Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 21 views

    17 Fair empl.prac.cas. 213, 16 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 8234 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. American National Bank, Equal Employment Advisory Council, Amicus Curiae, 574 F.2d 1173, 4th Cir. (1978)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The EEOC brought a lawsuit against American National Bank alleging a pattern of racial discrimination in hiring since 1969. The district court dismissed the case due to unreasonable delay by the EEOC, which prejudiced the bank's ability to defend itself. However, the appellate court vacated the dismissal based on a recent Supreme Court ruling. While the delay may justify denying relief to the individual complainant, it does not prevent the bank from defending against the broader pattern and practice allegations. The case was remanded for further fact-finding to determine whether any EEOC delays caused prejudice warranting limitations on potential relief.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    17 Fair empl.prac.cas. 213, 16 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 8234 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. American National Bank, Equal Employment Advisory Council, Amicus Curiae, 574 F.2d 1173, 4th Cir. (1978)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    21 views4 pages
    The EEOC brought a lawsuit against American National Bank alleging a pattern of racial discrimination in hiring since 1969. The district court dismissed the case due to unreasonable delay by the EEOC, which prejudiced the bank's ability to defend itself. However, the appellate court vacated the dismissal based on a recent Supreme Court ruling. While the delay may justify denying relief to the individual complainant, it does not prevent the bank from defending against the broader pattern and practice allegations. The case was remanded for further fact-finding to determine whether any EEOC delays caused prejudice warranting limitations on potential relief.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1978-04-18 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 574 F.2d 1173 Docket: 76-2452

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The EEOC brought a lawsuit against American National Bank alleging a pattern of racial discrimination in hiring since 1969. The district court dismissed the case due to unreasonable delay by the EEOC, which prejudiced the bank's ability to defend itself. However, the appellate court vacated the dismissal based on a recent Supreme Court ruling. While the delay may justify denying relief to the individual complainant, it does not prevent the bank from defending against the broader pattern and practice allegations. The case was remanded for further fact-finding to determine whether any EEOC delays caused prejudice warranting limitations on potential relief.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    21 views4 pages

    17 Fair empl.prac.cas. 213, 16 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 8234 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. American National Bank, Equal Employment Advisory Council, Amicus Curiae, 574 F.2d 1173, 4th Cir. (1978)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The EEOC brought a lawsuit against American National Bank alleging a pattern of racial discrimination in hiring since 1969. The district court dismissed the case due to unreasonable delay by the EEOC, which prejudiced the bank's ability to defend itself. However, the appellate court vacated the dismissal based on a recent Supreme Court ruling. While the delay may justify denying relief to the individual complainant, it does not prevent the bank from defending against the broader pattern and practice allegations. The case was remanded for further fact-finding to determine whether any EEOC delays caused prejudice warranting limitations on potential relief.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 4

    574 F.

    2d 1173

    17 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 213, 16 Empl. Prac.


    Dec. P 8234
    EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
    Appellant,
    v.
    AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK, Appellee,
    Equal Employment Advisory Council, Amicus Curiae.
    No. 76-2452.

    United States Court of Appeals,


    Fourth Circuit.
    Argued Feb. 7, 1978.
    Decided April 18, 1978.

    William H. Ng, Atty., E. E. O. C., Washington, D. C. (Abner W. Sibal,


    Gen. Counsel, Joseph T. Eddins, Associate Gen. Counsel, Beatrice
    Rosenberg, Asst. Gen. Counsel, E. E. O. C., Washington, D. C., on brief),
    for appellant.
    Paul M. Thompson, Washington, D. C. (Jack W. Burtch, Jr., Hunton &
    Williams, Richmond, Va., on brief), for appellee.
    Avrum M. Goldberg and Marc E. Lackritz, Robert E. Nagle, Wald,
    Harkrader & Ross, Robert E. Williams and Douglas S. McDowell,
    McGuiness & Williams, Washington, D. C., on brief), for amicus curiae,
    Equal Employment Advisory Council.
    Before WINTER, BUTZNER and RUSSELL, Circuit Judges.
    BUTZNER, Circuit Judge:

    The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission brought this suit alleging that
    since May, 1969, American National Bank has engaged in a pattern and
    practice of racial discrimination against blacks in violation of 703 of the Civil
    Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2. On the bank's motion for summary

    judgment, the district court dismissed the action because of unreasonable delay
    prejudicing the bank.* Relying largely on Occidental Life Ins. Co. v. EEOC,
    432 U.S. 355, 97 S.Ct. 2447, 53 L.Ed.2d 402 (1977), which was decided after
    the district court acted, we vacate the order of dismissal and remand the case
    for further proceedings.
    2

