Earl RICE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HAMILTON AIR FORCE BASE COMMISSARY, Defendant-Appellee

Good Law
720 F.2d 1082·32 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 33,940·33 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 468·1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 15133
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitNovember 21, 198381-4626California2,202 words

Opinion

Opinion

Choy, J.

Appellant Earl Rice claims he was subjected to employment discrimination in violation of section 717 of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16. The district court dismissed Rice’s action for failure to file within the statute’s jurisdictional filing period and for failure to name the proper defendant. Because we hold that Rice’s request for appointment of counsel, filed with a right-to-sue letter within the jurisdictional time limit, may be deemed the “filing of a civil action” within the meaning of section 717, and because the proper defendant could be identified from the body of his timely filing, we reverse and remand.

I

Rice was a part-time employee of the Navy Commissary at Hamilton Air Force Base in Novato, California. The Navy dismissed him in February 1979 for allegedly falsifying his employment application. Rice, who is black, claims that the reasons given by the Navy for his termination were a pretext, and that the termination was actually discriminatory in nature.

Rice pursued administrative remedies with both the Navy and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). On…

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.