![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]>
Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
United States District Court for the Eastern District of California
January 21, 1974
Civ. No. S-2553
[*27] MacBRIDE, D.J.
Plaintiff brings this class action claiming unlawful sex discrimination in the employment practices of 31 corporate defendants in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e et seq., and seeking injunctive relief, compensatory damages, costs, and attorney's fees.
The factual setting is not complex. The Sacramento State College Graduate Placement Center sent employer recruitment visit forms to firms which had shown an interest in employment interviews on campus. The visit forms apparently contained boxes which could be checked if a firm preferred to interview either men or women graduates. Each of the defendants checked the box which indicated a preference for male graduates. Plaintiff, a student at Sacramento State, was scheduled to graduate in June, 1970. She and the class she represents allegedly sought to use the services of the Sacramento State College Graduate Placement Center during the spring of 1970, but were purportedly "deterred from making application for employment [*28] [**2] and seeking an interview" with representatives of the defendants. In addition, two of the defendants allegedly circulated printed recruitment brochures on campus which referred exclusively to employment opportunities for men. Plaintiff claims that those employment practices are sexually discriminatory and are therefore violative of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e et seq.
Plaintiff initially filed charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on May 15, 1970. The instant action was filed on August 23, 1972, pursuant to 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-5(f), 1 after right to sue notices were issued to plaintiff on August 8, 1972.
A number of motions have been filed in this action by various defendants. In addition, several defendants have joined [**3] in each and every motion on file. As the motions on which my decision is based apply equally to all defendants, I shall refer to the defendants collectively rather than singling out the defendant or defendants who actually authored the particular motion under discussion.
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
387 F. Supp. 24 *; 1974 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12679 **; 19 Fed. R. Serv. 2d (Callaghan) 795; 7 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 66; 10 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 379; 7 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P9100
Elizabeth G. McDonald, Individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. General Mills, Inc., et al., Defendants
Subsequent History: [**1] Motion for Reconsideration of December 5, 1974, Reported at: 387 F. Supp. 24 at 32.
delegation, directive, right to sue letter, filing of charges, Information Act, employment practice, state agency, interview, Graduate, sex, subject matter jurisdiction, issuance, manual, notice
Administrative Law, Judicial Review, Reviewability, Exhaustion of Remedies, Civil Procedure, Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Jurisdiction Over Actions, General Overview, Criminal Law & Procedure, Jurisdiction & Venue, Business & Corporate Compliance, Protection of Rights, Federally Assisted Programs, Civil Rights Act of 1964, Labor & Employment Law, US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Civil Actions, Jurisdiction, Time Limitations, Governmental Information, Freedom of Information, Responses, Defenses, Demurrers & Objections, Motions to Dismiss, Evidence, Burdens of Proof, Employee Burdens of Proof, Discrimination