Bernard Bell v. Harold Brown, Secretary, Department of Defense

LEVENTHAL, Before ROBINSON ROBB, Judges. Circuit ROBINSON, III, W. SPOTTSWOOD Cir- Judge: cuit Opportunity Act Equal Employment The broadly to federal em- 19721 extended against protections employment ployees general- previously conferred discrimination employees2 by ly upon private-sector Title of 1964.3 Rights VII the Civil Act Sec- Title VII en- of thus-amended aggrieved an federal ables district court bring a civil suit in a federal 92-261, 1. Pub.L. No. 86 Stat. 103 U.S.App.D.C. 512 F.2d seq. (Supp. amended, V U.S.C. 2000e et §§ Lynn, (1975); Womack v. Mancari, g., See, e. Morton v. VII, seq., 701 et No. tit. §§ Pub.L. L.Ed.2d amended, (1964), as 42 U.S.C. Stat. 253 Roudebush, Hackley seq. et n.138, 416, 2000e §§ (1975); Douglas Hampton, examiner, 24,1973. which on October notice of after within before, on Shortly October Richard W. on the discrimi- final administrative action attorney in the same firm with Mr. appeal claim.4 nation Bewley, had advised the examiner letter therefor is whether represent he and Mr. Bewley would personal triggered, prior employee’s Greene, and Johnnie complain- notice, of no- transmittal acquisition co-employee,9 at upcoming legal employee’s tice to the office of the hearing.10 answer representative. negative. Agency in the announced its decision on

