International Union of Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, Local 790 v. Robbins & Myers, Inc.
United States Supreme Court
429 U.S. 229 (1976)
- Written by Kelsey Libby, JD
Facts
Dortha Guy (plaintiff) was employed by Robbins & Myers, Inc. (Robbins). On October 25, 1971, Robbins terminated Guy’s employment for violation of the leave-of-absence policy contained in the collective-bargaining agreement (CBA) in place between Robbins and the International Union of Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, Local 790 (Local 790) (plaintiff). Two days later, Guy filed a grievance challenging her termination pursuant to procedures set forth in the CBA. On November 18, 1971, Guy’s grievance was denied with a finding that her termination had complied with the CBA. On February 10, 1972, 84 days after the grievance was denied and 108 days after the termination, Guy filed a charge of race discrimination against Robbins with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the EEOC). Upon conclusion of the EEOC process in November 1973, Guy filed suit in district court alleging race discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The district court dismissed Guy’s claim for failure to file her EEOC charge within 90 days of her termination, and the court of appeals affirmed. Guy appealed to the United States Supreme Court, arguing that the grievance process should have tolled the limitations period and, alternatively, that the 1972 amendments to Title VII extending the limitations period to 180 days should apply.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Rehnquist, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.