Denny Lee LONDON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COOPERS & LYBRAND, Defendant-Appellee

Caution
644 F.2d 811·26 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 31,832·26 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 755·1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 13529
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 7, 198179-3159California4,085 words

Opinion

Opinion

Anderson, J.

Denny Lee London appeals the dismissal of her Second Amended Complaint, and concurrent dismissal of her action below, charging the defendant Coopers & Lybrand with unlawful employment discrimination. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

I. BACKGROUND

The background to this appeal illustrates once again the burden which the failure of Congress to provide clear guidelines on the question of limitations periods for private enforcement of federal civil rights statutes places upon litigants, administrative agencies, and the courts. The delay and uncertainty engendered by the confusion arising from overlapping remedies and procedures benefits neither of the parties before us.

London was discharged by Coopers & Lybrand, an accounting firm, from her position as a junior accountant on September 25, 1974. She filed an employment discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on July 7, 1975. In that charge, she alleged that her discharge violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. The E.E.O.C. referred London’s charge to the California Fair Employment Practices Commission, which apparently failed to effect a conciliation between…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.