Motilal Maurya v. Peabody Coal Company

823 F.2d 933

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
• Decided: October 1, 1987
• Docket: 86-5450
• Status: Published

Opinions

RALPH B. GUY, Jr., Circuit Judge.

Plaintiff appeals from a summary judgment granted in favor of defendant dismissing his Title VII employment discrimination suit on the ground of res judicata. Our analysis of this litigation differs from that of both the district court and the parties, and, as explained herein, requires us to reverse.

I.

Maurya was terminated from his position with Peabody on October 12, 1977, after working for that company since 1975.¹ Maurya was a native of India, having come to the United States in 1968. Maurya alleged that the termination was because of his national origin.

On March 20, 1978, Maurya filed a discrimination complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). This complaint was filed 158 days after his termination. On May 2, 1978, plaintiff filed a complaint with the Kentucky Commission for Human Rights (KCHR). This complaint was filed 200 days after termination of plaintiffs employment.²

The KCHR held a hearing and on September 20, 1979, issued an order determining that Maurya was discharged by Peabody because of his national origin in violation of Ky.Rev.Stat. 344.040. The KCHR did not order reinstatement or back pay, however, because they also found that Maurya had not exercised “reasonable diligence” in seeking other employment. On October 1, 1979, Maurya filed a motion with the KCHR to renew the proceedings for the purpose of granting back pay and reinstatement.

On October 15, 1979, Peabody appealed the KCHR decision to the Hopkins Circuit Court. On October 17, 1979, the KCHR granted Maurya’s motion to reopen and ordered immediate reinstatement. Maurya then filed his own circuit court suit challenging the KCHR’s denial of back pay. On October 25, 1979, Peabody filed a second appeal seeking review of the amended KCHR order which granted reinstatement. All of these appeals were ultimately consolidated.

Prior to a decision by the Hopkins Circuit Court, the EEOC, on January 24, 1980, issued a Right to Sue letter to Maurya, and on April 16, 1980, Maurya filed this action in the District Court for the Western District of Kentucky.

On May 27, 1981, the Hopkins Circuit Court issued a judgment setting aside the two KCHR orders. Both orders were set aside because the court determined that Maurya had failed to file a complaint with the KCHR within 180 days of the alleged unlawful termination as is required by the applicable Kentucky statute. Ky.Rev.Stat. 344.200(1). On March 12, 1982, the Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the Hopkins Circuit Court, and on December 7, 1982, the Kentucky Supreme Court denied discretionary review.

After the Kentucky court proceedings were completed, Peabody filed for summary judgment in this case on the grounds of res judicata. On March 24, 1986, Peabody’s motion was granted on the basis of the Kentucky judgment being res judicata of the issues presented for review in the federal Title VII action.

II.

On appeal both sides devote their arguments solely to whether this was an appropriate fact situation for the application of the principle of res judicata.³ Although we conclude that the Kentucky court’s determination that Maurya’s complaint was not timely filed with the KCHR is binding on us, we find that this begins the inquiry rather than ends it.

Title VII provides that if a claimant alleges employment discrimination in a state that has a state agency which can provide a remedy for such discrimination, the claimant cannot file with the EEOC until 60 days after he begins a proceeding before the state agency, unless the state proceedings terminate before the expiration of the 60 days. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(c). Kentucky is such a “deferral state” as a result of its establishment of the KCHR. In deferral states a claimant who files a claim with the state agency is given 300 days to file his claim with the EEOC. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e); Mohasco Corp. v. Silver, 447 U.S. 807, 100 S.Ct. 2486, 65 L.Ed.2d 532 (1980).

In commenting on these Title VII requirements, the Seventh Circuit recently stated:

The combined effect of sections 2000e-5(c) and (e) is to require the victim of alleged discrimination to file charges with a state agency if he is in a deferral state, and to do so at least 60 days before the 300th day after the alleged discrimination occurred, for if he files later he will not be able to file a charge with the EEOC by the 300th day unless the state agency obligingly terminates the proceeding before then.

Martinez v. United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, Local 1373, 772 F.2d 348, 350 (7th Cir.1985).

