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).
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.
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)."
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.
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