April finding no discrimination. appeal An administrative was then taken to I Review Appeals Board of Civil Ser- dispute. The salient facts are not in On which, 27,1974, August vice Commission then em- appellant, Agency.11 November affirmed The Board’s deci- the De- warned that under computer operator by as a sion Commission ployed tions it constituted the final administrative of Supply Agency Department fense and informed that a step, dissatisfied com- Defense,5 complaint filed an administrative was plainant statutorily authorized to sue work as- racial discrimination in charging appropriate in an federal district court training pro- opportunities signments, 30 calendar of his receipt within complaint Included was motions.6 in the decision.12 retained statement that he had appellant’s Boggs,7 Bewley D. and Roderick Peter a day, On the next of the decision copy bar, represent the local him.8 members of mail, by registered was sent with a return the matter Agency investigated After the receipt requested, to Mr. Cass.13 It arrived disposition of proposed August and issued notice a at his office on accept- and was he demanded and appellant’s liking, by person not to ed for Mr. Cass a signature whose complaints appears accorded a before a hearing agent” was “addressee’s box of 4. “Within 7. thirty days of notice 10 infra. See note department, or action taken a final section, (a) unit referred to subsection of this App. accompanying 8. 8. See note 10 infra and upon an or Civil Service Commission text. depart- appeal from a decision or order of such ment, agency, or of dis- unit on a Greene’s discrimination complaint was filed race, color, religion, crimination based on sex complaint was on November His 1972. origin, brought pursuant national subsec- or appellant’s throughout consolidated with (a) section, of this ... not, proceedings. how- administrative ever, He is ., aggrieved by disposition . if the final litigation. to this complaint, may file a civil action provided title, in section 2000e-5 of this 10. reproduced App. 23. En- The letter department, which civil action the head of the “Designa- letter was closed with the Greene’s unit, agency, appropriate, or shall be the naming Representative” these two form tion of Equal Employment defendant.” Act of ap- App. attorneys. noted that 24. The letter VII, 717(c), 2000e-16(c) tit. 42 U.S.C. § pellant gotten such a form but that he had not (Supp. V represent- designate the same two as his would states, separate Appellant letter. atives During appel- administrative consideration appellee Appellant at does not Brief for employ- complaint, his lant’s discrimination deny, that the letter was never written. The Supply Agency Defense was termi- ment at the Boggs, at note from status of text action within the nated. That was contested something mystery. on is of a here further, Agency is not encom- but and thus passed by litigation. appellant’s In view of Bell, (CSC Aug. 27, App.Rev.Bd. backpay consequent the dis- claim for 1974) (unreported), App. 16-22. alleged, crimination infra at note text appel- did not become reason of case moot Id., App. discharge. lant’s Berzak, App. (App.) Appendix Affidavit of William P. 7-8. concluding that jurisdiction, subject-matter of the decision Another receipt.14 beyond it had been commenced mail, to ordinary sent, apparently 717(c), and that by Section period specified know, now We do at his home. appellant other basis preempts any section certain, as to could be likely no one In view of Su- jurisdiction.24 federal event, appel- In when it was delivered. in Brown v. recent decision preme Court’s 3, when September it until did not see lant Administration,25 holding General Services on Au- begun a vacation he returned from judi- 717 affords the exclusive that Section gust 30.15 discrimination in for claims of remedy cial as to when no indication gives The record us only we have before employment, federal legal representa- three appellant’s either of suit. issue of timeliness learned of actually have may tives16 record, on the It is clear Board’s decision.17 II heard from however, never a covered feder- 717(c) authorizes score,18 is not and that any of them on in an file a civil action employee to al told in mid- had been Appellant surprising. “[wjithin court federal district appropriate leav- he would be Mr. Cass that August by of notice of final thirty days later an extended country the dis- taken” on his action [administrative] So, the next.19 from early month or the em- by either complaint, crimination avows, he no onward, appellant mid-August Com- or the Civil Service by ploying attorney, Mr. as his considered Cass longer agency’s from the appeal on an mission seek new counsel.20 then to and the adminis- decision, aggrieved by is if he pro “receipt filed a disposition.26 trative Since October On expressly is against notice,” mailing, not its in the District Court and complaint se inaugurating dis- event charging of Defense21 made the Secretary VII,22 run from begins and to period, plainly of Title violative crimination recipi- the notice comes into backpay.23 the time declaratory relief and seeking statutory language, lack of ent’s hands.27 the action for The court dismissed (1970); of the Fifth 14. App. § 42 U.S.C. 14. Amendment; No. and of Exec. Order Bell, App. 29. 15. Bernard Affidavit of by amended Exec. Order No. C.F.R. (1971), reprinted in 42 3 C.F.R. 16. See note accompanying text. and (1970). App., Jurisdic- at 10297 2000e § U.S.C. 1331(a), §§ under 28 U.S.C. tion was invoked 17. the Board The record as to whether is silent (1970). 1343(4), infra at note 26. See text other than to counsel transmitted its decision there was and whether Mr. as to 23. See notes 4 and 5 among them. intercommunication 24. Bell (D.D.C. Schlesinger, Bell, Civ. No. App. 29. 