Harris v. Orkin Exterminating Co.

5 Citing cases

  1. Miller v. International Paper Company

    408 F.2d 283 (5th Cir. 1969)   Cited 170 times
    Filing of an EEOC complaint is a procedural rather than a substantive requirement

    In this same vein, a number of district court decisions have held that the limitation period on conciliation is directory rather than mandatory. See e.g., Kendrick v. American Bakery Co., 58 Lab.Cas. ¶ 9146 (N.D.Ga. 1968); Pullen v. Otis Elevator Co., 292 F. Supp. 715 (N.D.Ga. 1968); Harris v. Orkin Extermination Co., 293 F. Supp. 104 (N.D.Ga. 1968); Dent v. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry., 265 F. Supp. 56, 58 (N.D.Ala. 1967), rev'd. on other grounds, 406 F.2d 399 (5th Cir. 1969).

  2. Cunningham v. Litton Industries

    413 F.2d 887 (9th Cir. 1969)   Cited 64 times

    The 30 to 60 day period prescribed in the statute in which the EEOC is to act should be interpreted as directory and not mandatory in nature. Commission action and issuance of notice within 60 days is not a condition precedent to an aggrieved person's right to sue in a federal district court. Fore v. Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Co., 293 F. Supp. 587, 589 (W.D.N.C. 1968); Harris v. Orkin Exterminating Co., 293 F. Supp. 104, 105 (N.D.Ga. 1968); Kendrick v. American Bakery Co., 69 L.R.R.M. 2012, 2014 (N.D.Ga. 1968); Mondy v. Crown Zellerbach Corp., 271 F. Supp. 258, 261 (E.D.La. 1967), reversed on other grounds sub nom. Oatis v. Crown Zellerbach Corp., 398 F.2d 496 (5 Cir. 1968); Dent v. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co., 265 F. Supp. 56, 58 (N.D.Ala. 1967); see, Sokolowski v. Swift Co., 286 F. Supp. 775, 781 (D.Minn. 1968). The clear intent of Congress in passing this statute was to prefer private and informal conciliation.

  3. Logan v. Richard E. Carmack and Associates

    368 F. Supp. 121 (E.D. Tenn. 1973)   Cited 11 times
    In Logan, the Court supports its holding by analogizing to the limitations provisions of the Fair Employment Practices Act (FEPA). It reasoned that since FEPA has a notice provision similar to that in Section 3610(a), the period of limitations in Section 3610(d) should begin to run from the date this notice is received as is specifically provided for in FEPA (42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5 et seq.).

    The plaintiff will not be penalized because the agency conducting the administrative inquiry has failed to terminate its inquiry within the statutory limitation or because it has failed to notify the plaintiff of their action. Cf. Harris v. Orkin Exterminating Co., 293 F.Supp. 104, 105 (N.D.Ga.1968)."

  4. Brown v. Ballas

    331 F. Supp. 1033 (N.D. Tex. 1971)   Cited 24 times
    In Brown v. Ballas, 331 F. Supp. 1033 (N.D.Tex. 1971) the district court analogized two time-period prerequisites of Title VII of The 1964 Civil Rights Act, the Fair Employment Practice Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. Under that statutory scheme, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") is required to investigate complaints of discrimination in employment and to notify the complainant if it is unable to successfully resolve a dispute.

    The plaintiff will not be penalized because the agency conducting the administrative inquiry has failed to terminate its inquiry within the statutory limits or because it has failed to notify the plaintiff of their action. Cf. Harris v. Orkin Exterminating Co., 293 F. Supp. 104, 105 (N.D.Ga. 1968). Because the plaintiff has properly brought her action under § 3610, the Court must now address itself to the remedies provided for under that section.

  5. Hayes v. Seaboard Coast Line R. Co.

    46 F.R.D. 49 (S.D. Ga. 1968)   Cited 22 times
    In Hayes v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company, 46 F.R.D. 49, 53 (S.D.Ga. 1968), the Court concluded that a jury under Title VII is ill-equipped for such "complicated computations".

    Except in the case of the 30-day requirement, the time provisions under Title VII are generally held by the courts to be directory rather than mandatory. See Dent v. St. Louis, supra; Choate v. Caterpillar Tractor Company, supra; Pullen v. Otis Elevator Company, 292 F.Supp. 715 (N.D.Ga.1968); Harris v. Orkin Exterminating Inc., 293 F.Supp. 104 (N.D.Ga.1968); Kendrick v. American Bakeries Co., 58 LC § 9146 (N.D.Ga., 1968).          VI