TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

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

5 Fair empl.prac.cas. 1028, 5 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 8572 Josephine Parker and Judi Greenlee v. General Telephone Company of the Northwest, Inc.

Parker v. GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY OF the NORTHWEST, INC., 476 F.2d 595 (9th Cir. 1973)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
April 11, 1973
Docket
No. 71-1547
Judges
Koelsch, Wright, Belloni
Citations
476 F.2d 5955 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 85725 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 10281973 U.S. App. LEXIS 10590

Opinion — Per Curiam

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.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 15 cases

View all citing references →
1973: 11974: 31975: 11976: 21977: 11978: 51979: 219732026peak 1978 · 5

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Crosslin Et Vir v. Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co., 400 U.S. 1004 (1971) 38
MOTOROLA, INC. v. Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n, 460 F.2d 1245 (9th Cir. 1972) 25

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list