18. Affidavit of Bernard 5, 1975) App. (unreported), Feb. 19. Id. Bewley’s by affi- This is confirmed davit, during states time which that “at some 25. L.Ed.2d 402 July, indi- the latter Richard Cass (1976). rep- to to me that he could continue cated Bell,” my Bernard “it was resent Penny, See note supra; Coles understanding that Richard had commu- Cass App.D.C. 280-281 & the above fact to Bell at some nicated (1976). See also U.S.C. n.7 612-613 & App. during August, the month of time 1974.” inaction on Administrative 2000e-5 § may ripen complaint the matter for also 717(c). pursuant full text of 42 See suit § Affidavit of Bernard Bell, App. 1975); 2000e-16(c) (Supp. V 5 C.F.R. U.S.C. § 713.281 § represented Appellant later Dis- was in the than this counsel other those on trict Court appeal. judicial even conclusion This has been provision of much less clear under VII, 706(f)(1) 2000e- infringement § of Title 42 U.S.C. Appellant § 5(f)(1) (Supp. also claimed 1975), relating to suits em- V Rights ch. Act of Stat. Civil v. Penny,33 employee In Coles a federal us. to whether however, is noncommittal the Board that administra- for was advised equivalent representative receipt by review of his discrimination tive employee, receipt by purpose this had extensive,28 complete but was not told was though history, legislative held that days. to sue within 30 this re- indication significant yields suitably was informed suffer from until Nonetheless, we do not gard. counts, on both of those proper toward assistance inadequate our belief dormant. We stated remained here. outcome ‘notice,’34 no less than “the term is the consider guidepost The initial action,’35 requires file a civil phrase ‘may purpose congressional “where ation animated the broad interpretation traditionally resolved unclear, have courts purposes remedial under- humanitarian and favor of statutes in in remedial ambiguities proscription employ- the federal lying designed legislation whom the those We think the ment discrimination.”36 recognized heretofore We have protect.”29 statutory spec- the same “receipt”—in word remedial in character Title VII is “that the same treatment. ification37—deserves to achieve its construed liberally should be reason,” we have purposes”;30 “[f]or “receipt” as a call for reading A “ observed, proce ‘courts confronted the affected personal receipt by frame ambiguities dural well with the fundamental ob harmonizes resolved have, unanimity, with virtual work too, 717(c). It comports, jectives party.’ in favor of the them realities of Title VII everyday with the added, “reflects we have approach,” “That to “the broad litigation. Speaking in Coles of Title importance manifest VII,”38 of Title purposes structure and also parties, but rights VII established by scheme noted “[t]he commitment to eliminat the broad national upon laymen, operating Congress relies the importance ing such discrimination assistance, to initiate both legal without fulfilling in that commit private suits lawsuits,”39 complaints and administrative 32 ment.” techni “[procedural] and admonished inappropriate particularly with a calities are we were confronted long ago, Not ”40. a scheme. statutory before similar to the one problem somewhat [such] 26, Penny, supra U.S.App. See Russell v. private v. ployees 174 Coles in the sector. 32. Co., 357, (4th Tobacco American 283, 528 F.2d 365 at 615. at 531 F.2d D.C. denied, 935, 1975), cert. 425 U.S. 96 S.Ct. Cir. 1666-1667, (1976); Franks v. 48 L.Ed.2d Supra note 26. Co., 398, (5th Transp. Bowman 495 F.2d grounds, 1974), reversed on other Cir. supra. See note 4 1251, (1976); Mil 747, 47 L.Ed.2d 444 96 S.Ct. 283, Paper ler v. International 408 F.2d supra. 35. See note Roadway Express, 1969); (5th Plunkett v. Cir. Inc., 417, 1974). (10th 418-419 Cir. 504 F.2d 26, Penny, supra U.S.App. Coles v. Georgia-Pacific Corp., See also Gates 284, at 616. See also Allen at 531 F.2d 292, (9th 1974). F.2d Cir. States, 176, (3d United 542 F.2d 178-180 Cir. 92-415, Cong., S.Rep. 1st Sess. No. 92d A, 28. See v. TV 547 F.2d 1976). But see Eastland Cong., (1971); H.R.Rep. 1st No. 92d 1977). (5th 912-914 Cir. (1971); Cong.Rec. 32088-32114 Sess. 4907-4949, 7166-7170, Cong.Rec. note 4 37. See at 614. Inc., at Airlines, 38. 174 Laffey No. 74- v. Northwest 20, 1976), (D.C.Cir. at 88. Oct. omitted). (citations Id. Coles v. 283, 531 F.2d at 615. D.C. at quoting Love v. Id. 531 F.2d Pullman Brands, Id., quoting Standard Sanchez v. 30 L.Ed.2d Inc., (5th Cir. “ judicial remedy hardly vision of a declared, ‘legislation accordingly, one that we ‘practical and reasonable’ which evinces such concern over burden 717(c) seek.”45 We think man or woman should imposed upon working a a that would avoid these rights requires reading Title summons seeking to enforce VII appellant’s incongruities, permit and would practical a reasonable construction of lawsuit to continue. its enforcement Given provisions.’ construction, 717(c) interpose would Ill litigative ef- time barrier to fort the District Court. in- guidepost proper is another There of notice” terpretation “receipt Appellant copy was sent a of the Board’s which Section trades. Civil Ser- decision which informed him that a “com- of that interpretations vice Commission’s with this plainant[ . not satisfied ] consistently section have reflected the statutory right decision” had a “to file a theme that the for suit is not civil action in an District appropriate U. S. set in motion until notice of the final ad- within of his thirty days Court calendar (30) ministrative action is obtained the af- receipt Nothing of this decision.”42 in the employee, irrespective fected of when it suggested period might decision be might representative. reach a That should receipt shortened earlier of another dispel any lingering doubt as to the con- legal representatives. one of his former lawyer might We deal not with what a have struction the section should command a taken perceived possible problem courts. but with what one un- precaution against, Shortly after enactment of Section reasonably trained in the law con- might Commission, in exercise of the rulemak- clude; hardly and in this it can light be ing power with which it is en- expressly disputed prudent dowed,46 promulgated series of belief that he had 30 from the time dealing tions with the notice referred to begin that he first saw the decision to One, therein. spelling out court,