When Maurya filed his complaint with the EEOC, he would have been well within the 300-day requirement except for the fact that since he had not previously filed with the KCHR, his filing with the EEOC was ineffective until 60 days after he filed with the KCHR. This 60-day period did not begin to run until he did file with the KCHR on May 2,1978. Thus, the effective date of the EEOC filing would be July 2, 1978, unless the KCHR terminated proceedings sooner than 60 days. Unlike the plaintiff in Mohasco, however, the July date presents no problem for Maurya because it only takes him to the 260th day of his 300-day filing period. The interesting question that this chronology does raise, however, is whether Maurya had 300 days to file with the EEOC in light of his failure to make a timely filing with the KCHR. Although the Supreme Court has never squarely ruled on this issue, they did indicate, at least in dictum in Mohasco, that a timely filing is not required. See Mohasco, 447 U.S. at 816 n. 19, 100 S.Ct. at 2492 n. 19.⁴ More importantly, however, this circuit has specifically addressed the issue in at least two cases and has squarely concluded that a timely state filing is not required to give a claimant the benefit of the 300-day filing period with the EEOC. In a case arising in the Western District of Kentucky and involving the same Kentucky statutes and procedures we deal with here, we stated, “We therefore find that plaintiff Jones’ action is not barred for failure to commence proceedings with the KCHR in a timely fashion under state law.” Jones v. Airco Carbide Chemical Co., 691 F.2d 1200, 1204 (6th Cir.1982). Referencing Jones, we later held in Rasimas v. Michigan Dept. of Mental Health, 714 F.2d 614 (6th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 950, 104 S.Ct. 2151, 80 L.Ed.2d 537 (1984):

Accordingly, we hold that deferral state claimants are not required to make a timely filing with the state agency before the federal 300 day filing period applies. All that is required is that a filing with the state agency be made with sufficient time to allow an effective filing with the EEOC within 300 days after the discriminatory act.

714 F.2d at 622.

The cases decided in this circuit reached this conclusion by making an analogy to the Supreme Court’s decision in Oscar Mayer & Co. v. Evans, 441 U.S. 750, 99 S.Ct. 2066, 60 L.Ed.2d 609 (1979), a case involving not Title VII but the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967. Although one may question, as did Judge Posner in Martinez,⁵ the wisdom of this rule as well as the Oscar Mayer analogy, this panel is not free to do so as we are bound by Jones and Rasimas,6

In conclusion, then, we hold that Maurya made a timely filing within 300 days with the EEOC and that he is not penalized for failure to timely file with the KCHR. We do give preclusive effect to the Kentucky court’s determination that Maurya did not timely file with the KCHR,⁷ but find that this does not divest the district court below of jurisdiction, and thus we REVERSE and REMAND for further proceedings.⁸

1 . There is some dispute as to the actual date of termination, but we use October 12, 1977, because that is the earliest date that termination could be possible.

2 . Plaintiff makes the unsupported allegation that he actually went to the KCHR in February of 1978. We need not resolve this claim, however, due to the conclusion we arrive at in these proceedings.

3 . There is no doubt that in appropriate circumstances a federal court will give preclusive effect to a decision of a state court which reviews a state administrative agency’s determination of an employment discrimination claim. Kremer v. Chemical Construction Corp., 456 U.S. 461, 102 S.Ct. 1883, 72 L.Ed.2d 262 (1982).

4 . For an interesting discussion of the reason why a timely filing should be required, see Judge Posner’s opinion in Martinez v. United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, Local 1373, 772 F.2d 348 (7th Cir.1985).

5 . See supra note 4.

6 . In neither Jones nor Rasimas were there state court proceedings. However, this difference is not meaningful since all that the state court proceedings here determined was that Maurya had not filed a timely petition before the state agency — a fact that was acknowledged in both Jones and Rasimas.

7 . As he did in the court below, plaintiff continues to argue that he, in fact, made a timely filing with the KCHR. On this issue there is complete preclusion as a result of the action of the Kentucky state courts.

8 .Had plaintiffs state court action not been procedurally barred by his untimely filing with the KCHR, he could have suffered claim preclusion even if he had not specifically asserted his federal claim. See Migra v. Warren City School District Board of Education, 465 U.S. 75, 104 S.Ct. 892, 79 L.Ed.2d 56 (1984). However, since plaintiff’s access to the Kentucky courts was barred by his failure to first make a timely administrative filing, he had no opportunity to present his national origin discrimination claim. Under such circumstances, principles of res judicata are not applicable. Whitfield v. City of Knoxville, 756 F.2d 455 (6th Cir.1985).