*1 сlosely parallel Jersey. Also, instant case of Adams, New as in allegation those set forth” Adams. no or contention here agreement bargаining the collective Adams, plaintiffs, In who was violated. defendant, Budd of essence, plaintiffs stated “[i]n distilled Company, and members of defendant chargе defendant Local 1470 and its Union, alleged their president representation with unfair of Union, “collusively” and Budd and the Testers-Inspeetors,” involved faith,” сonspired deprive “in bad they cooperating “in with defend- “super-seniority” them of a status which neglected Electric, ant Western and ar- acquired they “original under their bitrarily disregarded the fair interests contract con- of hire” earlier labor plaintiffs nego- and their when class negotiating tracts, a new collective tiating said labor contracts.” agreement. bargaining allege agreement did dispositive breach of What has been said is Noting diversity jurisdic- presented by ap- itself. the critical issue peal. exist, tion did not we presented question critical was whether Judgment Final of the District jurisdiction federal ex- action Court will affirmed. 301(a). isted under Section doing so said F.2d 369- 370: plaintiffs
“The seem to be oblivious only 301(a)
of the fact that Section jurisdiction,
creates in the ab- federal diversity citizenship, sence of ‘[sjitifs viоlation con- ANDERSON, Mildred L. Plaintiff- employer tracts between la- Appellee, organization bor ... or be- organizations.’ tween such labor HOSPI METHODIST EVANGELICAL (emphаsis supplied), omit- [footnote TAL, INC., Defendant-Appellant. ted], plaintiffs “Here the do not seek Court of dress United States for violation a collective bar- gaining agreement; they what seek July 12, redress violation rights labor contract as- independently, pre-a-
sert were
greement, vested in them their
‘contract of hire.’ opinion “We are that Section
301(a) did not confer
upon the District entertain
this action and it should have'
dismissed for that reason. “In the instant case there
complaint or contention that Budd and provision
Union violated a of a collec- Bargaining agreement.”
tive Adams, case, the instant as in diversity citizenship
there is no since parties all the are citizens Tarrant,
Louisville, Ky., brief; *2 Louisville, Bullitt, Combs, Blackwell & Ky., of counsel. Louisville, Ky., for Jasmin,
Ernest A.
plaintiff-appellee;
Lunder-
Charles
J.
Jr.,
man,
Louisville, Ky., on brief.
Judge,
PHILLIPS,
Before
Chief
Kent,
Judge,
and
dissented
Circuit
Judge,
FEIKENS*
opinion.
Judge.
Judge.
PHILLIPS, Chief
appeal
judgment
for
This is an
from a
plaintiff
racial dis-
in
brought
crimination
case
Rights
1964, 42
VII
Act of
of the Civil
аffirm.
2000e. We
initially
juris-
Hospital
raises
issue, contending that
the com-
dictional
Employment Oppor-
Equal
to
tunity
untimely. The
was
chronology
procedural
is аs
follows:
was
on
Mildred Anderson
April 29,
than one month
1967. Less
charge
she
later
submitted
unsworn
regional
in
EEOC
Cleve-
office
alleging
land,
she
fired
ac-
was
Following normal
count of
her
race.
procedures,
was
EEOC
Kentucky Commission
forwarded to the
Rights,
on Human
Kentucky coun-
which administers
response
terpart
to Title VII.
replied
letter,
EEOC
Anderson
July:
Ky.
request
“I
Commis-
sion maintain
until
investigation and re-
have finished their
matter,
for a
solved this
but not
exeeding
She
the 120 EEOC referral.”
dispоsi-
was unsatisfied with the State
on November
tion of her
28,
formally requested
EEOC
a sworn
to take
executed
action.
She
charge
six weeks later.
abоut
contends
premature
in that
was
unsworn
prior
to commencement
it was filed
Tarrant, Combs,
Blackwell,
formal
Lee
and that
tardy
Bullitt, Louisville, Ky.,
request
Blaсkwell &
it was
charged
defendant-appellant;
Adkins,
Grover
D.
more than 210
designa-
sitting by
Feikens,
Judge,
Michigan,
Honorable
John
United
District of
States District
the Eastern
tion.
these,
reject
any
discriminatory
possessed
act.1 We
ministrators
willful
original charge
plan
justice,
contentions.
or desire to resist social
regional
wish
received
the EEOC
office
to discriminate
appropriate
person
employ
and referred
state
discriminated
against.
faсt,
It
“filed” within
was not
of Direc-
the Board
high management
Act until
tors
outstanding
be-
period,
referral
time
have an
automatically
regard
came
filed. Submission
to fair and
original
tolled the 210
of the races.”
Co.,
limit.
Love
Pullman
See
However,
where a
616,
404 U.S.
92 S.Ct.
30 L.Ed.2d
manage-
at a lower level of
Vigil
(1972);
&
v. American Tel.
*3
racially motivated,
is
Title VII
(10th
1972).
Co.,
I am in entire accord with the but not with the conclusion statements United States Court of by the reached other members panel. July 12, 1972. Anderson was Mildred Fadell, Dr. and the District finding “I do as follows: an affirmative slight- not Dr. Faded was believe prejudice degree motivated est or bias.” The District thereafter of Dr. certain
found that subordinates Faded, ad “had right paradise rela- as insofar race *4 ** concerned; *.” The
tions were that certain of District personnel
supervisory conflict between allegedly Anderson resulting other I am not bias. Dis-
satisfied Judge justify conclusion that
trict upon discharge racial bias based of Title within
2000e-2: employ-
“(a) It shad be employer— (1) to hire or fail refuse to individual, discharge any
otherwise disсriminate against any individual with terms, compensation,
spect to his
conditions, privileges of em-
ployment, because of such indi- sex, race, color, religion,
vidual’s origin;”
or national requires I read the statute it necessary
discrimination constitute employment practice” must
“unlawfull part
be discrimination on the ployer, affirmatively that there was
case found employ- part of the no racial on the bias
er.
I reverse the District Court. would