pro se endeavor in or that he was limitations, applicable to sue and time understandably by the District dismayed spoke broadly of notice attempt Court’s determination but did not mention employee came two too late. acquisition by representative of notice a at Coles, much here regulation provided As as in “we doubt that all.47 Another Congress provide judicial right intended to rem- be told of his to sue and of edy—one but, de novo requirefs] again, consid- time limit once said [which] eration—which is so forfeited easily by nothing representative.48 about a an- Still whose it vindicates.”44 more rights manifestly those And other—and indicative— there, just emphatically say regulation specifically required here as we that both in statutory likely complaining employee repre- construction so and his “[a] sentative, one, many meaningless pro- copies cases to render if there were be sent 26, Penny, supra 2000e-16(b) 1975). (Supp. 174 Coles v. note 42 46. See U.S.C. V § 283, 615, quoting at 531 F.2d at Huston v. legisla- The Commission drew also other (8th Corp., Motors General 1008 and orders as additional several executive Cir. authority. Fed.Reg. rulemaking 37 sources of (1972). 22717 Bell, 11, App. (em- supra 42. Bernard note 22 phasis supplied). Fed.Reg. by (1972), 47. 37 as amended 37 22723 (1972), Fed.Reg. 25699 5 C.F.R. 713.281 § Compare 43. See text at note 39. Coles v. 174 531 F.2d at 615. Fed.Reg. (1972), by as amended 37 (1972), Fed.Reg. 713.282 § Id. C.F.R. Id. measure of esteem.54 And decision, larger together “[t]o the administrative [agency’s] application civil institute a sustain right [the] notice term, not find that we need its action.49 one, only reasonable or is the construction to persist which regulations, These result we would have it is the even form,50 highly signifi are identical in day arisen in the reached had to be attributed to the construction cant judicial proceedings.”55 in first instance 717(c).51 As in “receipt of notice” is whether repeat, we question, explained, recently ever so in decision Mr. Cass’ of the Board’s arrival aof interpretation administrative [a]n office, receipt by appellant prior to actual with its entrusted agency statute launched copy, of his great defer- commands administration the Com- invariably interpreted by As suit. is this “Particularly ence in the courts.52 regulations, Section mission in its due when the administrative respect of final ad- of notice envisions transmittal contempora- at stake ‘involves practice to the affected em- action both the ministrative of a statute neous construction any, if and in representative, and his ployee responsibility with the charged men knowledge by the em- motion, personal event of mak- either setting machinery its goal obvi- of the action.56 Since efficiently ployee parts work than achieved sooner ously cannot be yet are untried smoothly they while the admin- learns of somehow is authoriz- new.’ Where action, the stat- clear Congress istrative seems to which regulations ed to issue law, triggered by receipt utory period the force of imparted has on an earlier even representative entitled to an interpretation its quoting Norwegian Nitrogen (1972), Fed.Reg. Prods. Co. v. Unit- as amended 49. 37 294, 315, 350, 358, States, (1974), Fed.Reg. 53 S.Ct. 713.234 ed C.F.R. providing: quoted (1933), turn in relevant L.Ed. Tallman, supra note 380 U.S. at Udall v. a written decision set- The board shall issue 13 L.Ed.2d at 625. ting for the decision and forth its reasons complainant, copies send thereof to the shall agen- designated representative, Gilbert, supra his cy. Citing General Elec. Co. of the board . The decision at 410- 429 U.S. at S.Ct. to file a shall contain a notice 411, 50 L.Ed.2d at 357-358. Section 713.- civil action in accordance with Ass’n v. United 55. American Horse Protection Interior, (D.C.Cir. Dep’t F.2d 432 States in notes 47-49 50. See references Compensa- 1977), quoting Unemployment last emphasize inter- 51. We that the administrative Aragon, tion Comm’n v. appear pretations pointed to which we have (1946), in turn 91 L.Ed. S.Ct. contemporaneously regulations formulated Tallman, supra quoted in Udall v. Oppor- passage Equal Employment with tunity of the 16, 801, at 625. 