Go to Wolters Kluwer VitalLaw.comGo to Wolters Kluwer VitalLaw.com
VitalLaw®
  • Find answers to your questions
  • Log in to access your subscriptions
In depth. On point.
In depth. On point.
  • Home
  • Legal Directory
  • Home
  • Legal Directory
In depth. On point.
  • Articles
  • Articles
    • Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
    • Age Discrimination Act of 1975
    • Age Discrimination Claims Assistance Act of 1988
    • Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
    • Civil Rights Act of 1866--42 USC Section 1981
    • Civil Rights Act of 1866--42 USC Section 1981a
    • Civil Rights Act of 1871--42 USC Section 1983
    • Civil Rights Act of 1871--42 USC Section 1985
    • Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees Awards Act of 1976--42 USC Section 1988
    • Civil Rights Act of 1964--Title VI
    • Civil Rights Act of 1964--Title VII
    • Civil Rights Act of 1991
    • Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987
    • Education Amendments of 1972--Title IX
    • Equal Pay Act of 1963
    • Executive Order 11246
    • Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993
    • Federal Arbitration Act
    • Government Organization and Employees
    • Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986
    • Older Workers Benefit Protection Act of 1990
    • Policy Concerning Homosexuality in the Armed Forces--10 USC Section 654
    • Rehabilitation Act of 1973
    • Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993
    • Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994
    • US Constitution
    • Vietnam Era Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974
    • Miscellaneous Laws
  • Articles
  • Articles

    Employment Practices Decisions Archive: 1937 - 1995, EMPLOYMENT-PRACTICES 10 EPD ¶10,241, Dolores J. Copeland, Plaintiff v. John T. Dunlop, Defendant., (July 02, 1975), (Jul. 2, 1975)

    Dolores J. Copeland, Plaintiff v. John T. Dunlop, Defendant.

    United States District Court, District of Columbia. No. 74-1822, July 2, 1975

    Title VII--Civil Rights Act of 1964

    Federal Employees--Court Action--Sex Discrimination--Class Action--Notices.

    --In view of the treatment of a sex discrimination claim at least partly as a class problem, it was proper to proceed in court on a claim for class relief for all females employed or to be employed at any time subsequent to a specified date. The head of the defendant agency must provide the complainant with the names and last known addresses of all females in the class, but the complainant is required to send notices to each member of the class at her own cost.

    Back reference.-- ¶2952.

    Gary D. Wilson, Mary McReynolds, and John H. Harwood, II, Washington, D.C., for Plaintiff.

    Paul M. Tschirhart, Washington, D.C., for Defendant.

    GESELL, D.J.: Upon consideration of plaintiff’s motion for class certification and defendants’ opposition and motion to remand, and it appearing that the requirements of this Court’s Rule 1-13(b) and Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are satisfied to the extent indicated below, and it further appearing that this matter was partly treated as a class problem during the administrative investigation and that, accordingly, under these circumstances, a class should be certified at this stage of the litigation, subject to further orders of the Court, it is by the Court this 2nd day of July, 1975,

    Ordered that this action may be maintained as a class pursuant to Rules 23(a), 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of all females employed or to be employed at any time subsequent to June 11, 1971, in positions with job descriptions requiring some knowledge of data processing by the Directorate of Data Automation of the Department of Labor, or its predecessor organization, subject to the following notice requirement:

    On or before July 21, 1975, defendant shall provide plaintiff’s counsel with the names and last known addresses of all females in the class, and plaintiff shall thereafter, at her expense, promptly cause a notice letter to be sent by certified mail, no later than August 1, 1975, to each such member in a form to be approved by the Court advising each member listed by defendant of the existence of this action and of the right of each member to participate in the class, provided she affirmatively expresses a desire to exercise this right by letter stating she wishes to be a member of the class to Mr. James F. Davey, Clerk of Court, United States District Court for the District of Columbia, United States Courthouse, Washington, D.C. 20001, on or before August 29, 1975, and said notice letter shall also inform each addressee that if she decides not to participate in the class she is still free to proceed administratively to process any present or subsequent grievances she may have involving sex discrimination but that if she decides to enter the suit as a member of the class by so advising the Clerk of Court she may not thereafter proceed administratively during the pendency of this case without prior leave of Court, and it is further

    Ordered that this action may be maintained as a class action only under Count I, only against the Secretary, and that it shall be tried and determined by the Court on evidence to be presented before any other count of the complaint is heard, and no discovery on the other counts may proceed without prior leave of the Court, and it is further

    Ordered that defendants’ motion to remand be and hereby is denied.

    © 2026 CCH Incorporated and its affiliates and licensors. All rights reserved.

    • Manage Cookie Preferences
    • Privacy Statement
    • Terms of Use