Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Pub. L. 88-352, Title VII, July 2, 1964, 79 Stat. 253, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq. [Hereinafter cited as Title VII], is intended to eliminate employment discrimination because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Title VII was enacted on July 2, 1964 but its substantive provisions did not take effect until July 2, 1965. Since that time, there have been more than two hundred published federal court decisions involving private enforcement actions brought under Title VII.
The single most significant impression one draws from reading the decisions in Title VII cases is that this area of the law is a procedural quagmire. The rules are still in the developing stage and the trends of judicial thought are just beginning to appear as vague forms. Up to this time, no exhaustive examination of the cases has attempted to mark the procedural traps that exist or to suggest a safe route for the practitioner bringing a Title VII action. This study attempts to present such a guide.
This Comment will not attempt a detailed analysis of all of.the procedural problems. Rather it will attempt to 1) identify the procedural problems, 2) refer the reader to every important Title VII case that has dealt with the problem, and 3) suggest what the trend seems to be or, if there is none, suggest what the courts might find persuasive when developing a trend.
This comment is not written primarily to assist the defendant in a Title VII action. His major difficulty is disproving, substantively, the allegation of discrimination. Rather, this comment is designed to assist the charging party whose complaint is often dismissed because of.a procedural error in pleading, a failure to exhaust remedies or one of a myriad of other possible mistakes. This comment is written, therefore, to guide the plaintiffs attorney bringing a Title VII action.
Roger C. Hartley, Comment, A Primer to Procedure and Remedy Under the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 31 U. PITT. L. REV. 407 (1969-1970).