Great American Federal Savings & Loan Association et al. v. Novotny
442 U.S. 366 (1979)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Deprivation of a right created by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 cannot be the basis for a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3). The comprehensive remedial scheme of Title VII is the exclusive means for redressing violations of its provisions.
Facts:
- John R. Novotny began working for the Great American Federal Savings and Loan Association (Association) in 1950.
- By 1975, Novotny had become the Association's secretary, a member of its board of directors, and a loan officer.
- Novotny alleged that the Association intentionally pursued a course of conduct to deny equal employment opportunities to its female employees.
- At a meeting of the board of directors, Novotny expressed support for the female employees who were facing discrimination.
- Shortly after this meeting, Novotny was not re-elected as secretary or to the board of directors, and his employment was terminated.
- Novotny alleged that his termination was caused by his support for the Association's female employees.
Procedural Posture:
- John R. Novotny filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) under Title VII.
- After receiving a right-to-sue letter from the EEOC, Novotny sued the Association and its directors in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, a federal trial court.
- The complaint included a claim for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) for conspiracy to deprive him of equal protection and privileges.
- The District Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the § 1985(3) claim, holding that directors of a single corporation could not form a conspiracy.
- Novotny, as appellant, appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, an intermediate federal appellate court.
- The en banc Court of Appeals unanimously reversed the District Court, ruling that Novotny had stated a valid cause of action under § 1985(3).
- The Association, as petitioner, sought and was granted a writ of certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court to review the decision of the Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a conspiracy to violate rights created by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provide the basis for a cause of action under the conspiracy statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3)?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Stewart
No, a conspiracy to violate rights created by Title VII cannot be the basis for a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3). The statute § 1985(3) provides a remedy for the violation of pre-existing federal rights but creates no substantive rights itself. Title VII, however, creates new substantive rights and also establishes a detailed and comprehensive administrative and judicial process for their enforcement, including requirements for EEOC filings, specific time limitations, and remedies limited to equitable relief. Allowing a plaintiff to use § 1985(3) to redress a Title VII violation would enable them to completely bypass this intricate procedural framework, thereby undermining the congressional intent behind Title VII. This would disrupt the statutory scheme by altering time limits, allowing for compensatory and punitive damages not available under Title VII, and permitting jury trials, all of which are inconsistent with the structure of Title VII.
Concurring - Justice Powell
No, a Title VII violation cannot be redressed through § 1985(3). However, the Court's reasoning is too narrow. The reach of § 1985(3) should be explicitly limited to conspiracies to violate fundamental rights derived from the Constitution, such as the right to interstate travel or the rights protected by the Thirteenth Amendment, as established in Griffin v. Breckenridge. Rights created by subsequent federal statutes, like the right to be free from private employment discrimination under Title VII, are not the type of fundamental constitutional rights that this Civil War-era statute was designed to protect. Providing this clearer limitation would offer better guidance to lower courts.
Concurring - Justice Stevens
No, § 1985(3) does not provide a remedy for a violation of Title VII rights. Like § 1983, § 1985(3) is a purely remedial statute intended to provide a cause of action for violations of constitutional rights. The rights secured by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment are rights against state action, not private conduct. While § 1985(3) can reach private conspiracies, it must be predicated on a violation of a right protected from such interference, like the right to be free of the badges of slavery. The right to be free from private sex discrimination is not a constitutional right; it is a statutory right created by Title VII nearly a century after § 1985(3) was enacted. The older statute was never intended to remedy violations of statutory rights that did not yet exist.
Dissenting - Justice White
Yes, a conspiracy to violate Title VII rights can be the basis for a cause of action under § 1985(3). The majority incorrectly characterizes § 1985(3) as solely remedial; it also creates a distinct substantive right to be free from conspiracies aimed at depriving others of their federal rights. Allowing a § 1985(3) claim does not create an irreconcilable conflict with Title VII but rather provides a compatible and important supplement, especially for plaintiffs like Novotny who are injured as a result of a conspiracy against others. For such plaintiffs, who may not have a direct Title VII remedy, § 1985(3) is the only path to redress. The majority's preclusion of this remedy is unwarranted because Title VII was not intended to implicitly repeal the remedies available under the Reconstruction-era civil rights acts for private employment discrimination.
Analysis:
This decision establishes that where a modern, comprehensive federal statute creates both a new right and a detailed remedial scheme for its enforcement, that scheme is the exclusive remedy for violations of that right. The Court effectively prevents plaintiffs from using older, more general civil rights statutes (like § 1985(3)) to bypass the specific procedural requirements, such as administrative exhaustion with the EEOC, mandated by newer statutes like Title VII. This ruling reinforces the principle of statutory specificity and limits the overlap between Reconstruction-era and modern civil rights laws, thereby preserving the integrity of carefully crafted legislative schemes. The decision significantly impacts employment discrimination litigation by channeling such claims through the intended Title VII framework.
Unlock the full brief for Great American Federal Savings & Loan Association et al. v. Novotny