Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Peoples Bank of Indianola

Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm’n v. Peoples Bank of Indianola, 623 F.2d 366 (5th Cir. 1980)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1980-10-09
Topic
bankruptcy

PER CURIAM: On August 19, 1976 the EEOC filed an action under Sections 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e et seq. The action was filed against Peoples Bank of Indianola for alleged racial discrimination presumably based upon the administrative claim filed with it by Emanuel Walls and for relief for all persons “adversely affected by the unlawful employment practices.” On January 9, 1978 the District Court granted the Bank’s motion to limit the issues to the claim of Walls’ charge of discrimination. EEOC v. Peoples Bank of Indianola, No. GC-119-K (N.D.Miss.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Peoples Bank of Indianola. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY v. PEOPLES BANK,623 F.2d 366(5th Cir. 1980)
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. PEOPLES
BANK OF INDIANOLA, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE.
No. 78-1846.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
August 7, 1980.
Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied October 9, 1980.
Page 367
Philip B. Sklover, Washington, D.C., for plaintiff-appellant.

Fuselier, Ott, McKee Flowers, M. Curtiss McKee, Armin J. Moeller, Jr., Jackson, Miss., for defendant-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi.
Before BROWN, GEWIN and POLITZ, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
[1] On August 19, 1976 the EEOC filed an action under Sections 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended,42 U.S.C.A. § 2000eet seq. The action was filed against Peoples Bank of Indianola for alleged racial discrimination presumably based upon the administrative claim filed with it by Emanuel Walls and for relief for all persons "adversely affected by the unlawful employment practices." On January 9, 1978 the District Court granted the Bank's motion to limit the issues to the claim of Walls' charge of discrimination.EEOC v. PeoplesBank of Indianola,No. GC-119-K (N.D.Miss. Jan. 9, 1978). The Court, viewing the complaint as a class action, also struck the class allegations underEEOC v. D.H. Holmes,556 F.2d 787(5th Cir. 1977),cert. denied,436 U.S. 962,98 S.Ct. 3082,57 L.Ed.2d 1129(1978), for failure to comply with F.R.Civ.P.23.Id.The EEOC moved for reconsideration of the denial of class certification which was denied.EEOC v. Peoples Bank ofIndianola,No. GC-119-K (N.D.Miss. Feb. 2, 1978). Subsequently, on February 23, 1978, the parties stipulated for dismissal without prejudice of the individual claim of Walls.EEOC v.Peoples Bank of Indianola,No. GC-119-K (N.D.Miss. Feb. 23, 1978). The EEOC appeals.

[2] We hold that the stipulated dismissal related solely to the individual claim of Walls, leaving only the question of the propriety of the District Court's order rejecting the class-wide action.1On May 12, 1980, the Supreme Court decidedGeneralTelephone Co. of Northwest, Inc. v. EEOC,___ U.S. ___,100 S.Ct. 1698,64 L.Ed.2d 319(1980), which repudiatedD.H.Holmes.Since the disposal of the class feature is the only issue left in the case and the Supreme Court held that the approach inD.H. Holmesrequiring compliance with F.R.Civ.P.23is no longer good law, we reverse and remand for action consistent withGeneral Telephone.

[3] REVERSED and REMANDED.
  1. As this appeal concerns only the District Court's action regarding the class action feature, we need not decide the appealability of the voluntary stipulation of a dismissal without prejudice underLeCompte v. Mr. Chip, Inc.,528 F.2d 601(5th Cir. 1976) and its progeny. ↩