*1 closely parallel Jersey. Also, instant case of Adams, New as in allegation those set forth” Adams. no or contention here agreement bargaining the collective Adams, plaintiffs, In who was violated. defendant, Budd of essence, plaintiffs stated “[i]n distilled Company, and members of defendant charge defendant Local 1470 and its Union, alleged their president representation with unfair of Union, “collusively” and Budd and the Testers-Inspeetors,” involved faith,” conspired 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 violation con- ANDERSON, Mildred L. Plaintiff- employer tracts between la- Appellee, organization bor ... or be- organizations.’ tween such labor HOSPI METHODIST EVANGELICAL (emphasis 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 affirm. 2000e. We initially juris- Hospital raises issue, contending that the com- dictional Employment Oppor- Equal to tunity untimely. The was chronology procedural is as 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.” disposi- 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. about contends premature in that was unsworn prior to commencement it was filed Tarrant, Combs, Blackwell, formal Lee and that tardy Bullitt, Louisville, Ky., request Blackwell & 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. fact, 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., 455 F.2d 1222 Tel. Cir. provides aggrieved employee a the with n remedy. the entire We have examined urges The further say record and are unable that the that the the clearly District Court was erroneous by unsupported the We evidence. finding that Mrs. Anderson dis- clearly recognize shows that the record charged on account her race. See Hospital’s in race rela that the 52(a), Fed.R.Civ.P. management tions, upper is insofar as by concerned, exemplary. Affirmed. the District Court: Judge (dissenting). point, should, “It this be ex- at pressed recognizes facts majority do not find the high defendant cor- which. reflect the “Board Directors and man- directors, poration, agement its ad- or or have an out- pital are “(b) employment prohibiting grant or seek thorizing subsection to one hundred and “§ 2000e-5. practice alleged State, been commenced under person aggrieved thereof, or to institute criminal such State or local law. been earlier the first local State, # “In the case of an sixty days State law, sixty-day period local charges mencement of ceedings; set thereto limits relied year a State or local :¡: unless such forth (a) political authority; or charge may the unlawful terminated, practice Enforcement has after the effective date of ivith relief local of this notification of upon receiving in the Act as follows: before the ^[*] a State or local twenty days during Commission; proceedings. establishing upon by subdivision enforcement proceedings shall be extended alleged occurring proceedings time for section be filed under the State or provided such provisions. authority unlawful State or by or au notice filing in a of a ^[*] Hos com with have n pro- law in existence less than one ferral Since relevant son section, this section shall be filed within “(d) terminated ployment days local in the practice dure set out by the lawful or within tice that dred and ten State or “A person aggrieved aggrieved Time agency.” after forcement State or local charges currence termination copy case of time, employment practice Commission Kentucky such with local practice thirty days of such under subsection there was under respect charge shall be filed law, has followed the of unlawful filing by proceedings proceedings; subsection alleged occurred, except after whichever with Commission with subsection State or local en- after charges within two hun- local which a 120 unlawful shall receiving year practices employment (b) (b). after occurred, filing earlier, (a) of ninety at proce- been per- has un- no- oc- de- by or standing regard to fair and record in n the races.” UNITED OF STEELWORKERS reasons, majority a “where AMERICA, LOCAL NO. a level of lower Plaintiff-Appellee, racially motivated, management employee aggrieved provides The GENERAL FIREPROOFING COM- remedy.” PANY, Defendant-Appellant. quoted

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 discriminate 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