    * Sandra Holland filed a charge with the commission in June, 1969, alleging
    that she had applied for employment at the Suffolk, Virginia, branch of
    American National Bank a month earlier and that the bank did not hire her
    because she is black. The commission did not complete its investigation or
    determine whether there was reasonable cause for believing the charge, as
    required by 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(b), until March, 1974. In its notice to the bank
    of its determination of reasonable cause, the commission reported that its
    investigation disclosed that most of the bank's black employees held menial
    jobs; that the proportion of white persons employed as tellers and clerks greatly
    exceeded the proportion of white people in the community; that the bank
    utilized tests for hiring which discriminated against blacks; that in the absence
    of business necessity it relied on adverse references without permitting
    applicants to explain or refute them; and that without showing any business
    necessity, it utilized credit status as an employment criterion notwithstanding its
    disproportionate impact on black applicants. In accordance with the statute, the
    commission attempted to conciliate these charges. After conciliation failed, the
    commission issued Holland a right to sue letter in August, 1974, but she elected
    not to proceed.

    In January, 1976, nearly seven years after the charge had been filed, the
    commission brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(f)(1). In its
    complaint it alleged a pattern and practice of discrimination specifying that the
    bank had a continuing policy of excluding black persons from employment,
    used pre-employment selection devices which exclude black applicants, and
    hired a disproportionately large number of black persons for menial jobs that
    deny them the opportunity for advancement open to white employees. During
    pre-trial discovery, the commission claimed 47 persons had been
    discriminatorily denied employment.

    In a deposition taken in June of 1976, Holland testified that she applied for a
    job at the bank's Suffolk branch in 1965 and 1968, but she could not recall
    whether she applied there in 1969. She also said that she threw away her
    records "a long time ago." The manager of the Suffolk branch at the time of
    Holland's charge is now retired. He testified that the bank's records contain no
    May, 1969, application from Holland for the Suffolk branch, but that he found
    an October, 1969, application in which she applied for work at the Portsmouth

    branch. The bank preserved all of the applications for employment at Suffolk
    from 1969 to date.
    5

    The district court concluded that an affirmative defense in the nature of laches
    is available to defendants in actions brought by the commission pursuant to
    Title VII. It held that the elements of this defense are (1) unreasonable or
    unexplained delay in bringing proceedings and (2) resulting prejudice to the
    defendant. It found that evidence had been lost and memories dimmed
    concerning Holland's initial charge, and it ruled that the commission's heavy
    workload offered no justification for the delay.

    II
    6

    In Occidental Life Ins. Co. v. EEOC, 432 U.S. 355, 97 S.Ct. 2447, 53 L.Ed.2d
    402 (1977), the Supreme Court held that no federal statute of limitations applies
    to the filing of suits by the commission once jurisdiction over a complaint is
    properly obtained. 432 U.S. at 358-66, 97 S.Ct. 2447. Noting that Congress was
    aware of the delays caused by a burdensome workload when it assigned
    additional duties to the commission in 1972, the Court concluded that Congress
    did not intend that state limitations statutes should be applied. 432 U.S. at 36672, 97 S.Ct. 2447. The Court recognized, however, that despite the protections
    afforded during the administrative phase of the proceedings, a potential
    defendant might be prejudiced by the commission's inordinate delay. In such
    cases, it observed, federal courts have ample power to limit the relief to which
    the commission is entitled. It stated:

    7
    This
    Court has said that when a Title VII defendant is in fact prejudiced by a private
    plaintiff's unexcused conduct of a particular case, the trial court may restrict or even
    deny backpay relief. . . . The same discretionary power "to locate 'a just result' in
    light of the circumstances peculiar to the case," . . . can also be exercised when the
    EEOC is the plaintiff. 432 U.S. at 373, 97 S.Ct. at 2458.
    8

    These principles govern the case now before us.

    As we have previously mentioned, the commission's suit was not concerned


    merely with the Holland charge; it alleged a pattern and practice of racial
    discrimination. The commission was entitled to bring suit on these broader
    allegations because they were founded on the reasonable cause determination
    and conciliation efforts. EEOC v. General Electric Co., 532 F.2d 359 (4th Cir.
    1976). In contrast, the district court's finding of prejudice rested primarily on
    the lost evidence concerning Holland's initial charge. This loss may justify
    denial of relief to Holland, but it does not establish the bank's inability to

    defend the pattern and practice suit.


    10

    Applying Occidental, we conclude that the district court should not have
    dismissed the commission's suit. Whether the commission's delays caused
    prejudice that will justify a limitation of the relief which the district court
    should decree can best be considered after the facts have been fully developed,
    if the commission ultimately prevails. Cf. EEOC v. Airguide Corp., 539 F.2d
    1038, 1042 n. 7 (5th Cir. 1976); EEOC v. General Electric Co., 532 F.2d 359,
    371-72 (4th Cir. 1976).

    11

    Accordingly, the order of dismissal is vacated, and the case is remanded for
    further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

    The district court's opinion is reported as EEOC v. American National Bank,


    420 F.Supp. 181 (E.D.Va.1976)

    You might also like