text:
    UNITED STATES v. FLORIDA
    No. 52,
    Orig.
    Decided March 17, 1975
    Decree entered May 24, 1976
   DECREE

The joint motion for entry of a decree is granted.

For the purpose of giving effect to the decision and opinion of this Court announced in this case on March 17, 1975, 420 U. S. 531, and to the Supplemental Report of the Special Master filed January 26, 1976, it is Ordered, Adjudged, and Decreed as Follows:

1. As against the State of Florida, the United States is entitled to all the lands, minerals, and other natural resources underlying the Atlantic Ocean more than 3 geographic miles seaward from the coastline of that State and extending seaward to the edge of the Continental Shelf, and the State of Florida is not entitled to any interest in such lands, minerals, and resources. As used in this decree, the term, “coastline” means the line of ordinary low water along that portion of the coast which is in direct contact with the open sea and the line marking the seaward limit of inland waters, as determined under the Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone, 15 U. S. T. (Pt. 2) 1606.

2. As against the United States, the State of Florida is entitled to all the lands, minerals, and other natural resources underlying the Atlantic Ocean extending seaward from its coastline for a distance of 3 geographic miles, and the United States is not entitled, as against the State of Florida, to any interest in such lands, minerals, or resources, with the exceptions provided by Section 5 of the Submerged Lands Act, 43 U. S. C. § 1313.

3. As against the State of Florida, the United States is entitled to all the lands, minerals and other natural resources underlying the Gulf of Mexico more than 3 marine leagues from the coastline of that State; the State of Florida is not entitled to any interest in such lands, minerals, and resources. Where the historic coastline of the State of Florida is landward of its coastline, the United States is additionally entitled, as against the State of Florida, to all the lands, minerals, and other natural resources underlying the Gulf of Mexico more than 3 marine leagues from the State’s historic coastline (but not less than 3 geographic miles from its coastline), and the State of Florida is not entitled to any interest in such lands, minerals, and resources. As used in this decree, the term “historic coastline” refers to the coastline as it existed in 1868, as to be determined by the parties.

4. As against the United States, the State of Florida is entitled to all the lands, minerals, and other natural resources underlying the Gulf of Mexico extending seaward for a distance of 3 marine leagues from its coastline or its historic coastline, whichever is landward, but for not less than 3 geographic miles from its coastline; the United States is not entitled, as against the State of Florida, to any interest in such lands, minerals, or resources, with the exceptions provided by Section 5 of the Submerged Lands Act, 43 U. S. C. § 1313.

5. For the purpose of this decree, the Gulf of Mexico lies to the north and west, and the Atlantic Ocean to the south and east, of a line that begins at a point on the northern coast of the island of Cuba in 83° west longitude, and extends thence to the northward along that meridian of longitude to 24°35' north latitude, thence eastward along that parallel of latitude through Rebecca Shoal and the Quicksands Shoal to the Marquesas Keys, and thence through the Florida Keys to the mainland at the eastern end of Florida Bay, the line so running that the narrow waters within the Dry Tortugas Islands, the Marquesas Keys, and the Florida Keys, and between the Florida Keys and the mainland, are within the Gulf of Mexico.

6. There is no historic bay on the coast of the State of Florida. There are no inland waters within Florida Bay, or within the Dry Tortugas Islands, the Marquesas Keys, and the lower Florida Keys (from Money Key to Key West), the closing lines of which affect the right of either the United States or the State of Florida under this decree.

7. Jurisdiction is reserved by this Court to entertain such further proceedings, enter such orders and issue such writs as may from time to time be deemed necessary or advisable to give proper force and effect to this decree.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: Per Curiam. Mr. Justice Stevens,

license: Public Domain

text:
    ARIZONA v. NEW MEXICO
    No. 70,
    Orig.
    Decided May 24, 1976
   Per Curiam.

The State of Arizona, as a consumer, and its citizens, as consumers, purchase substantial amounts of electrical energy generated in New Mexico by three Arizona utilities operating generating facilities there. Two of the utilities are investor-owned public service corporations; the third, Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District, operates a federal reclamation project and is a political subdivision of Arizona. The utilities retail their electrical energy through interstate lines only to consumers in Arizona and, for that reason, incur no liability to New Mexico for its gross receipts tax which is incurred at the point of retail sale.

In 1975 New Mexico passed the Electrical Energy Tax Act which imposes a tax on the generation of electricity at the rate of 4/10 of one mill per net kilowatt hour generated. The tax is nondiscriminatory on its face: it taxes all generation regardless of what is done with the electricity after generation. However, the 1975 Act provides a credit against gross receipts tax liability in the amount of the electrical energy tax paid for electricity consumed in New Mexico. The relevant section of the Act reads:

“On electricity generated inside this state and consumed in this state which was subject to the electrical energy tax, the amount of such tax paid may be credited against the gross receipts tax due this state.”

The State of New Mexico concedes that the Arizona utilities will not be able to take advantage of the credit because their sales of electrical energy are outside the State and that, as to them, the practical effect of New Mexico’s statutory scheme is to impose a tax no greater than 4% on the generation of electricity within New Mexico.

Seeking to invoke our original jurisdiction under Art. Ill, § 2, els. 1 and 2, of the Constitution and ,28 U. S. C. § 1251 (a)(1), the State of Arizona has filed a motion for leave to file a bill of complaint in which it asks for declaratory relief that the New Mexico electrical energy tax constitutes an unconstitutional discrimination against and burden upon interstate commerce, denies Arizona citizens due process and equal protection of the laws in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, and abridges the privileges and immunities guaranteed them by Art. IV, § 2, of the Constitution. The complaint also asks that we enjoin the State of New Mexico from assessing, levying, or collecting the tax imposed by the 1975 Act.

The State of Arizona purports to bring this suit in its proprietary capacity as a consumer of large quantities of electrical energy generated in New Mexico and as parens patriae for its citizens who consume and pay for electrical energy generated in New Mexico. Arizona urges that the economic incidence and burden of the electrical energy tax falls upon it and its citizens. It argues that the tax discriminates, and was intended to discriminate, against the citizens of Arizona, by placing upon them the burdens of the tax, a burden not borne by the citizens of New Mexico by reason of the credit provisions of the Act. Arizona claims to have no forum other than this Court in which to assert these claims.

. The State of New Mexico represents that the three Arizona utilities involved in this suit chose not to pay the New Mexico tax which was due September 15, 1975, but, instead, joined in seeking a declaratory judgment by an action filed in the District Court for Santa Fe County, N. M. That action raises the same constitutional issues as would be presented by the bill of complaint which the State of Arizona now seeks to file in this Court.

We recently reaffirmed that “our original jurisdiction should be invoked sparingly” in Illinois v. City of Milwaukee, 406 U. S. 91, 93-94 (1972), where we additionally stated:

“We construe 28 U. S. C. § 1251 (a)(1), as we do Art. Ill, § 2, cl. 2, to honor our original jurisdiction but to make it obligatory only in appropriate cases. And the question of what is appropriate concerns, of course, the seriousness and dignity of the claim; yet beyond that it necessarily.involves the availability of another forum where there is jurisdiction over the named parties, where the issues tendered may be litigated, and where appropriate relief may be had. We incline to a sparing use of our original jurisdiction so that our increasing duties with the appellate docket will not suffer.”

And, nearly 40 years ago in Massachusetts v. Missouri, 308 U. S. 1, 18-19 (1939), the Court said:

“In the exercise of our original jurisdiction so as truly to fulfill the constitutional purpose we not only must look to the nature of the interest of the complaining State — the essential quality of the right asserted — but we must also inquire whether recourse to that jurisdiction ... is necessary for the State's protection. . . . We have observed that the broad statement that a court having jurisdiction must exercise it ... is not universally true but has been qualified in certain cases where the federal courts may, in their discretion, properly withhold the exercise of the jurisdiction conferred upon them where there is no want of another suitable forum.”

See also Washington v. General Motors Corp., 406 U. S. 109, 113-114 (1972).

