ACF INDUSTRIES, INC., CARTER CARBURETOR DIV. v. E.E.O.C.
439 U.S. 1081

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

ACF INDUSTRIES, INC., CARTER CARBURETOR DIV. v. E.E.O.C. , 439 U.S. 1081 (1979)

439 U.S. 1081

ACF INDUSTRIES, INCORPORATED, CARTER CARBURETOR DIVISION, petitioner,
v.
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
No. 78-453

Supreme Court of the United States

January 8, 1979

On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.

Mr. Justice POWELL, with whom Mr. Justice STEWART and Mr. Justice REHNQUIST join, dissenting.

The decision of the Court of Appeals in this case appears to be inconsistent with recent decisions of this Court on principles vital to the proper functioning of the federal courts. I therefore dissent from the denial of certiorari.

Page 439 U.S. 1081 , 1082

I

In 1970, a civil rights organization and several individuals filed a charge against petitioner with respondent Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). It was claimed that in discharging an employee and in failing to promote another, petitioner had discriminated on the basis of race. In 1972, an additional complaint was lodged on behalf of a female employee who asserted that petitioner's pregnancy-leave policies discriminated against her on the basis of sex. Upon the unsuccessful conclusion of conciliation efforts concerning these charges, the EEOC commenced this action against petitioner in the District Court. The complaint alleged broadly that petitioner had discriminated on the basis of race in its hiring, promotion, apprenticeship, and other practices, and on the basis of sex with respect to its maternity-leave and disability benefits.

Each party served interrogatories on the other. The dispute leading to this petition arose from the EEOC's refusal adequately to answer interrogatories seeking the names of the individuals, other than those named in the initial administrative charges, against whom the EEOC believed petitioner had discriminated. Rather than supply this information, the EEOC moved the District Court to stay the filing of its answers while it completed its discovery against petitioner. This motion was denied. The EEOC thereafter submitted the following answer to the interrogatories: "The Commission is unable at this time to identify other individuals until it has completed its discovery."

Petitioner moved for sanctions against the EEOC under Fed.Rule Civ. Proc. 37. At a hearing on this motion, the District Judge reserved decision and directed the parties to confer. He stated that if they could not agree on the matter, he would consider the motion for sanctions. Further negotiations failed to produce an agreement.

The District Court then granted, in part, petitioner's mo- [439 U.S. 1081 , 1083]


Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.