85 at 13 L.Ed.2d U.S. at S.Ct. 1972, in notes 47- Act of see references rulemaking pow- supra, pursuant express 49 to regard, In this we note another manifesta- er, distinguished interpretive from declara- as understanding of the tion Commission’s authority. See Gen- of lesser stature and tions 717, though parity with its it lacks 140-143, Gilbert, 125, 429 U.S. eral Elec. Co. v. supra. 51 The Commission’s tions. See note 410-411, 343, 401, 50 L.Ed.2d 357-358 97 S.Ct. appearing designation-of-representative form (1976), and text infra at note 54. record, authority despite broad which it representative, incorporates upon the confers Citing Griggs 401 Duke Power U.S. designor statement that the “undertand[s] 433—434, 849, 424, 91 28 L.Ed.2d S.Ct. responsible to be for tak- that [he] continue[s] 158, City (1971); United States v. of Chica- 165 necessary action in connection with [his] all 20, 9, 8, 10, 18, go, 27 91 L.Ed.2d 400 U.S. S.Ct. App. This of discrimination.” Tallman, 1, 4, (1970); 380 U.S. Udall v. obviously suit extends to institution of burden 616, 792, 795, (1965). 13 L.Ed.2d 85 S.Ct. long- employee pro then no se a dissatisfied discharge just represented, and its effective Quoting Electrical er Reactor Co. v. Power prior personal plainly notice of Union, necessitates 81 S.Ct. Int’l Workers employee. 1535, 924, to the 1529, administrative action in turn 6 L.Ed.2d 717(c) five notice in cases that authorita- view, highly these In our date. arguing override considerations for accepted un- would are to be interpretations tive litigant. considera- actual notice to the countervailing less overborne tions. procedural Title VII bottoms its mecha- that ofttimes upon assumption nisms IV lawyer there will be no to attend to their appel position In support functioning employee’s on the behalf. As time-barred, the Secre lant’s lawsuit was out, pointed have we heretofore “[t]he 30-day requirement argues tary relies by Congress scheme established strictly cons it must be assistance, jurisdictional,57 laymen, operating legal without starts when period trued,58 and that complaints to initiate both administrative receives That, counsel for a and lawsuits. we have to have is deemed said, calling strongly because a for an is a factor facts, which can be notice of interpretation favoring “notice of all actual notice to the proposi attorney”59—the charged upon employee personally.64 affected It also a dissenting colleague sub which our of the idea that negation tion to imputa exigencies we do not doubt geared litigation scribes. While is to to client ordin attorney by laymen, imputation from conducted tolerates tion of notice lawyer as to of notice when a for the arily,60 we would have reservations on the scene. As one happens of the doctrine here.61 We be court applicability regard, observed, inquiry in that has courts have consistent- pursue need not “[t]he however, Secretary’s the Act to effectuate ly liberally for in event construed think ques purpose, pur- the critical its remedial and we syllogism fatally neglects whether, tying pose poorly applica- the commencement would be served tion notice,”62 receipt’ of a ‘constructive doctrine to suit-period “receipt procedure.”65 Only a role for construc- the notification if we Congress contemplated investigate nature of We are mindful 57. We do not the essential Cir. Mr. Cass and firm, Secretary’s Bewley practiced since the char- law the limitation Mr. the same simply proffered presume duly to buttress his acterization is the decision was trans- Compare Coles v. Bewley call for strict construction. in Mr. absence. mitted to Mr. Cass’ 26, That, however, at 281- note would not settle the relationship & n.13. 282 & 531 F.2d at 613-614 whether the severance of the por- appellant whom the record Compare id. trays moving spirit as the earlier representation, Bew- did not also terminate Mr. 5, quoting Smith v. appellee at 59. Brief for ley’s connection with case. As for Mr. 955, Ayer, 25 L.Ed. Boggs, seemingly attorney also an (1879). supra, stage, at some see note 10 it suffices to R.R., 626, g., Link v. Wabash U.S. E. point nothing suggests out record 1390, 734, 634, 1386, 8 L.Ed.2d the Board’s was ever sent or informed decision thereof. imputed the client unless it 61. Notice is not 62. See note 4 attorney within the duration and comes to the relationship. An- scope attorney-client Penny, 26, supra Coles v. Rivers, 102, drew v. N.W. 207 Iowa 531 F.2d at 614. See also Love v. at Bldg. (1929); & Loan Ass’n v. Centreville Pullman 404 U.S. at Gollin, N.J.Eq. 176 A. 685; Huston v. 30 L.Ed.2d S.Ct. Austin, Bates Nichols & Co. also L. See C. Corp., supra Motors General Co., 122 A.2d Conn. Shafer v. United States Cas. 90 Wash. Realty Northwestern 156 P. supra says 1974. He that on August of notice Court was in District The suit pellant. 15,1974 informed Mr. Cass August recital or about A brief of time. filed out therefore for an country leaving that he was him my of clear the basis will make of the facts approximately “after extended view. 15, 1974, longer considered I August complaint of dis- original appellant’s The this matter attorney for my Richard Cass Supply crimination, with the Defense filed 29) (App. seek new counsel.” to included Agency November an affidavit in turn states in Bewley Mr. statement: of the latter during that “at some time me represent to retained counsel I have to me indicated July, 1974 Richard Cass Bewley D. He is Peter in this case. represent Ber- not continue to could Wilmer, Pickering & the firm of Cutler 30) Nowhere however (App. nard Bell.” Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 900-17th Bewley, that Mr. co- there indication any Boggs will be Roderick 20006. Of counsel repre- terminated his counsel with Mr. exercise expect counsel to My . . suggested or even appellant sentation of them the code of rights granted to all it was about to be termi- appellant including regulations federal any there indication that nated. Nor is to receive not limited to the but was notified Civil Commission Service taken with any and all actions notice with- Bewley or Mr. Cass was either Mr. to this regard were drawing. they In these circumstances 8) (App. p. the appellant of record for attorneys still Richard W. Cass On October was entitled to treat and the Commission Wilmer, Pickering firm wrote Cutler & to the sending when notices them such of the Examining Office Appeals to the appellant. “Peter D. Bew- Commission: Civil Service regulations The Civil Commission’s Service representing will be ley myself majority require person- do not cited wrote on hearing. Bell” at his Cass distinguished al notice to Wilmer, Pickering. & stationery of Cutler lawyer, they sug- his nor do from notice to appeared Bewley His name and that of Mr. me that the Commission intended gest to letterhead, of Mr. Bew- position on the The requirement. make such he was senior to ley’s indicating name are consistent with the belief tions Mr. Cass. lawyer notice to the regarded Commission 1974 a Civil August On If the Commission as notice to his client. was de- final decision Service Commission’s notice to the require personal intended by regis- to the office of Mr. Cass livered by plain have said so client I think it would tered mail. innuendo. language, said, Link v. Supreme As the Court has majority makes the theory 626, 634, Wabash R.R. S.Ct. U.S. meaningless counsel a giving of notice to 1386, 1390, (1962), under “our 8 L.Ed.2d 734 “wholly inconsist- exercise. This I think litigation representative system representative liti- system ent with our the acts of each is deemed bound R.R. gation”. Link v. Wabash to have and is considered lawyer-agent 8 L.Ed.2d 734 facts, of which can be ‘notice of all Ayer, charged upon attorney.’ Smith I 25 L.Ed. 955.” think 1974 the August that as of with notice of the decision charged attorneys on