In the circumstances of this case, we are persuaded that the pending state-court action provides an appropriate forum in which the issues tendered here may be litigated. If on appeal the New Mexico Supreme Court should hold the electrical energy tax unconstitutional, Arizona will have been vindicated. If, on the other hand, the tax is held to be constitutional, the issues raised now may be brought to this Court by way of direct appeal under 28 U. S. C. § 1257 (2).

In denying the State of Arizona leave to file, we are not unmindful that the legal incidence of the electrical energy tax is upon the utilities. We also are not unmindful of Mr. Justice Harlan's cautionary advice in Ohio v. Wyandotte Chemicals Corp., 401 U. S. 493, 497 (1971):

“As our social system has grown more complex, the States have increasingly become enmeshed in a multitude of disputes with persons living outside their borders. Consider, for example, the frequency with which States and nonresidents clash over the application of state laws concerning taxes, motor vehicles, decedents' estates, business torts, government contracts, and so forth. It would, indeed, be anomalous were this Court to be held out as a potential principal forum for settling such controversies.”

The motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied.

So ordered.

Mr. Justice Stevens,

concurring.

Unless the New Mexico electrical energy tax has some impact on the rates paid by consumers of electricity in Arizona, I do not believe those consumers have standing to challenge that tax. Arizona has failed to allege such impact. Accordingly, apart from its possible privity with the Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District, in my judgment the State of Arizona is not sufficiently affected by the New Mexico tax to justify its invocation of the “original and exclusive jurisdiction” of this Court conferred by 28 U. S. C. § 1251 (a)(1). Since the Salt River Project is able to litigate in another forum, I concur in the Court’s disposition of the motion. However, except to the extent that they apply to Arizona’s attempt to litigate on behalf of an entity which has access to another forum, I do not believe the comments which the Court has previously made about its nonexclusive original jurisdiction adequately support an order denying a State leave to file a complaint against another State.

       See N. M. Stat. Ann. § 72-16A-4 (Supp. 1975).

       N. M. Stat. Aim. § 72-34-1 et seq. (Supp. 1975).

       N. M. Stat. Ann. § 72-16A-16.1B (Supp. 1975).

       Brief in Opposition 3.

        Id., at 5-6.

       See App. to Brief in Opposition.

      In this connection it should be noted that the statement quoted from Massachusetts v. Missouri, 308 U. S. 1, 18-19, referred to the complainant’s alternative contention that jurisdiction might be sustained on the theory that a controversy between Massachusetts and the citizens of another State was presented. Under that theory this Court’s jurisdiction would not have been exclusive. See 28 U. S. C. §1251 (b)(3).


author: Per Curiam.

text:
    SOUTH PRAIRIE CONSTRUCTION CO. v. LOCAL NO. 627, INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, AFL-CIO, et al.
    No. 75-1097.
    Decided May 24, 1976

      Together with No. 75-1243, National Labor Relations Board v. Local No. 627, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO, et al., also on petition for writ of certiorari to the same court.

   Per Curiam.

Respondent Union filed a complaint in 1972 with the National Labor Relations Board alleging that South Prairie Construction Co. (South Prairie) and Peter Kiewit Sons’ Co. (Kiewit) had violated §§ 8 (a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 61 Stat. 140, 29 U. S. C. §§ 158 (a)(5) and (1), by their continuing refusal to apply to South Prairie’s employees the collective-bargaining agreement in effect between the Union and Kiewit. The Union first asserted that since South Prairie and Kiewit are wholly owned subsidiaries of Peter Kiewit Sons’, Inc. (PKS), and engage in highway construction in Oklahoma, they constituted a single “employer” within the Act for purposes of applying the Union-Kiewit agreement. That being the case, the Union contended, South Prairie was obligated to recognize the Union as the representative of a bargaining unit drawn to include South Prairie’s employees. Disagreeing with the Administrative Law Judge on the first part of the Union’s claim, the Board concluded that South Prairie and Kiewit were in fact separate employers, and dismissed the complaint.

On the Union’s petition for review, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit canvassed the facts of record. It discussed, inter alia, the manner in which Kiewit, South Prairie, and PKS functioned as entities; PKS’ decision to activate South Prairie, its nonunion subsidiary, in a State where historically Kiewit had been the only union highway contractor among the latter’s Oklahoma competitors; and the two firms’ competitive bidding patterns on Oklahoma highway jobs after South Prairie was activated in 1972 to do business there.

Stating that it was applying the criteria recognized by this Court in Radio Union v. Broadcast Service, 380 U. S. 255 (1965), the Court of Appeals disagreed with the Board and decided that on the facts presented Kiewit and South Prairie were a single “employer.” It reasoned that in addition to the “presence of a very substantial qualitative degree of centralized control of labor relations,” the facts “evidence a substantial qualitative degree of interrelation of operations and common management — one that we are satisfied would not be found in the arm’s length relationship existing among uninte-grated companies.” 171 U. S. App. D. C. 102, 108, 109, 518 F. 2d 1040, 1046, 1047 (1975). The Board’s finding to the contrary was, therefore, in the view of the Court of Appeals “not warranted by the record.” Id., at 109, 518 F. 2d, at 1047.

Having set aside this portion of the Board’s determination, however, the Court of Appeals went on to reach and decide the second question presented by the Union’s complaint which had not been passed upon by the Board. The court decided that the employees of Kiewit and South Prairie constituted the appropriate unit under § 9 of the Act for purposes of collective bargaining. On the basis of this conclusion, it decided that these firms had committed an unfair labor practice by refusing “to recognize Local 627 as the bargaining representative of South Prairie’s employees or to extend the terms of the Union’s agreement with Kiewit to South Prairie’s employees.” Id., at 112, 518 F. 2d, at 1050. The case was remanded to the Board for “issuance and enforcement of an appropriate order against . . . Kiewit and South Prairie.” Ibid.

Petitioners South Prairie and the Board in their petitions here contest the action of the Court of Appeals in setting aside the Board’s determination on the “employer” question. But their principal contention is that the Court of Appeals invaded the statutory province of the Board when it proceeded to decide the § 9 “unit” question in the first instance, instead of remanding the case to the Board so that it could make the initial determination. While we refrain from disturbing the holding of the Court of Appeals that Kiewit and South Prairie are an “employer,” see NLRB v. Pittsburgh S. S. Co., 340 U. S. 498 (1951), we agree with petitioners’ principal contention.

The Court of Appeals was evidently of the view that since the Board dismissed the complaint it had necessarily decided that the employees of Kiewit and South Prairie would not constitute an appropriate bargaining unit under § 9. But while the Board’s opinion referred to its cases in this area and included a finding that “the employees of each constitute a separate bargaining unit,” 206 N. L. R. B. 562, 563 (1973), its brief discussion was set in the context of what it obviously considered was the dispositive issue, namely, whether the two firms were separate employers. We think a fair reading of its decision discloses that it did not address the “unit” question on the basis of any assumption, arguendo, that it might have been wrong on the threshold “employer” issue.

Section 9 (b) of the Act, 29 U. S. C. § 159 (b), directs the Board to

“decide in each case whether, in order to assure to employees the fullest freedom in exercising the rights guaranteed by this Act, the unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining shall be the employer unit, craft unit, plant unit, or subdivision thereof . . .

The Board's cases hold that especially in the construction industry a determination that two affiliated firms constitute a single employer “does not necessarily establish that an employerwide unit is appropriate, as the factors which are relevant in identifying the breadth of an employer’s operation are not conclusively determinative of the scope of an appropriate unit.” Central New Mexico Chapter, National Electrical Contractors Assn., Inc., 152 N. L. R. B. 1604, 1608 (1965). See also B & B Industries, Inc., 162 N. L. R. B. 832 (1967). Cf. Gerace Constr., Inc., 193 N. L. R. B. 645 (1971).

