From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Steele v. Tennessee Valley Authority

United States District Court, N.D. Alabama, Northeastern Division
May 7, 1976
429 F. Supp. 1051 (N.D. Ala. 1976)

Opinion

Civ. A. No. CA 75-G-2324-NE.

May 7, 1976.

Adams, Baker Clemon, Birmingham, Ala., for plaintiff.

Herbert S. Sanger, Jr., Justin M. Schwamm, James E. Fox, Thomas F. Fine, Tennessee Valley Authority, Knoxville, Tenn., for TVA and Aubrey J. Wagner.

Wayman G. Sherrer, U.S. Atty., Henry I. Frohsin, Asst. U.S. Atty., Birmingham, Ala., for Hampton, Andolsek and Spain.


ORDER


This cause came on to be heard on the defendants' motions for summary judgment. In his administrative complaint to TVA plaintiff claimed that he was denied a promotion by TVA because of his race and that, also because of his race, he was treated unequally with regard to work assignments and overtime and denied administrative leave to assist with minority community activities. The administrative record shows that the promotion claim was not presented to the EEO counselor within the 30-day period provided by 5 C.F.R. § 713.214(a)(i) (1976) and suit was not filed in this Court within 30 days after that issue was rejected by TVA for untimeliness. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(c) (Supp. IV, 1974). During argument, plaintiff's counsel conceded that defendants' motion for summary judgment on the grounds that this claim was untimely should be granted. It further appears that the claim as to work assignments was remanded by TVA for counseling, which has not been pursued. The two remaining claims were cancelled for failure to prosecute after the plaintiff, having been twice warned that such cancellation might result, failed to provide information requested by TVA to determine if the complaint was proper for processing under 5 C.F.R. § 713.215 (1976) and TVA's regulations. The Civil Service Commission affirmed TVA's dismissal of these two claims and this action followed.

It appears that plaintiff has not exhausted his administrative remedies as to the claims before the Court, as required by 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16, the statute on which plaintiff's counsel, during argument, placed his sole reliance. See Penn v. Schlesinger, 497 F.2d 970 (5th Cir.) (en banc), petition for cert. filed, 43 U.S.L.W. 3310 (U.S. Oct. 23, 1974) (No. 74-476); Jordan v. United States, 522 F.2d 1128 (8th Cir. 1975); McCarthy v. Civil Serv. Comm'n Gen. Accounting Office, 169 U.S.App.D.C. 300, 515 F.2d 1017 (1975); Eastland v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 398 F. Supp. 541 (N.D.Ala. 1974), aff'd mem., 547 F.2d 908 (5th Cir. 1977); Butler v. Kleppe, 9 EPD ¶ 10,054 (D.D.C. 1975).

Accordingly, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the motions of the defendants for summary judgment be and they hereby are GRANTED and this action is hereby dismissed.


Summaries of

Steele v. Tennessee Valley Authority

United States District Court, N.D. Alabama, Northeastern Division
May 7, 1976
429 F. Supp. 1051 (N.D. Ala. 1976)
Case details for

Steele v. Tennessee Valley Authority

Case Details

Full title:James L. STEELE, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly…

Court:United States District Court, N.D. Alabama, Northeastern Division

Date published: May 7, 1976

Citations

429 F. Supp. 1051 (N.D. Ala. 1976)

Citing Cases

Vinieratos v. U.S., Dept. of Air Force

The investigation of both the plaintiff's complaint concerning his one-day suspension, as well as the…

Maher v. U.S. Postal Service

Certain lower courts have spoken broadly of the applicability of the exhaustion doctrine in § 717 cases and…