RESPONDENT: Robbins & Myers, Inc.
LOCATION: Village of Arlington Heights
DOCKET NO.: 75-1264
DECIDED BY: Burger Court (1975-1981)
LOWER COURT: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
CITATION: 429 US 229 (1976)
ARGUED: Nov 09, 1976
DECIDED: Dec 20, 1976
Barry L. Goldstein -
Fletcher L. Hudson - for respondents pro hac vice, by special leave of Court
Winn Newman - for petitioners
Facts of the case
Media for International Union of Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, Local 790 v. Robbins & Myers, Inc.Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - November 09, 1976 in International Union of Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, Local 790 v. Robbins & Myers, Inc.
Audio Transcription for Opinion Announcement - December 20, 1976 in International Union of Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, Local 790 v. Robbins & Myers, Inc.
Warren E. Burger:
The judgment and opinion of the Court in 75-1264, International Union of Electrical Workers against Robbins and Myers and the related case 75-1276 will be announced by Mr. Justice Rehnquist.
William H. Rehnquist:
In this case, a Dortha Guy was filed fired by her employer when she failed to returned to work properly following a sick leave.
She filed a grievance alleging that the company's action had been unfair and this grievance was resolved against her.
She then filed a charge of racial discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1974 with the EEOC.
A statute of that time required that such claims be filed within 90 days of the allegedly Discriminatory Act.
Ms. Guy's claim was filed 108 days after she was fired although less than 90 days after company rejected her grievance.
Ms. Guy then filed suit in the District Court for the Western District of Tennessee.
That Court dismissed her action.
She appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and that Court affirmed the judgment of the District Court finding that she was not entitled to bring this suit.
We agree with the Court of Appeals that the fact that Ms. Guy resorted to her independent right to file a grievance with the company did not extend the 90-day period for filing a claim under Title VII.
We disagree with the Court of Appeals' conclusion, however, that the subsequent change in the period from 90 to 180 days does not help Mrs. Guy.
We find that the language of the statute gives her the benefit of the 180-day period since she did filed her claim with the EEOC within 180 days of the date she was fired.
We therefore, reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
Mr. Justice Brennan, Mr. Justice Stewart, Mr. Justice Marshall and Mr. Justice Stevens have file a separate statement in which they agree with our disposition of 180-day limitation issue but would not address the other issues which we decide.
Warren E. Burger:
Thank you Mr. Justice Rehnquist.