# Opposition Brief — Stevens v. Department of Treasury

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385012_0759%3A3

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Opposition Brief
- **Published:** January 1, 1991
- **Citation:** 500 U.S. 1

## Text

I, Db
No. 89-1821 WL 20

fa

[fare
'

|

}

In the Supreme Court of the Unitey States

OcTOBER TERM, 1990

CHARLES Z. STEVENS, III, PETITIONER

Vv.

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, ET Al

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO
THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

BRIEF FOR THE RESPONDENTS IN OPPOSITION

KENNETH W. STARR
Solicttor General

STUART M. GERSON
Assisiant Attorney General

MICHAEL JAY SINGER

MARY K. DOYLE
Altorneys

Deparimeni of Justice
Washington, D.C. 20530
(202) 514-2217

cle —————————————
~~ a avrartra

QUESTION PRESENTED
Whether the timely filing of a notice of intent to sue is
sufficient to preserve district court jurisdiction under Sec-
tion 633a(d) of the Age Discrimination in Employment
Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. 621 ef seg., even after a claim for
administrative relief under Section 633a(b) has been prop-
erly dismissed as untimely.

(I)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Neem eccccesccesesceseess l

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases:

Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144
ed vdcncccnccccccssc: 5

Castro v. Unites States, 775 F.2d 399 (ist Cir.
EEE EEE EEE 7

Langford v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 839
ge 7

Purvill v. Harris, 658 F.2d 134 (3d Cir. 1981), cert.

denied, 462 U.S. 1131 (1983) ................. 8: -

United States v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783 (1977) .... 5

Statutes and regulations:

Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29
Tee eS cnc cacseceeceees l
NTE ss cc cc cececesece 2
ED on. cc cccceccses 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

Civil Rights Act of 1964, Tit. VII, 42 U.S.C. 2000e

Ns icc ccccceccces

os

Te . eewecces

I

Ne. ne co ececes 2,
ce ceccecee
nn cea cccccess
Teen Tn. ck cececces
Section 1613.231 .......... EEOC regulation 29 C.F.R. 1613.513 is consistemt with the posi-
tion adopted in Langford. lt provides that “|t}he filing of a civil action
by an employee or applicant involving [an ADEA administrative]
complaint * * * terminates processing of that complaim.” That regu-
lation assumes that a judicial complaint may properly be filed betore
the administrative process is complete.

* We do not, however, suggest that the Langford analysis is inappli-
cable in this slightly different situation.

9

CONCLUSION
The petition for a writ of certiorari should be denied.
Respectfully submitted.

KENNETH W. STARR
Solicuor General

STUART M. GERSON
Assistant Attorney General

MICHAEL JAY SINGER
Mary K. DOYLE
Attorneys

Jury 1990

US GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE I¥80) 262 205200282

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385012_0759%3A3. Public record. Not legal advice.