Wall v. Coleman

393 F. Supp. 826
CourtDistrict Court, S.D. Georgia
DecidedApril 18, 1975
DocketCiv. A. CV 474-256
StatusPublished
Cited by29 cases

This text of 393 F. Supp. 826 (Wall v. Coleman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Wall v. Coleman, 393 F. Supp. 826 (S.D. Ga. 1975).

Opinion

OWENS, District Judge:

Ms. Carole E. Wall, a licensed Georgia attorney (member of the State Bar of Georgia) and a former law clerk for one of the judges 1 of this court, complains under 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e et seq., Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, alleging that because of her female sex she was denied employment as an Assistant District Attorney of the Eastern Judicial Circuit (Chatham County, Georgia), and that this denial was unlawful on account of the provisions of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

The defendant county commissioners who are responsible for appropriating tax money to pay the salaries of Chatham County assistant district attorneys and the defendant district attorney who has the responsibility of hiring, supervising and firing assistant district attorneys who work under and for him, have moved to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint contending that the office of assistant district attorney is exempt from the provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by virtue of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(f), which provides:

“For the purposes of this subchapter—
******
“(f) The term ‘employee’ means an individual employed by an employer, except that the term ‘employee’ shall not include any person elected to public office in any State or political subdivision of any State by the qualified voters thereof, or any person chosen by such officer to be on such officer’s personal staff, or an appointee on the policy making level or an immediate adviser with respect to the exercise of the constitutional or legal powers of the office. The exemption set forth in the preceding sentence shall not include employees subject to the civil service laws of a State government, governmental agency or political subdivision.” (Emphasis added.)

The defendant District Attorney Andrew J. Ryan, Jr. is an elected public official of the State of Georgia. 1945 Constitution of the State of Georgia § 2-4601 (Const, art. VI, § XI, par. 1). His duties are specified in the Georgia Constitution, to wit:

“It shall be the duty of the district attorney to represent the State in all cases in the superior court of his circuit and in all cases taken up from the superior courts of his circuit to the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals and to perform such other services as shall be required of him by law.” § 2-4602 (Const, art. VI, § XI, par. 2);

and further by statute, to wit:

“Duties. — The duties of the district attorneys within their respective circuits are—
“1. To attend each session of the superior courts, regular or adjourned, unless excused by the judge thereof, *828 and remain until the business of the State is disposed of.
“2. To attend on the grand juries, advise them in relation to matters of law, and swear and examine witnesses before them.
“3. To administer the oaths the laws require, to the grand and petit jurors, to the bailiffs or other officers of the court, and otherwise to aid the presiding judge in organizing the courts as he may require.
“4. To draw up all indictments or presentments, when requested by the grand jury, and to prosecute all indictable offenses.
“5. To prosecute or defend any civil action in the prosecution or defense of which the State is interested, unless otherwise specially provided for.
“6. To attend before the appellate courts when any criminal cause is tried emanating from their respective circuits, argue the same, and perform any other duty therein the interest of the State may require.
“7. To collect all moneys arising from fines and forfeited recognizances, all costs on criminal cases when paid into court before judgment, and not otherwise; and at the fall term of each court, every year, to settle with the county treasurer, and pay over to him all moneys due him according to law, after a fair and full settlement.
“8. To settle at the same time with the preceding district attorney, and pay over to him any moneys collected to which he may be entitled, and to render to him, whenever required by him, a just statement of the condition of his interests.
“9. To collect all money due the State in the hands of any eseheators, and pay it over to the educational fund; and, if necessary, compel them to pay by rule or order of court, or other legal means.
“10. To collect all claims of the State they may be ordered to do by the
Comptroller General, and to remit the same within 30 days after collection; and on the first day in October every year to report to him the condition of the claims in their hands in favor of the State, particularly specifying the amounts collected and paid, from what sources received and for what purposes, and to whom paid; what claims are unpaid, and why; what judgments have been obtained, when, and in what court; what suits are instituted, in what courts, and their present progress and future prospects.
“11. To perform such other duties as are or may be required by law, or which necessarily appertain to their office.” 1933 Ga.Code Ann. § 24-2908.

Unquestionably District Attorney Ryan is a “person elected to public office” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(f). Are his assistant district attorneys “person[s] chosen by such officer to be on such officer’s personal staff”?

The report of the conference committee of the House and Senate as to this section states:

“Under the House bill, there was no provision for an expansion of coverage of Title VII.
“The Senate amendment expanded coverage to include:
‘(1) State and local government, governmental agencies, political subdivisions (except for elected officials, their personal assistants a/nd immediate advisors) and the District of Columbia departments and agencies (except where such are subject by law to the Federal competitive service). State agencies previously covered by reference to the United States Employment Service continue to be covered;

and

‘(2) employers who employ 15 or more full-time employees and labor organizations with 15 or more mem *829 bers beginning one year after enactment.
* * * * * *
“The House receded with an amendment exempting, in addition to State and local government elected officials, persons chosen by such officials to be on their personal staffs,

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

Related

Horne v. Russell County Commission
379 F. Supp. 2d 1305 (M.D. Alabama, 2005)
Renna v. County of Fresno
92 Cal. Rptr. 2d 586 (California Court of Appeal, 2000)
Frazier v. Smith
12 F. Supp. 2d 1362 (S.D. Georgia, 1998)
Shahar v. Bowers
70 F.3d 1218 (Eleventh Circuit, 1995)
Dubisar-Dewberry v. Folmar
883 F. Supp. 648 (M.D. Alabama, 1995)
Rodriguez v. Township of Holiday Lakes
866 F. Supp. 1012 (S.D. Texas, 1994)
Office of the Lake County State's Attorney v. Human Rights Commission
601 N.E.2d 1294 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1992)
Nichols v. Hurley
921 F.2d 1101 (Tenth Circuit, 1990)
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Reno
758 F.2d 581 (Eleventh Circuit, 1985)
Clark v. Tarrant County, Tex.
608 F. Supp. 209 (N.D. Texas, 1985)
United States v. Gregory
582 F. Supp. 1319 (W.D. Virginia, 1984)
Marafino v. ST. LOUIS CTY. CIRCUIT COURT
537 F. Supp. 206 (E.D. Missouri, 1982)
Owens v. Rush
654 F.2d 1370 (Tenth Circuit, 1981)
Calderon v. Martin County
639 F.2d 271 (Fifth Circuit, 1981)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
393 F. Supp. 826, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wall-v-coleman-gasd-1975.