delivered to the office of his

that date. persuaded by

I am not

attempt binding to avoid the effect at notes 38-41. 64. See text Hardy, v. Co. 160 Wis. 151 N.W. amply supports appellant’s The record Transp. supra Franks v. Bowman prior note position withdrew to an- that Cass case, In a notice text 495 F.2d at 404. nouncement of the Board’s decision. See Opportunity by Equal Employment supra supra; mailed the at notes and notes charging compare Vindigni Meyer, (2d seen the v. was never Commission booby-trap other unintended if the doctrine danger contrary to the of a were insensitive displace allowed to imputed notice were well illus- this case all too view—which that the statutory assumption the disagree. we trates—could personally notice both and given will be The of the notice purpose evident actually. adminis is to inform that requirement argument Secretary’s thus find the and to has run its course process trative Circuit, Fifth we Like the unacceptable. for institut admonish that the brief did not intend to Congress “that believe Like to commence. ing a lawsuit is about to sue under condition a claimant’s Commission, we think Sec Civil Service circumstances or Title VII on fortuitous service of the no 717(c) contemplates which are not beyond events his control That construction is employee.66 tice on the Put another out in the spelled statute.”69 enough light many reasonable Congress way, we cannot believe having never coun employees instances of 717(c) by willed subversion sel, there be doubt may and those wherein no- incompatible imputed invocation of legal representation— as to the extent of tice. We hold only, or for all phase for the administrative appel- to run until filing begin suit did not position also the purposes. We share actually lant received the Board’s service 717(c) additionally requires decision;70 suit, it follows that his and repres when so on counsel for the later, was brought timely. if the necessity as “a practical ented67 judgment appealed from is accord- is not to be thirty-day filing requirement reversed, and the case is remanded to ingly booby- procedural an unintended come proceedings for further the District Court tight in view of the trap.” especially And opinion. consistent with this suit, filing, reality on time limitation Reversed and remanded. are often unavailable—for ex that counsel on business or vaca ample, away because ROBB, Judge, dissenting: Circuit great deal of prospect tion—and the will the notice sent litigation my opinion I dissent. In employment-discrimination than to Mr. at his office and received practitioners solo rather Cass be handled binding upon ap- firms, August would be an- large surely law there nine-year- received his administrative construction which the because was rejected Penny, supra nephew Compare and lost. The court old tion reflects. Coles theory U.S.App.D.C. for reasons unre- of constructive immaturity. nephew’s While the to the lated at 916-917. applicable peri- limitation court stated run when od “actually accompanying supra text. note 49 and 67. See id, attorney,” reached him or his observation as an indication of do not read this Brennan, F.Supp. (D.D. Copeland presently on a situation such as that a view C.1975). employing sent no- There the support cited in before us. The court disposition complaining em- to the tice of its Co., Cir., 488 v. Shell Oil statement Genovese ployee not to her It was held that but counsel. em- F.2d 84 ployee wherein trigger 30-day was ineffective the notice upon receipt “assert[ed] attorney through period until the received it attorney and EEOC notice contacted employee. See also Coles v. suit, filing that the attor- and authorized ney apparently n.18, 531 F.2d at at 284 and thus misread the notice accompanying text. mistakenly comply with the failed signif- requirement.” We discern no Id at 85. Co., supra Transp. Franks v. Bowman similarity and the case icant between Genovese 27, 495 F.2d at 404. at bar. concluding, not consider the we need 70. So supra accompanying text. See note 49 that, imputed suggestion if no- conclude, even simply alternative because the Com- regulation We so permitted, this case there was no tice is promulgated a in that mission has representative. receipt by consequence independent a then-authorized regard, but accompanying text. 717(c), note 61 interpretation See aided

Case Details

Case Name: Bernard Bell v. Harold Brown, Secretary, Department of Defense

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

Date Published: May 20, 1977

Citation: 557 F.2d 849

Docket Number: 75-1378

Court Abbreviation: D.C. Cir.