author: Justice Marshall Justice O’Connor Justice Stevens,

text:
    EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION v. COMMERCIAL OFFICE PRODUCTS CO.
    No. 86-1696.
    Argued January 13, 1988
    Decided May 16, 1988

      MARSHALL, J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II-A, and III, in which BREN-nan, White, Blacrmun, and O’CONNOR, JJ., joined, and an opinion with respect to Parts II-B and II-C, in which BRENNAN, White, and Black-mun, JJ., joined. O’Connor, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, post, p. 125. Stevens, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and Scalia, J., joined, post, p. 126. Kennedy, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

      Richard J. Lazarus argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Solicitor General Fried, Deputy Solicitor General Ayer, Charles A. Shanor, Gwendolyn Young Reams, Vella M. Fink, and Donna J. Brusoski.

      James L. Stone argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Brent T. Johnson.

      A brief of amici curiae urging reversal was filed for the State of Colorado et al. by Duane Woodard, Attorney General of Colorado, Charles B. Howe, Deputy Attorney General, Richard-H. Forman, Solicitor General, Mary Ann F. Whiteside, First Assistant Attorney General, Joseph I. Lieberman, Attorney General of Connecticut, Frederick D. Cooke, Jr., Acting Corporation Counsel of the District of Columbia, William L. Webster, Attorney General of Missouri, W. Cary Edwards, Attorney General of New Jersey, Robert Abrams, Attorney General of New York, Jim Mat-tox, Attorney General of Texas, Donald J. Hanaway, Attorney General of Wisconsin, and Joseph B. Meyer, Attorney General of Wyoming.

        Robert E. Williams, Douglas S. McDowell, and Jeffrey A. Norris filed a brief for the Equal Employment Advisory Council as amicus curiae.

   Justice Marshall

announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II-A, and III, and an opinion with respect to Parts II-B and II-C, in which Justice Brennan, Justice White, and Justice Blackmun joined.

This case raises two questions regarding the time limits for filing charges of employment discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 253, 42 U. S. C. § 2000e et seq. The primary question presented is whether a state agency’s decision to waive its exclusive 60-day period for initial processing of a discrimination charge, pursuant to a worksharing agreement with the EEOC, “terminates” the agency’s proceedings within the meaning of § 706(c) of Title VII, 78 Stat. 260, as amended in 1972, 86 Stat. 104, 42 U. S. C. §2000e-5(c), so that the EEOC immediately may deem the charge filed. In addition, we must decide whether a complainant who files a discrimination charge that is untimely under state law is nonetheless entitled to the extended 300-day federal filing period of § 706(e) of Title VII, 78 Stat. 260, as amended in 1972, 86 Stat. 105, 42 U. S. C. §2000e-5(e).

I

The time limit provisions of Title VII as interpreted by this Court establish the following procedures for filing discrimination charges with the EEOC. As a general rule, a complainant must file a discrimination charge with the EEOC within 180 days of the occurrence of the alleged unlawful employment practice. § 706(e), 42 U. S. C. §2000e-5(e). If a complainant initially institutes proceedings with a state or local agency with authority to grant or seek relief from the practice charged, the time limit for filing with the EEOC is extended to 300 days. Ibid.

In order to give States and localities an opportunity to combat discrimination free from premature federal intervention, the Act provides that no charge may be filed with the EEOC until 60 days have elapsed from initial filing of the charge with an authorized state or local agency, unless that agency’s proceedings “have been earlier terminated.” § 706(c), 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-5(c). The EEOC’s referral of a charge initially filed with the EEOC to the appropriate state or local agency properly institutes the agency’s proceedings within the meaning of the Act, and the EEOC may hold the charge in “‘suspended animation’” during the agency’s 60-day period of exclusive jurisdiction. Love v. Pullman Co., 404 U. S. 522, 525-526 (1972). In light of the 60-day deferral period, a complainant must file a charge with the appropriate state or local agency, or have the EEOC refer the charge to that agency, within 240 days of the alleged discriminatory event in order to ensure that it may be filed with the EEOC within the BOO-day limit. See Mohasco Corp. v. Silver, 447 U. S. 807, 814, n. 16 (1980). If the complainant does not file within 240 days, the charge still may be timely filed with the EEOC if the state or local agency terminates its proceedings before 300 days. See ibid.