The Court of Appeals reasoned that the Board’s principal case on the “unit” question, Central New Mexico Chapter, supra, was distinguishable because there the two affiliated construction firms were engaged in different types of contracting. It thought that this fact was critical to the Board’s conclusion in that case that the employees did not have the same “community of interest” for purposes of identifying an appropriate bargaining unit. Whether or not the Court of Appeals was correct in this reasoning, we think that for it to take upon itself the initial determination of this issue was “incompatible with the orderly function of the process of judicial review.” NLRB v. Metropolitan Ins. Co., 380 U. S. 438, 444 (1965). Since the selection of an appropriate bargaining unit lies largely within the discretion of the Board, whose decision, “if not final, is rarely to be disturbed,” Packard Motor Co. v. NLRB, 330 U. S. 485, 491 (1947), we think the function of the Court of Appeals ended when the Board’s error on the “employer” issue was “laid bare.” FPC v. Idaho Power Co., 344 U. S. 17, 20 (1952).

As this Court stated in NLRB v. Food Store Employees, 417 U. S. 1, 9 (1974):

“It is a guiding principle of administrative law, long recognized by this Court, that 'an administrative determination in which is imbedded a legal question open to judicial review does not impliedly foreclose the administrative agency, after its error has been corrected, from enforcing the legislative policy committed to its charge.' FCC v. Pottsville Broadcasting Co., 309 U. S. 134, 145 (1940).”

In foreclosing the Board from the opportunity to determine the appropriate bargaining unit under § 9, the Court of Appeals did not give “due observance [to] the distribution of authority made by Congress as between its power to regulate commerce and the reviewing power which it has conferred upon the courts under Article III of the Constitution.” FCC v. Pottsville Broadcasting Co., 309 U. S. 134, 141 (1940).

The petitions for certiorari are accordingly granted, and that part of the judgment of the Court of Appeals which set aside the determination of the Board on the question of whether Kiewit and South Prairie were a single employer is affirmed. That part of the judgment which held that the two firms’ employees constituted the appropriate bargaining unit for purposes of the Act, and which directed the Board to issue an enforcement order, is vacated, and the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

       The relevant portions of the Act, §§ 8 and 9, 29 U. S. C. §§ 158 and 159, provide in part:
      “Sec. 8 (a) It shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer—
      “(1) to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in section 7;
      “(5) to refuse to bargain collectively with the representatives of his employees, subject to the provisions of section 9 (a).
      “Sec. 9 (a) Representatives designated or selected for the purposes of collective bargaining by the majority of the employees in a unit appropriate for such purposes, shall be the exclusive representatives of all the employees in such unit....
      “(b) The Board shall decide in each case whether, in order to assure to employees the fullest freedom in exercising the rights guaranteed by this Act, the unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining shall be the employer unit, craft unit, plant unit, or subdivision thereof . . . .”
      On the facts of this ease, the Union first had to establish that Kiewit and South Prairie were a single “employer.” If it succeeded, the existence of a violation under § 8 (a) (5) would then turn on whether under § 9 the “employer unit” was the “appropriate” one for collective-bargaining purposes.

       We need not for present purposes set out the facts as Summarized at length in the Court of Appeals’ opinion. See 171 U. S. App. D. C. 102, 104r-107, 518 F. 2d 1040, 1042-1045 (1975).

       “[I]n determining the relevant employer, the Board considers several nominally separate business entities to be a single employer where they comprise an integrated enterprise, N. L. R. B. Twenty-first Arm. Rep. 14r-15 (1956). The controlling criteria, Set out and elaborated in Board decisions, are interrelation of operations, common management, centralized control of labor relations and common ownership.” 380 U. S., at 256.

       See n. 1, supra.

       “Were we called upon to pass on the Board's conclusions in the first instance or to make an independent' review of the review by the Court of Appeals, we might well support the Board’s conclusion and reject that of the court below. But Congress has charged the Courts of Appeals and not this Court with the normal and primary responsibility for granting or denying enforcement of Labor Board orders.” 340 U. S., at 502.

       The Administrative Law Judge’s decision in favor of the Union included a conclusion that the pertinent employees of Kiewit and South Prairie constituted an appropriate unit under § 9 (b). But that conclusion was, of course, preceded by the determination that the two firms were a single employer. In disagreeing on the “employer” issue, the Board was not compelled to reach the § 9 (b) question in order to dismiss the complaint.

       Compare Radio Union v. Broadcast Service, 380 U. S. 255 (1965), with Packard Motor Co. v. NLRB, 330 U. S. 485, 491-492 (1947).


author: MR. Chief Justice Burger

text:
    UNITED STATES v. ORLEANS et al.
    No. 75-328.
    Argued March 22, 1976
    Decided June 1, 1976

      Burger, C. J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

      Harry R. Sachse argued the cause for the United States. With him on the briefs were Solicitor General Bork, Assistant Attorney General Lee, and Leonard Schaitman.

      William, E. Pfau, Jr., argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief were Charles F. Clarke and James P. Murphy.

   MR. Chief Justice Burger

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This ease presents the question whether a community action agency funded under the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 is a federal instrumentality or agency for purposes of Federal Tort Claims Act liability.

I

Title II of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 516, as amended, 81 Stat. 690, 42 U. S. C. § 2781 et seq., was passed to “stimulate a better focusing of all available local, State, private, and Federal resources upon the goal of enabling low-income families, and low-income individuals ... to become fully self-sufficient.” 42 U. S. C. §2781 (a). To this end the Act “provides for community action agencies and programs, prescribes the structure and describes the functions of community action agencies and authorizes financial assistance to community action programs and related projects and activities.” Ibid.

Under the statute a community action agency is a “State or political subdivision of a State ... or a public or private nonprofit agency or organization which has been designated by a State or such a political subdivision . . .” and which is “capable of planning, conducting, administering and evaluating a community action program 42 U. S. C. § 2790 (a). A community action program “includes or is designed to include ... a range of services and activities having a measurable and potentially major impact on causes of poverty in the community . . . .” Ibid.

The Warren-Trumbull Council for Economic Opportunity, Inc., is a community action agency; it is a nonprofit corporation incorporated under § 1702.01 et seq. of the Ohio Revised Code. At the time of this suit, the Warren-Trumbull Council received all of its monetary resources from the Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO), the federal agency established to administer the Economic Opportunity Act. The Council also received local “in-kind" contributions and was empowered to receive funding from other sources. The “in-kind” contributions supply the 20% local support which each community action agency must receive to qualify for federal grants. 42 U. S. C. § 2812 (c).

One of the activities of the Warren-Trumbull Council was the Westlawn Neighborhood Opportunity Center (Westlawn), established under 42 U. S. C. § 2811. West-lawn sponsored a recreational outing for a group of children. The Warren-Trumbull Council furnished a van for the outing. Since the van was not large enough to transport all the children, employees of the Council arranged for two young men from the Westlawn area to drive some of the children to and from the outing in privately owned automobiles. Respondent Joseph V. Orleans was one of the children on the outing who, while returning in one of the private cars, was injured when the car collided with a parked truck.

The injured boy and his father, having exhausted their administrative remedies, sued the United States in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U. S. C. §§ 1346 (b) and 2671 et seq., alleging that agents of the United States in charge of the outing were negligent in its organization and supervision. The United States moved for summary judgment pursuant to Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 56 on the ground that the Warren-Trumbull Council and Westlawn were not “instrumentalities or agencies of the United States within the purview and scope of 28 U. S. C. 2671.”

The District Court granted the Government’s motion, holding that the Warren-Trumbull Council was a contractor with the OEO, “not a corporation acting as an instrumentality or agency of the United States.” The District Court also found that employees of the Warren-Trumbull Council and Westlawn are not federal employees. Orleans v. United States, No. C72-260-Y (Sept. 13, 1973). In response to respondents’ motion to reconsider, the District Court accepted “the four basic facts upon which plaintiffs base their conclusion”: that the Warren-Trumbull Council “was created for the purpose of carrying out the community action programs contained in the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964,” that the Council received no funds from any source other than the OEO, that the Council conducted only programs “formulated and funded by the federal government,” and that the OEO closely supervised the Council and its activities. The District Court also noted that federal funding was stopped until the Warren-Trumbull Council was reorganized and a new chairman of the governing board was appointed. The District Court held, however, that the recited facts did not warrant a conclusion that the Council was an agency or instrumentality of the Federal Government. The District Court determined that Congress intended that community action agencies be locally controlled and that the Warren-Trumbull Council was empowered and encouraged to receive money and develop programs from federal and other sources. The District Court found that whether or not the Council used this power it “remains an independent, locally controlled and constituted non-profit corporation.” The District Court, in reaffirming its prior ruling, thus held that the Council was a contractor conducting “prepackaged Federal programs.”

The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed the District Court, 509 F. 2d 197 (1975), holding that it was necessary to examine the “type and extent of control retained by the principal.” Id., at 201. It noted, however, that it was “necessary to keep in mind the concept of the importance of using all the resources of the local community to fight poverty which underlies the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964.” Id., at 202.

“The relationship between OEO and WTCEO [the Warren-Trumbull Council] meets a number of the criteria for establishing that WTCEO is an independent contractor. There was no showing that OEO controlled or supervised the physical performance of the work of employees of WTCEO and Westlawn. Moreover, the requirements imposed on these local agencies by statute and regulations are not concerned with the details of the day-to-day operations of the agencies or the programs which they carry on in the Warren-Trumbull County area. They are more in the nature of general instructions to be followed in order to assure that certain policies which Congress had adopted in establishing OEO are respected and adhered to.” Id., at 203.

The Court of Appeals considered it more important, however, that the OEO, by withholding funding, had required the selection of a new chairman of the Warren-Trumbull board to reorganize the agency; the Court of' Appeals concluded that that was not the kind of authority usually reserved in a principal dealing with an independent contractor. This authority, along with the “voluminous regulations of OEO,” the need to secure OEO approval for local programs, and the fact that Congress could have acted directly through the OEO at the local level rather than utilize community action agencies, led the Court of Appeals to hold that community action agencies are not traditional independent contractors. Id., at 204. The Court of Appeals reasoned that since both the Federal Tort Claims Act and the Economic Opportunity Act were designed to remedy hardship and suffering, they, when read together, indicate that Congress did not intend that beneficiaries of the Economic Opportunity Act who sustain injury in the course of federally approved programs be barred from recovery under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Under that court’s holding such “beneficiaries” are in effect carved out as a special class to be covered by the Tort Claims Act independently of whether a member of the public injured by the same car could recover.

Subsequently, in April 1975 the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reached a contrary conclusion. Vincent v. United States, 513 F. 2d 1296. We granted the writ of certiorari in this case to resolve the conflict between the Circuits. 423 U. S. 911 (1975).

II

The Federal Tort Claims Act is a limited waiver of sovereign immunity, making the Federal Government liable to the same extent as a private party for certain torts of federal employees acting within the scope of their employment. The Tort Claims Act was never intended, and has not been construed by this Court, to reach employees or agents of all federally funded programs that confer benefits on people. The language of 28 U. S. C. § 1346 (b) is unambiguous, covering injuries “caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the Government while acting within the scope of his office or employment . The Act defines Government employees to include officers and employees of “any federal agency” but excludes “any contractor with the United States.” 28 U. S. C. § 2671. Since the United States can be sued only to the extent that it has waived its immunity, due regard must be given to the exceptions, including the independent contractor exception, to such waiver. See Dalehite v. United States, 346 U. S. 15, 30-31 (1953). A critical element in distinguishing an agency from a contractor is the power of the Federal Government “to control the detailed physical performance of the contractor.” Logue v. United States, 412 U. S. 521, 528 (1973).

In Logue this Court held that employees of a county jail that housed federal prisoners pursuant to a contract with the Federal Bureau of Prisons were not federal employees or employees of a federal agency; thus, the United States was not liable for their torts. Although the contract required the county jail to comply with Bureau of Prisons' rules and regulations prescribing standards of treatment, and although the United States reserved rights of inspection to enter the jail to determine its compliance with the contract, the contract did not authorize the United States to physically supervise the jail's employees. In short it could take action to compel compliance with federal standards, but it did not supervise operations. In Maryland v. United States, 381 U. S. 41 (1965), this Court held that civilian caretakers of Air National Guard aircraft assigned to the National Guard, but owned by the United States, were state, not federal, employees although the caretakers were paid from federal funds and required to comply with federal standards. In Logue we noted that one of the factors which the Court in Maryland v. United States relied upon was the state supervision of the relevant military and civilian personnel. Thus, as in Logue and Maryland, the question here is not whether the community action agency receives federal money and must comply with federal standards and regulations, but whether its day-to-day operations are supervised by the Federal Government.

Billions of dollars of federal money are spent each year on projects performed by people and institutions which contract with the Government. These contractors act for and are paid by the United States. They are responsible to the United States for compliance with the specifications of a contract or grant, but they are largely free to select the means of its implementation. Perhaps part of the cost to the Government often includes the expense for public liability insurance, but that is a matter of either contract or choice. The respondents did not sue the community action agency itself. Similarly, by contract, the Government may fix specific and precise conditions to implement federal objectives. Although such regulations are aimed at assuring compliance with goals, the regulations do not convert the acts of entrepreneurs — or of state governmental bodies — into federal governmental acts. Cf. Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co., 419 U. S. 345 (1974); Moose Lodge No. 107 v. Irvis, 407 U. S. 163 (1972).

Federal funding reaches myriad areas of activity of local and state governments and activities in the private sector as well. It is inconceivable that Congress intended to have waiver of sovereign immunity follow congressional largesse and cover countless unidentifiable classes of “beneficiaries.” The Federal Government in no sense controls “the detailed physical performance” of all the programs and projects it finances by gifts, grants, contracts, or loans. Logue v. United States, supra, at 528. The underlying statute emphasizes that a community action agency is a local, not a federal, enterprise; thus agents and employees of a local community action agency are not “employee [s] of the [Federal] government.” 28 U. S. C. § 2671.

This conclusion is supported by the relevant legislative reports relating to community action programs which reflect the congressional intent and purpose that "the role of the Federal Government will be to give counsel and help, when requested, and to make available substantial assistance in meeting the costs of those programs.” H. R. Rep. No. 1458, 88th Cong., 2d Sess., 10 (1964) (emphasis in original). Other language similarly reflects that Congress intended not to create new federal agencies but rather "the strengthening of community capabilities for planning and coordinating Federal, State, and other assistance related to the elimination of poverty . . . through . . . local . . . organizations . . . .” 42 U. S. C. § 2781 (a)(1). See S. Rep. No. 1218, 88th Cong., 2d Sess., 18 (1964). Congress also aimed to promote local resident participation in "the development and implementation of all programs and projects designed to serve the poor or low-income areas,” 42 U. S. C. §2781 (a)(4), and to broaden private support and aid, §2781 (a)(5). Tied in with the latter goal is the requirement that a community action agency receive at least 20% of its support from nonfederal sources. § 2812 (c).

Further support for our conclusion that a community action agency is not a federal agency is the fact that the Economic Opportunity Act provides that a community action agency is to be administered by a community action board composed of local officials, representatives of the poor and members of business, labor, and other groups in the community, 42 U. S. C. § 2791; no employee of the OEO can serve on the board. 45 CFR § 1015.735-19 (1974). Of course since the community action agencies receive federal funding, they must comply with extensive regulations which include employment policies and procedures, lobbying limitations, accounting and inspection procedures, expenditure limitations, and programmatic limitations and application procedures. 45 CFR pts. 1060-1070 (1974). The OEO also issues numerous guidelines. These regulations and guidelines attempt to assure that the federal money is spent for the benefit of the poor. The regulations do not give the OEO power to supervise the daily operation of a community action agency or a neighborhood program.

Nothing could be plainer than the congressional intent that the local entities here in question have complete control over operations of their own programs with the Federal Government supplying financial aid, advice, and oversight only to assure that federal funds not be diverted to unauthorized purposes. Until now every United States District Court confronted with the issue has so read the Economic Opportunity Act; no District Court has read the Economic Opportunity Act or the Federal Tort Claims Act to mean that whenever a benefit is conferred by Congress, liability for injury to those benefited in the execution of a program or project falls on the Federal Government. Vincent v. United States, 383 F. Supp. 471 (ED Ark. 1974), aff'd, 513 F. 2d 1296 (CA8 1975); Orleans v. United States, No. C72-260-Y (ND Ohio Sept. 13, 1973), rev’d, 509 F. 2d 197 (CA6 1975) (case below) ; Hughes v. United States, 383 F. Supp. 1071 (SD Iowa 1973); Anderson v. Simpson, Nos. CA62-18 and 63-58 (ED Tenn., Oct. 17, 1972); cf. Prater v. United States, 357 F. Supp. 1044 (ND Tex. 1973). To convert the local executors of a locally planned program or project which receives conditional federal funding into federal employees distorts well-established concepts of master and servant relationships and extends the meaning of the Federal Tort Claims Act beyond the intent of Congress.

We therefore hold that the Warren-Trumbull Council for Economic Opportunity and the Westlawn Neighborhood Opportunity Center are not federal agencies or in-strumentalities, nor are their employees federal employees within the meaning of the Federal Tort Claims Act, and the judgment before us is accordingly

Reversed.

       The Community Service Administration succeeded the Office of Economic Opportunity. The CSA is the agency which currently furnishes financial assistance to community action agencies. 88 Stat. 2310, 42 U. S. C. § 2941 (1970 ed., Supp. IV).

       Title 28 U. S. C. § 1346 (b) provides in full:
      “(b) Subject to the provisions of chapter 171 of this title, the district courts, together with the United States District Court for the District of the Canal Zone and the District Court of the Virgin Islands, shall have exclusive jurisdiction of civil actions on claims against the United States, for money damages, accruing on and after January 1, 1945, for injury or loss of property, or personal injury or death caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the Government while acting within the scope of his office or employment, under circumstances where the United States, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred.”

       Title 28 U. S. C. § 2671 provides in full:
      "As used in this chapter and sections 1346 (b) and 2401 (b) of this title, the term ‘Federal agency’ includes the executive departments, the military departments, independent establishments of the United States, and corporations primarily acting as instrumentalities or agencies of the United States, but does not include any contractor with the United States.
      “ ‘Employee of the government' includes officers or employees of any federal agency, members of the military or naval forces of the United States, and persons acting on behalf of a federal agency in an official capacity, temporarily or permanently in the service of the United States, whether with or without compensation.
      “ ‘Acting within the scope of his office or employment,’ in the case of a member of the military or naval forces of the United States, means acting in line of duty.”

       Ohio law .applies the same test in distinguishing between an employee and an independent contractor. See, e. g., Gillum v. Industrial Comm’n, 141 Ohio St. 373, 381, 48 N. E. 2d 234, 237 (1943) ; New York, C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Heffner Constr. Co., 9 Ohio App. 2d 174, 223 N. E. 2d 649 (1967). See generally Restatement (Second) of Agency § 2 (1958).

       Since the issue in this case is whether or not there was day-today control of a program, it is irrelevant whether the program is funded by means of a contract or a grant.

       The Court of Appeals placed reliance upon the suspension of federal funding pending changes in the local board; plainly the granting of funds can be conditional without changing the basic relationship between federal and local governments and their components.

       It is thus irrelevant that the Warren-Trumbull Council did not obtain additional funds from other sources or conduct any programs without federal money.

       In another context a community action agency has been held to be a private, not a federal, employer. Hines v. Cenla Community Action Comm., Inc., 474 F. 2d 1052, 1058 (CA5 1973).


author: Mr. Justice Stewart Mr. Justice Stevens,

text:
    BROWN v. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION et al.
    No. 74-768.
    Argued March 1-2, 1976
    Decided June 1, 1976

      Stewart, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Burger, C. J., and White, Blackmun, Powell, and Rehnquist, JJ., joined. Stevens, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Brennan, J., joined, post, p. 835. Marshall, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the ease.

      Eñe Schnapper argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Jack Greenberg, James M. Nabñt III, Charles Stephen Ralston, Melvyn R. Leventhal, Barry L. Goldstein, and Jeff Greenup.

      Deputy Solicitor General Wallace argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Bork, Assistant Attorney General Lee, Mark L. Evans, Robert E. Kopp, and Neil H. Koslowe.

   Mr. Justice Stewart

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The principal question presented by this case is whether § 717 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides the exclusive judicial remedy for claims of discrimination in federal employment.

The petitioner, Clarence Brown, is a Negro who has been employed by the General Services Administration since 1957. He is currently classified in grade GS-7 and has not been promoted since 1966. In December • 1970 Brown was referred, along with two white colleagues, for promotion to grade GS-9 by his supervisors. All three were rated “highly qualified,” and the promotion was given to one of the white candidates for the position. Brown filed a complaint with the GSA Equal Employment Opportunity Office alleging that racial discrimination had biased the selection process. That complaint was withdrawn when Brown was told that other GS-9 positions.would soon be available.

Another GS-9 position did become vacant in June 1971, for which the petitioner along with two others was recommended as “highly qualified.” Again a white applicant was chosen. Brown filed a second administrative complaint with the GSA Equal Employment Opportunity Office. After preparation and review of an investigative report, the GSA Regional Administrator notified the petitioner that there was no evidence that race had played a part in the promotion. Brown requested a hearing, and one was held before a complaints examiner of the Civil Service Commission. In February 1973, the examiner issued his findings and recommended decision. He found no evidence of racial discrimination; rather, he determined that Brown had not been advanced because he had not been “fully cooperative.”

The GSA rendered its final decision in March 1973. The agency’s Director of Civil Rights informed Brown by letter of his conclusion, that considerations of race had not entered the promotional process. The Director’s letter told Brown that if he chose, he might carry the administrative process further by lodging an appeal with the Board of Appeals and Review of the Civil Service Commission and that, alternatively, he could file suit within 30 days in federal district court.

Forty-two days later Brown filed suit in a Federal District Court. The complaint alleged jurisdiction under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 253, as amended by the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972, 86 Stat. 103, 42 U. S. C. § 2000e et seq. (1970 ed. and Supp. IV), “with particular reference to” § 717; under 28 U. S. C. § 1331 (general federal-question jurisdiction) ; under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U. S. C. §§ 2201, 2202; and under the Civil Rights Act of 1866, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 1981.

The respondents moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, on the ground that Brown had not filed the complaint within 30 days of final agency action as required by § 717 (c) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 XT. S. C. § 2000e-16 (c) (1970 ed., Supp. IV). The District Court granted the motion.

The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the judgment of dismissal. 507 F. 2d 1300 (1974). It held, first, that the § 717 remedy for federal employment discrimination was retroactively available to any employee, such as the petitioner, whose administrative complaint was pending at the time § 717 became effective on March 24, 1972. The appellate court held, second, that § 717 provides the exclusive judicial remedy for federal employment discrimination, and that the complaint had not been timely filed under that statute. Finally, the court ruled that if § 717 did not pre-empt other remedies, then the petitioner’s complaint was still properly dismissed because of his failure to exhaust available administrative remedies. We granted certio-rari, 421 U. S. 987 (1975), to consider the important issues of federal law presented by this case.

The primary question in this litigation is not difficult to state: Is §717 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as added by § 11 of the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972, 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-16 (1970 ed., Supp, IV), the exclusive individual remedy available to a federal employee complaining of job-related racial discrimination? But the question is easier to state than it is to resolve. Congress simply failed explicitly to describe § 717’s position in the constellation of antidiscrimination law. We must, therefore, infer congressional intent in less obvious ways. As Mr. Chief Justice Marshall once wrote for the Court: “Where the mind labours to discover the design of the legislature, it seizes every thing from which aid can be derived . . . .” United States v. Fisher, 2 Cranch 358, 386 (1805).

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbids employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. 42 U. S. C. §§ 2000e-2, 2000e-3 (1970 ed. and Supp. IV). Until it was amended in 1972 by the Equal Employment Opportunity Act, however, Title VII did not protect federal employees. 42 U. S. C. §2000e(b). Although federal employment discrimination clearly violated both the Constitution, Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U. S. 497 (1954), and statutory law, 5 U. S. C. § 7151, before passage of the 1972 Act, the effective availability of either administrative or judicial relief was far from sure. Charges of racial discrimination were handled parochially within each federal agency. A hearing examiner might come from outside the agency, but he had no authority to conduct an independent examination, and his conclusions and findings were in the nature of recommendations that the agency was free to accept or reject. Although review lay in the Board of Appeals and Review of the Civil Service Commission, Congress found “skepticism” among federal employees “regarding the Commission’s record in obtaining just resolutions of complaints and adequate remedies. This has, in turn, discouraged persons from filing complaints with the Commission for fear that doing so will only result in antagonizing their supervisors and impairing any future hope of advancement.”

If administrative remedies were ineffective, judicial relief from federal employment discrimination was even more problematic before 1972. Although an action seeking to enjoin unconstitutional agency conduct would lie, it was doubtful that backpay or other compensatory relief for employment discrimination was available at the time that Congress was considering the 1972 Act. For example, in Gnotta v. United States, 415 F. 2d 1271, the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit had held in 1969 that there was no jurisdictional basis to support the plaintiff’s suit alleging that the Corps of Engineers had discriminatorily refused to promote him. Damages for alleged discrimination were held beyond the scope of the Tucker Act, 28 U. S. C. § 1346, since no express or implied contract was involved. 415 F. 2d, at 1278. And the plaintiff’s cause of action under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U. S. C. §§ 701-706, and the Mandamus Act, 28 U. S. C. § 1361, was held to be barred by sovereign immunity, since his claims for promotion would necessarily involve claims against the Treasury:

“A suit against an officer of the United States is one against the United States itself 'if the decree would operate against’ the sovereign; Hawaii v. Gordon, 373 U. S. 57, 58 . . . (1963) [,] or if ‘the judgment sought would expend itself on the public treasury or domain, or interfere with the public administration,’ Land v. Dollar, 330 U. S. 731, 738, . . . (1947); or if the effect of the judgment would be ‘to restrain the Government from acting, or to compel it to act,' Larson v. Domestic & Foreign Commerce Corp., 337 U. S. 682, 704, . . . (1949).” 415 F. 2d, at 1277.

See also Blaze v. Moon, 440 F. 2d 1348 (CA5 1971) (no jurisdiction over suit by a Negro alleging wrongful discharge from Corps of Engineers).

Concern was evinced during the hearings before the committees of both Houses over the apparent inability of federal employees to engage the judicial machinery in cases of alleged employment discrimination. See, e. g., Hearings on S. 2515 et al. before the Subcommittee on Labor of the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, 92d Cong., 1st Sess., 296, 301, 308, 318 (1971); Hearings on H. R. 1746 before the General Subcommittee on Labor of the House Committee on Education and Labor, 92d Cong., 1st Sess., 320, 322, 385-386, 391-392 (1971). Although there was considerable disagreement over whether a civil action would lie to remedy agency discrimination, the committees ultimately concluded that judicial review was not available at all or, if available, that some forms of relief were foreclosed. Thus, the Senate Report observed: “The testimony of the Civil Service Commission notwithstanding, the committee found that an aggrieved Federal employee does not have access to the courts. In many cases, the employee must overcome a U. S. Government defense of sovereign immunity or failure to exhaust administrative remedies with no certainty as to the steps required to exhaust such remedies. Moreover, the remedial authority of the Commission and the courts has also been in doubt.” S. Rep. No. 92-415, p. 16 (1971). Similarly, the House Committee stated: “There is serious doubt that court review is available to the aggrieved Federal employee. Monetary restitution or back pay is not attainable. In promotion situations, a critical area of discrimination, the promotion is often no longer available.” H. R. Rep. No. 92-238, p. 25 (1971).

The conclusion of the committees was reiterated during floor debate. Senator Cranston, coauthor of the amendment relating to federal employment, asserted that it would, “[f]or the first time, permit Federal employees to sue the Federal Government in discrimination cases . . . .” 118 Cong. Rec. 4929 (1972). Senator Williams, sponsor and floor manager of the bill, stated that it “provides, for the first time, to my knowledge, for the right of an individual to take his complaint to court.” Id,, at 4922.

The legislative history thus leaves little doubt that Congress was persuaded that federal employees who were treated discriminatorily had no effective judicial remedy. And the case law suggests that that conclusion was entirely reasonable. Whether that understanding of Congress was in some ultimate sense incorrect is not what is important in determining the legislative intent in amending the 1964 Civil Rights Act to cover federal employees. For the relevant inquiry is not whether Congress correctly perceived the then state of the law, but rather what its perception of the state of the law was.

This unambiguous congressional perception seems to indicate that the congressional intent in 1972 was to create an exclusive, pre-emptive administrative and judicial scheme for the redress of federal employment discrimination. We need not, however, rest our decision upon this inference alone. For the structure of the 1972 amendment itself fully confirms the conclusion that Congress intended it to be exclusive and pre-emptive.

Section 717 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-16 (1970 ed., Supp. IV), proscribes federal employment discrimination and establishes an administrative and judicial enforcement system. Section 717 (a) provides that all personnel actions affecting federal employees and applicants for federal employment “shall be made free from any discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.”

Sections 717 (b) and (c) establish complementary administrative and judicial enforcement mechanisms designed to eradicate federal employment discrimination. Subsection (b) delegates to the Civil Service Commission full authority to enforce the provisions of subsection (a) “through appropriate remedies, including reinstatement or hiring of employees with or without back pay,” to issue “rules, regulations, orders and instructions as it deems necessary and appropriate” to carry out its responsibilities under the Act, and to review equal employment opportunity plans that are annually submitted to it by each agency and department.

Section 717 (c) permits an aggrieved employee to file a civil action in a federal district court to review his claim of employment discrimination. Attached to that right, however, are certain preconditions. Initially, the complainant must seek relief in the agency that has allegedly discriminated against him. He then may seek further administrative review with the Civil Service Commission or, alternatively, he may, within 30 days of receipt of notice of the agency's final decision, file suit in federal district court without appealing to the Civil Service Commission. If he does appeal to the Commission, he may file suit within 30 days of the Commission's final decision. In any event, the complainant may file a civil action if, after 180 days from the filing of the charge or the appeal, the agency or Civil Service Commission has not taken final action.

Sections 706 (f) through (k), 42 U. S. C. §§ 2000&-5 (f) through 2000e-5 (k) (1970 ed. and Supp. IV), which are incorporated “as applicable” by § 717 (d), govern such issues as venue, the appointment of attorneys, attorneys' fees, and the scope of relief. Section 717 (e), finally, retains within each governmental agency “primary responsibility to assure nondiscrimination in employment....''

The balance, completeness, and structural integrity of § 717 are inconsistent with the petitioner's contention that the judicial remedy afforded by § 717 (c) was designed merely to supplement other putative judicial relief. His view fails, in our estimation, to accord due weight to the fact that unlike these other supposed remedies/ § 717 does not contemplate merely judicial relief. Rather, it provides for a careful blend of administrative and judicial enforcement powers. Under the petitioner’s theory, by perverse operation of a type of Gresham’s law, § 717, with its rigorous administrative exhaustion requirements and time limitations, would be driven out of currency were immediate access to the courts under other, less demanding statutes permissible. The crucial administrative role that each agency together with the Civil Service Commission was given by Congress in the eradication of employment discrimination would be eliminated “by the simple expedient of putting a different label on [the] pleadings.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U. S. 475, 489-490 (1973). It would require the suspension of disbelief to ascribe to Congress the design to allow its careful and thorough remedial scheme to be circumvented by artful pleading.

The petitioner relies upon our decision in Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, 421 U. S. 454 (1975), for the proposition that Title VII did not repeal pre-existing remedies for employment discrimination. In Johnson the Court held that in the context of private employment Title VII did not pre-empt other remedies. But that decision is inapposite here. In the first place, there were no problems of sovereign immunity in the context of the Johnson case. Second, the holding in Johnson rested upon the explicit legislative history of the 1964 Act which “ 'manifests a congressional intent to allow an individual to pursue independently his rights under both Title VII and other applicable state and federal statutes.’ ” 421 U. S., at 459, quoting Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U. S. 36, 48 (1974). Congress made clear “ 'that the remedies available to the individual under Title VII are co-extensive with the indiv[i] dual's right to sue under the provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U. S. C. § 1981, and that the two procedures augment each other and are not mutually exclusive.’ ” 421 U. S., at 459, quoting H. R. Rep. No. 92-238, p. 19 (1971). See also Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., 392 U. S. 409, 415-417 (1968). There is no such legislative history behind the 1972 amendments. Indeed, as indicated above, the congressional understanding was precisely to the contrary.

In a variety of contexts the Court has held that a precisely drawn, detailed statute pre-empts more general remedies. In Preiser v. Rodriguez, supra, for example, state prisoners whose good-time credits had been canóeled for disciplinary reasons brought suit under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 1983, in conjunction with a habeas corpus action. Although acknowledging that the civil rights statute was, by its terms, literally applicable, we held that challenges to the fact or duration of imprisonment appropriately lie only under habeas corpus, the “more specific act.” Permitting such challenges to be brought under the general, civil rights statute, where exhaustion is not required, would undermine the “strong policy requiring exhaustion of state remedies” when prisoners challenge the length of their confinement. 411 U. S., at 488-490. The Court has reached similar results in cases in which injured federal employees have claimed the right to proceed under facially applicable tort recovery statutes. E. g., United States v. Demko, 385 U. S. 149 (1966) (18 U. S. C. § 4126; Federal Tort Claims Act); Patterson v. United States, 359 U. S. 495 (1959) (Federal Employees’ Compensation Act; Suits in Admiralty Act); Johansen v. United States, 343 U. S. 427 (1952) (Federal Employees’ Compensation Act; Public Vessels Act). We have consistently held that a narrowly tailored employee compensation scheme pre-empts the more general tort recovery statutes. See also Fourco Glass Co. v. Transmirra Products Corp., 353 U. S. 222 (1957); Stonite Products Co. v. Melvin Lloyd Co., 315 U. S. 561 (1942) (in patent cases, venue is governed exclusively by statute dealing specifically with patent cases; general venue statute held inapplicable).

In the case at bar, as in Preiser and the other cases cited above, the established principle leads unerringly to the conclusion that § 717 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, provides the exclusive judicial remedy for claims of discrimination in federal employment.

We hold, therefore, that since Brown failed to file a timely complaint under § 717 (c), the District Court properly dismissed the case. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

It is so ordered.

Mr. Justice Marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Mr. Justice Stevens,

with whom Mr. Justice Brennan joins, dissenting.

Prior to the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 there was uncertainty as to what federal judicial remedies, if any, were available to persons injured by racially discriminatory employment practices in the private sector. Against that background of uncertainty, Congress enacted a comprehensive remedial statute which did not expressly state whether, it was exclusive of, or supplementary to, whatever other remedies might exist.

In 1972 when Congress amended the statute to cover federal employees, there was similar uncertainty about what remedies were available to such employees. Since both the 1964 statute and the 1972 amendment were enacted in comparable settings, and since both pieces of legislation implement precisely the same important national interests, it is reasonable to infer that Congress intended to resolve the question of exclusivity in the same way at both times.

As the legislative history discussed in Chandler v. Roudebush, post, p. 840, demonstrates, Congress intended federal employees to have the same rights available to remedy racial discrimination as employees in the private sector. Since the law is now well settled that victims of racial discrimination in the private sector have a choice of remedies and are not limited to Title VII, federal employees should enjoy parallel rights. The reasoning which governed the decisions in Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, 421 U. S. 454, and Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U. S. 36, applies with equal force to federal employees. There is no evidence, either in the statute itself or in its history, that Congress intended the 1972 amendment to be construed differently from the basic statute.

The fact that Congress incorrectly assumed that federal employees would have no judicial remedy if § 717 had not been enacted undermines rather than supports the Court's conclusion that Congress intended to repeal or amend laws that it did not think applicable. Indeed, the General Subcommittee on Labor of the House Committee on Education and Labor rejected an amendment which would have explicitly provided that § 717 would be the exclusive remedy for federal employees. In sum, the legislative history of § 717 discloses a clear intent to provide federal employees with rights that parallel those available to employees in the private sector, no evidence of an intention to make the remedy exclusive, and the rejection of an amendment which would have so provided.

The burden of persuading us that we should interpolate such an important provision into a complex, carefully drafted statute is a heavy one. Since that burden has not been met, I would simply read the statute as Congress wrote it.

       After the petition for writ of certiorari was filed, the petitioner was laterally transferred to another Government agency. That transfer does not affect his claim for backpay or for equitable relief. The petitioner is still classified as a GS-7 and still wants the specific GS-9 position in the GSA for which he applied in 1971.

       The letter stated in part:
      “Therefore, based upon my findings, I am rendering the final agency decision on the complaint as follows:
      “That the evidence in the case does not support the complaint of racial discrimination for promotion against you, but that you should receive career and performance counseling from your immediate supervisor to help you formulate plans to receive appropriate training and to correct your deficiencies as noted by management.
      “If this decision does not meet with your satisfaction, you may file an appeal in writing, either in person or by mail, with the Board of Appeals and Review, U. S. Civil Service Commission, Washington, DC 20415. The Board's decision is the final administrative appeal. This appeal must be filed within 15 calendar days of receipt of this letter.
      “If you choose to appeal to the Board of Appeals and Review, you retain the right to file a civil action in Federal district court within 30 calendar days after receipt of the Board’s final decision on your appeal. You also have the right to file a civil action in Federal district court within 30 calendar days of receipt of this letter or 180 days after filing an appeal with the Board of Appeals and Review if no decision has been made.”

       Brown later moved for leave to amend his complaint to allege additional grounds of jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. § 1343 (4) and the Tucker Act, 28 U. S. C. §§ 1346 (a) and (b), and to allege that more than $10,000 was in controversy. The District Court denied the motion, and the Court of Appeals did not review that order of denial.

       The parties have apparently acquiesced in this holding by the Court of Appeals, and we have no occasion to disturb it.

       S. Rep. No. 92-415, p. 14 (1971).

         Ibid.; see H. R. Rep. No. 92-238, p. 24 (1971).

       See, e. g., Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U. S. 497 (1954); Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U. S. 579 (1952).

       By parity of reasoning, sovereign immunity would, of course, also bar claims against federal agencies for damages and promotion brought under the Civil Rights Act of 1866, as amended, 42 R. S. C. § 1981, and under the general federal-question jurisdictional grant of 28 U. S. C. § 1331.

       But see DeLong v. Hampton, 422 F. 2d 21 (CA3 1970) (jurisdiction in district court to review determination by the Civil Service Commission that plaintiff was properly dismissed).

       The petitioner maintains that in 1972, despite adverse court decisions, 42 U. S. C. § 1981; the Mandamus Act, 28 U. S. C. § 1361 ; the Tucker Act, 28 U. S. C. § 1346; 28 U. S. C. § 1331 (general federal-question jurisdiction); and the Administrative Procedure Act,
        5 U. S. C. § 702, all conferred jurisdiction on the federal courts in federal employment discrimination cases.

       Title 42 U. S. C. §2000e-16 (1970 ed., Supp. IV) reads in full:
      “(a) Discriminatory practices prohibited; employees or applicants for employment subject to coverage.
      “All personnel actions affecting employees or applicants for employment (except with regard to aliens employed outside the limits of the United States) in military departments as defined in section 102 of Title 5, in executive agencies (other than the General Accounting Office) as defined in section 105 of Title 5 (including employees and applicants for employment who are paid from non-appropriated funds), in the United States Postal Service and the Postal Rate Commission, in those units of the Government of the District of Columbia having positions in the competitive service, and in those units of the legislative and judicial branches of the Federal Government having positions in the competitive service, and in the Library of Congress shall be made free from any discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
      “(b) Civil Service Commission; enforcement powers; issuance of rules, regulations, etc.; annual review and approval of national and regional equal employment opportunity plans; review and evaluation of equal employment opportunity programs and publication of progress reports; consultations with interested parties; compliance with rules, regulations, etc.; contents of national and regional equal employment opportunity plans; authority of Librarian of Congress.
      “Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, the Civil Service Commission shall have authority to enforce the provisions of subsection (a) of this section through appropriate remedies, including reinstatement or hiring of employees with or without back pay, as will effectuate the policies of this section, and shall issue such rules, regulations, orders and instructions as it deems necessary and appropriate to carry out its responsibilities under this section. The Civil Service Commission shall—
      “(1) be responsible for the annual review and approval of a national and regional equal employment opportunity plan which each department and agency and each appropriate unit referred to in subsection (a) of this section shall submit in order to maintain an affirmative program of equal employment opportunity for all such employees and applicants for employment;
      “(2) be responsible for the review and evaluation of the operation of all agency equal employment opportunity programs, periodically obtaining and publishing (on at least a semiannual basis) progress reports from each such department, agency, or unit; and
      “(3) consult with and solicit the recommendations of interested individuals, groups, and organizations relating to equal employment opportunity.
      “The head of each such department, agency, or unit shall comply with such rules, regulations, orders, and instructions which shall include a provision that an employee or applicant for employment shall be notified of any final action taken on any complaint of discrimination filed by him thereunder. The plan submitted by each department, agency, and unit shall include, but not be limited to—
      “(1) provision for the establishment of training and education programs designed to provide a maximum opportunity for employees to advance so as to perform at their highest potential; and
      “(2) a description of the qualifications in terms of training and experience relating to equal employment opportunity for the principal and operating officials of each such department, agency, or unit responsible for carrying out the equal employment opportunity program and of the allocation of personnel and resources proposed by such department, agency, or unit to carry out its equal employment opportunity program.
      “With respect to employment in the Library of Congress, authorities granted in this subsection to the Civil Service Commission shall be exercised by the Librarian of Congress.
      “(c) Civil action by employee or applicant for employment for redress of grievances; time for bringing of action; head of department, agency, or unit as defendant.
      “Within thirty days of receipt of notice of final action taken by a department, agency, or unit referred to in subsection (a) of this section, or by the Civil Service Commission upon an appeal from a decision or order of such department, agency, or unit on a complaint of discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin, brought pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, Executive Order 11478 or any succeeding Executive orders, or after one hundred and eighty days from the filing of the initial charge with the department, agency, or unit or with the Civil Service Commission on appeal from a decision or order of such department, agency, or unit until such time as final action may be taken by a department, agency, or unit, an employee or applicant for employment, if aggrieved by the final disposition of his complaint, or by the failure to take final action on his complaint, may file a civil action as provided in section 2000e-5 of this title, in which civil action the head of the department, agency, or unit, as appropriate, shall be the. defendant.
      “(d) Section 2000e-5 (f) through (k) of this title applicable to civil actions.
      “The provisions of section 2000e-5 (f) through (k) of this title, as applicable, shall govern civil actions brought hereunder.
      “(e) Government agency or official not relieved of responsibility to assure nondiscrimination in employment or equal employment opportunity.
      “Nothing contained in this Act shall relieve any Government agency or official of its or his primary responsibility to assure nondiscrimination in employment as required by the Constitution and statutes or of its or his responsibilities under Executive Order 11478 relating to equal employment opportunity in the Federal Government.”

       See n. 10, supra.

        Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U. S. 36, and Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, 421 U. S. 454, were not decided until 1974 and 1975 respectively.

       "In 1972 Congress extended the protection of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 253, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 2000e et seq. (1970 ed. and Supp. IV), to employees of the Federal Government. A principal goal of the amending legislation, the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972, Pub. L. 92-261, 86 Stat. 103, was to eradicate ' “entrenched discrimination in the Federal service,” ’ Morton v. Mancari, 417 U. S. 535, 547, by strengthening internal safeguards and by according ‘[a]ggrieved [federal] employees or applicants . . . the full rights available in the courts as are granted to individuals in the private sector under title VII.’ ” Chandler v. Roudebush, post, at 841.

       In Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., supra, at 47-49, Mr. Justice Powell for a unanimous Court stated:
      “[L]egislative enactments in this area have long evinced a general intent to accord parallel or overlapping remedies against discrimination. In the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U. S. C. § 2000a et seq., Congress indicated that it considered the policy against discrimination to be of the ‘highest priority.’ Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, [390 U. S. 400,] 402. Consistent with this view, Title VII provides for consideration of employment-discrimination claims in several forums. See 42 U. S. C. §2000e-5 (b) (1970 ed., Supp. II) (EEOC); 42 U. S. C. §2000e-5 (c) (1970 ed., Supp. II) (state and local agencies); 42 U. S. C. §2000e-5 (f) (1970 ed., Supp. II) (federal courts). And, in general, submission of a claim to one forum does not preclude a later submission to another. Moreover, the legislative history of Title VII manifests a congressional intent to allow an individual to pursue independently his rights under both Title VII and other applicable state and federal statutes. The clear inference is that Title VII was designed to supplement, rather than supplant, existing laws and institutions relating to employment discrimination.”
      In Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, supra, at 459, it was noted:
      “Despite Title VII’s range and its design as a comprehensive solution for the problem of invidious discrimination in employment, the aggrieved individual clearly is not deprived of other remedies he possesses and is not limited to Title VII in his search for relief. . . . In particular, Congress noted 'that the remedies available to the individual under Title VII are co-extensive with the indiv[i] dual’s right to sue under the provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U. S. C. § 1981, and that the two procedures augment each other and are not mutually exclusive.’ H. R. Rep. No. 92-238, p. 19 (1971). See also S. Rep. No. 92-415, p. 24 (1971). Later, in considering the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972, the Senate rejected an amendment that would have deprived a claimant of any right to sue under § 1981. 118 Cong. Rec. 3371-3373 (1972).”

         Since the Court does not question the proposition that other remedies would have been available if not foreclosed by its exclusive reading of §717, no purpose would be served by discussing the status of any alternative remedy. In view of the Court’s holding, it is equally pointless to discuss the respondents’ contention that the action is barred by petitioner’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies. In this connection, however, the discussion in Johnson, swpra, at 461, is instructive.

       The minority of the Committee in stating its views on H. R. 1746 in the final Committee report included the following paragraph:
      “Failure to Make Title VII an Exclusive Federal Remedy. Despite the enactment of title VII of the Civil Rights Act, charges of discriminatory employment conditions may still be brought under prior existing federal statutes such as the National Labor Relations Act and the Civil Rights Act of 1866. In view of the comprehensive prohibitions against discrimination contained in title VII, and the intent of the Committee bill to consolidate procedures and remedies under one agency, it would be consistent to make title VII the exclusive remedy. No public interest is served in continuing to permit a multiplicity of statutes or forums to deal with discrimination in employment. However, our attempt to amend the Committee bill to make title VII an exclusive remedy (except for pattern or practice suits) was rejected. In our view, the failure to make this an exclusive remedy merely encourages an individual who has lost his case in one forum under one statute to relitigate his case in still another forum under another federal statute.” H. R. Rep. No. 92-238, p. 66 (1971).

       To the extent that multiple remedies may impose an undesirable burden on employers, it seems to me that the problem is most apt to be redressed in an impartial manner by assuming that Congress intended to subject — and will continue to subject — public and private employers to similar rules.