explaining that 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(5) authorizes the appointment of a Special Master in non-exceptional circumstances when a District Court is unable to comply with Title VII’s mandate to expedite discrimination cases
How later courts described this case
- explaining that 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(5) authorizes the appointment of a Special Master in non-exceptional circumstances when a District Court is unable to comply with Title VII’s mandate to expedite discrimination cases
- noting that transcripts from underlying administrative hearings “may be admissible under [Federal Rule of Evidence] 803(6) or (8)(B)”
- “[T]he employee should have the right to conduct discovery and compel the attendance of witnesses to furnish additional evidence.”
- “[T]here is no reason why the de novo proceedings need duplicate the administrative record.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
DAVIS, Judge
(concurring):
I join in Judge Wright’s opinion for the court except to the extent of the reservations expressed in paragraph numbered 4 of Judge Leventhal’s opinion.