Josephine PARKER and Judi Greenlee, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY OF the NORTHWEST, INC., DefendantAppellee

Ninth Circuit

Josephine PARKER and Judi Greenlee, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY OF the NORTHWEST, INC., DefendantAppellee

476 F.2d 595, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 10590, 5 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 8572, 5 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1028

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedApril 11, 1973

Docket71-1547

StatusPublished

Cited by18 cases

This text of 476 F.2d 595 (Josephine PARKER and Judi Greenlee, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY OF the NORTHWEST, INC., DefendantAppellee) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Josephine PARKER and Judi Greenlee, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY OF the NORTHWEST, INC., DefendantAppellee, 476 F.2d 595, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 10590, 5 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 8572, 5 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1028 (9th Cir. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Josephine Parker and Judi Greenlee were employed by General Telephone Company. Plaintiffs alleged that they were discriminated against in the course of employment because of their sex. Charges were filed by plaintiffs with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), pursuant to Section 706(a) of Title VII, Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(a). Plaintiffs made no filing with the state. The EEOC concluded that reasonable cause existed to -believe the truth of plaintiffs’ charges. Plaintiffs filed their complaint in district court after informal efforts to resolve the dispute proved unsuccessful.

The district court dismissed the action on the grounds that plaintiffs had failed to notify the state of their claims, and that such notice was necessary, under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(b), as a preliminary to federal jurisdiction. We find that the dismissal of plaintiffs’ complaint was in error.

“The district court shall retain jurisdiction for a time sufficient to allow the EEOC to notify [the appropriate state commission] and to allow that commission the statutory deferral period in which to act upon it. If the [Washington] commission elects not to act, the district court may then proceed as the rights of the parties may then appear.” Motorola, Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 460 F.2d 1245, 1246 (9th Cir. 1972), citing Crosslin v. Mountain States Telephone and Telegraph Co., 400 U.S. 1004, 91 S.Ct. 562, 27 L.Ed.2d 618 (1971).

Defendant, in its answer, maintained that the conditions for venue enumerated in Section 706(f) of Title VII, Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5 (f), were not satisfied with respect to Plaintiff Greenlee. While this issue was neither briefed nor argued by the attorneys on appeal, the record does indicate that the practices complained of by Plaintiff Greenlee occurred in the State of Idaho. Nonetheless, venue may rest on some other basis set forth in the statute. The trial judge addressed himself to the problem, however, the issue remains unresolved. Oii remand, the trial judge is directed to consider and determine the matter of venue with respect to Plaintiff Greenlee.

Remanded.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

Josephine Parker and Judi Greenlee were employed by General Telephone Company. Plaintiffs alleged that they were discriminated against in the course of employment because of their sex. Charges were filed by plaintiffs with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), pursuant to Section 706(a) of Title VII, Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(a). Plaintiffs made no filing with the state. The EEOC concluded that reasonable cause existed to -believe the truth of plaintiffs’ charges. Plaintiffs filed their complaint in district court after informal efforts to resolve the dispute proved unsuccessful.

The district court dismissed the action on the grounds that plaintiffs had failed to notify the state of their claims, and that such notice was necessary, under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(b), as a preliminary to federal jurisdiction. We find that the dismissal of plaintiffs’ complaint was in error.

“The district court shall retain jurisdiction for a time sufficient to allow the EEOC to notify [the appropriate state commission] and to allow that commission the statutory deferral period in which to act upon it. If the [Washington] commission elects not to act, the district court may then proceed as the rights of the parties may then appear.” Motorola, Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 460 F.2d 1245, 1246 (9th Cir. 1972), citing Crosslin v. Mountain States Telephone and Telegraph Co., 400 U.S. 1004, 91 S.Ct. 562, 27 L.Ed.2d 618 (1971).

Defendant, in its answer, maintained that the conditions for venue enumerated in Section 706(f) of Title VII, Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5 (f), were not satisfied with respect to Plaintiff Greenlee. While this issue was neither briefed nor argued by the attorneys on appeal, the record does indicate that the practices complained of by Plaintiff Greenlee occurred in the State of Idaho. Nonetheless, venue may rest on some other basis set forth in the statute. The trial judge addressed himself to the problem, however, the issue remains unresolved. Oii remand, the trial judge is directed to consider and determine the matter of venue with respect to Plaintiff Greenlee.

Remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

476 F.2d 595, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 10590, 5 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 8572, 5 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1028, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/josephine-parker-and-judi-greenlee-plaintiffs-appellants-v-general-ca9-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack