Lynn v. Western Gillette, Inc.

564 F.2d 1282 (1977)

From our private database of 46,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Lynn v. Western Gillette, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
564 F.2d 1282 (1977)

  • Written by Noah Lewis, JD

Facts

In 1972, Congress amended Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) to allow the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to initiate enforcement lawsuits. The statute required parties to file EEOC discrimination charges within 180 days of the alleged act of discrimination. The EEOC was required to investigate and determine whether there was reasonable cause to believe a charge was true within 120 days. If cause was not found, the EEOC must dismiss the charge. If cause was found, conciliation should be tried. Further, the statute required the EEOC to notify the charging party (1) if the commission dismisses the charge, (2) if within 180 days from the filing of the charge the commission has not filed a civil action against the employer, or (3) if within 180 days from the filing of the charge the commission has not entered into a conciliation agreement. Once notified, the party had 90 days to file a private lawsuit. Cyntitha Whittom (plaintiff) filed an EEOC sex-discrimination charge against her former employer, ITT Cannon Electric (defendant). On April 25, 1973, the EEOC sent a letter to Whittom informing her that conciliation efforts had failed but not advising her of her right to file a lawsuit as required by EEOC regulations then in effect. The EEOC finally issued a right-to-sue letter on November 7, 1974. Eighty-eight days later, Whittom commenced her action in district court, which dismissed the case as untimely based on the earlier date of the conciliation-failure notice. Patricia Lynn (plaintiff) filed an EEOC sex-discrimination charge against her employer, Western Gilette, Inc. (defendant). Lynn experienced a pattern of EEOC notice similar to Whittom, and her case was also dismissed as untimely by the district court. The two cases were consolidated on appeal.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Kennedy, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 834,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 834,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 834,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,500 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership