other States* have agencies with remedial

    powers which the EEOC finds inadequate.


    2

    This case arose in Arizona. Petitioners brought a complaint of racial


    discrimination in employment to the EEOC without first going to the Arizona
    Civil Rights Commission. The EEOC found there was reasonable cause to
    believe the charge was true and sent a statutory Notice-of-Right-To-SueWithin-Thirty-Days and the action was timely filed. The Court of Appeals held
    that the District Court should have dismissed the complaint for lack of
    jurisdiction because the Arizona Civil Rights Commission should have been
    given the initial opportunity to consider the complaint. The court found that a
    state agency 'to grant and seek relief' included an agency that could only
    attempt to settle the dispute by conciliation and persuasion.

    The proper functioning of the various Civil Rights Acts is of critical


    importance. This Court has recently reemphasized the importance of deference
    to an administrative interpretation by the agency charged with the initial
    interpretation of a new law. United States v. City of Chicago, 400 U.S. 8, 91
    S.Ct. 18, 27 L.Ed.2d 9; Udall v. Tallman, 380 U.S. 1, 16, 85 S.Ct. 792, 13
    L.Ed.2d 616. The court below rejected the administrative interpretation of
    706(b). In so doing it requires pursuing a state remedy classified as inadequate
    by the EEOC.

    The various Civil Rights Acts represent a national commitment to achieve an


    end to racial discrimination. Forcing an alleged victim of racial discrimination
    usually an indigentfirst to seek a state remedy classified as inadequate by
    the federal rights when that state remedy is palpably inadequate presents an
    issue of considerable importance. See Glover v. St. Louis-San Francisco R. Co.,
    393 U.S. 324, 89 S.Ct. 548, 21 L.Ed.2d 519. I would grant certiorari to decide
    the question presented in this case.

    Idaho, Maine, Montana, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Vermont.

    You might also like