8 Fair empl.prac.cas. 725, 8 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 9688 Dave Van Hoomissen, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Plaintiff-Intervenor-Appellant v. Xerox Corporation

503 F.2d 1131 8 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 725 , 8 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 9688 Dave VAN HOOMISSEN, Plaintiff, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Plaintiff-Intervenor-Appellant, v. XEROX CORPORATION et al., Defendants-Appellees. No. 74-1037. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Sept. 13, 1974 Rehearing En Banc Denied Nov. 6, 1974. Carlos G. Ynostroza, E.E.O.C., San Francisco, Cal., Beatrice Rosenberg, Charles L. Reischel, James P. Scanlan, Washington, D.C., for plaintiff-intervenor-appellant. Richard Haas of Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison, San Francisco, Cal., for defendants-appellees. Before DUNIWAY, WRIGHT and CHOY, Circuit Judges. SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION EUGENE A. WRIGHT, Circuit Judge: 1 Van Hoomissen sued Xerox, his former employer, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(a)), alleging that Xerox fired him and engaged in other acts of retaliation because of his efforts to recruit minorities. The Equal Opportunity Commission sought leave to intervene under 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(f)(1) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(b). In its proposed complaint in intervention, EEOC alleged that Xerox both engaged in discriminatory hiring practices and had unlawfully retaliated…