The central question in this case is whether a state agency’s waiver of the 60-day deferral period, pursuant to a work-sharing agreement with the EEOC, constitutes a “termination” of its proceedings so as to permit the EEOC to deem a charge filed and to begin to process it immediately. This question is of substantial importance because the EEOC has used its statutory authority to enter into worksharing agreements with approximately three-quarters of the 109 state and local agencies authorized to enforce state and local employment discrimination laws. See § 709(b), 86 Stat. 107-108, 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-8(b) (authorizing the EEOC to “enter into written agreements” with state and local agencies to promote “effective enforcement” of the Act); Brief for Petitioner 4 (EEOC has entered into worksharing agreements with approximately 81 of 109 authorized state and local agencies).

These worksharing agreements typically provide that the state or local agency will process certain categories of charges and that the EEOC will process others, with the state or local agency waiving the 60-day deferral period in the latter instance. See, e. g., Worksharing Agreement between Colorado Civil Rights Division and EEOC, App. to Pet. for Cert. 48a-49a. In either instance, the nonprocessing party to the worksharing agreement generally reserves the right to review the initial processing party’s resolution of the charge and to investigate the charge further after the initial processing party has completed its proceedings. See, e. g., id., at 47a. Whether a waiver of the 60-day deferral period pursuant to a worksharing agreement constitutes a “termination” of a state or local agency’s proceedings will determine not only when the EEOC may initiate its proceedings, but also whether an entire class of charges may be timely filed with the EEOC in the first instance.

The facts of the instant case concretely reflect what is at stake. On March 26, 1984, Suanne Leerssen filed a charge of discrimination with petitioner EEOC. She alleged that 290 days earlier, respondent Commercial Office Products Company had discharged her because of her sex in violation of Title VII. On March 30, the EEOC sent a copy of Leers-sen’s charge and a charge transmittal form to the Colorado Civil Rights Division (CCRD), which is authorized by the State to process charges of employment discrimination. The form stated that the EEOC would initially process the charge, pursuant to the worksharing agreement between the EEOC and the CCRD.

The CCRD returned the transmittal form to the EEOC, indicating on the form that the CCRD waived its right under Title VII to initially process the charge. On April 4, the CCRD sent a form letter to Leerssen explaining that it had waived its right to initial processing but stating that it still retained jurisdiction to act on the charge after the conclusion of the EEOC’s proceedings. If the CCRD’s waiver “terminated” its proceedings, then Leerssen’s charge was filed with the EEOC just under the 300-day limit. If the waiver was not a “termination,” however, then the charge was not timely filed with the EEOC because the 60-day deferral period did not expire until well after the 300-day limit.

The timeliness issue was raised in this case when the EEOC issued an administrative subpoena for information relevant to Leerssen’s charge. Respondent refused to comply with the subpoena, maintaining that the EEOC lacked jurisdiction to investigate the charge because it was not timely filed. The EEOC commenced an action in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado seeking judicial enforcement of the subpoena. The District Court agreed with respondent and dismissed the EEOC’s enforcement action, holding that the EEOC lacked jurisdiction over Leerssen’s charge because it was not timely filed. See Civil Action No. 85-K-1385 (June 6, 1985), App. to Pet. for Cert. 23a.

The Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed. 803 F. 2d 581 (1986). As a threshold matter, the Court of Appeals rejected respondent’s contention that the extended 300-day federal filing period was inapplicable because Leerssen had failed to file her charge with the CCRD within the State’s own 180-day limitations period. Id., at 585-586, and n. 3. The Court of Appeals agreed with the District Court, however, that Leerssen’s charge was not filed within the 300-day period and that the EEOC therefore lacked jurisdiction over the charge. The Court of Appeals reasoned that a state agency “terminates” its proceedings within the meaning of § 706(c) only when it “completely surrenders its jurisdiction over a charge.” Id., at 587. Because the CCRD retained jurisdiction over Leerssen’s charge, reserving the right to act at the conclusion of the EEOC’s proceedings, it did not “finally and unequivocally terminate its authority” over the charge as the plain language of the statute required. Id., at 590. The Court of Appeals expressly disagreed with the decision of the First Circuit in Isaac v. Harvard University, 769 F. 2d 817 (1985). The First Circuit had upheld the EEOC’s view that a waiver of the right to initially process a charge constitutes a “termination,” reasoning that the language of the Act is ambiguous and that the history and purposes of the Act support the EEOC’s construction. Judge McKay dissented from the opinion of the Court of Appeals in this case, arguing that the EEOC should prevail for the reasons offered by the First Circuit.

We granted certiorari to resolve the conflict between the First and the Tenth Circuits, 482 U. S. 926 (1987), and we now reverse.

II

A

First and foremost, respondent defends the judgment of the Court of Appeals on the ground that the language of the statute unambiguously precludes the conclusion that the CCRD’s waiver of the deferral period “terminated” its proceedings. According to respondent, “terminated” means only “‘completed’” or “‘ended.’” Brief for Respondent 14. Respondent urges that this definition is met only when a state agency, in the words of the Court of Appeals, “completely relinquish[es] its authority to act on the charge at that point or in the future” 803 F. 2d, at 589, n. 13 (emphasis in original). Because the CCRD retained authority to reactivate its proceedings after the EEOC’s resolution of the charge, respondent maintains that the CCRD did not “terminate” its proceedings within the meaning of the Act.

We cannot agree with respondent and the Court of Appeals that “terminate” must mean “to end for all time.” Rather, we find persuasive the determination of the First Circuit that the definition of “termination” also includes “cessation in time.” The First Circuit noted that this -definition is included in both Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 2359 (1976) (definition of “terminate”) and Black’s Law Dictionary 1319 (5th ed. 1979) (definition of “termination”). See Isaac, 769 F. 2d, at 820, 821, n. 5. Moreover, the First Circuit correctly observed that common usage of the words “terminate,” “complete,” or “end” often includes a time element, as in “ending negotiations despite the likely inevitability of their resumption” or “terminating work on the job-site knowing that it will resume the next day.” Id., at 821. These observations support the EEOC’s contention that a state agency “terminates” its proceedings when it declares that it will not proceed, if it does so at all, for a specified interval of time.

To be sure, “terminate” also may bear the meaning proposed by respondent. Indeed, it may bear that meaning more naturally or more frequently in common usage. But it is axiomatic that the EEOC’s interpretation of Title VII, for which it has primary enforcement responsibility, need not be the best one by grammatical or any other standards. Rather, the EEOC’s interpretation of ambiguous language need only be reasonable to be entitled to deference. See Oscar Mayer & Co. v. Evans, 441 U. S. 750, 761 (1979). The reasonableness of the EEOC’s interpretation of “terminate” in its statutory context is more than amply supported by the legislative history of the deferral provisions of Title VII, the purposes of those provisions, and the language of other sections of the Act, as described in detail below. Deference is therefore appropriate.

B

The legislative history of the deferral provisions of Title VII demonstrates that the EEOC’s interpretation of § 706(c) is far more consistent with the purposes of the Act than respondent’s contrary construction.

The deferral provisions of §706 were enacted as part of a compromise forged during the course of one of the longest filibusters in the Senate’s history. The bill that had passed the House provided for “deferral” to state and local enforcement efforts only in the sense that it directed the EEOC to enter into agreements with state agencies providing for the suspension of federal enforcement in certain circumstances. See H. R. 7152, 88th Cong., 2d Sess., §708, 110 Cong. Rec. 2511-2512 (1964). The House bill further directed the EEOC to rescind any agreement with a state agency if the EEOC determined that the agency was no longer effectively exercising its power to combat discrimination. See ibid. In the Senate, this bill met with strenuous opposition on the ground that it placed the EEOC in the position of monitoring state enforcement efforts, granting States exclusive jurisdiction over local discrimination claims only upon the EEOC’s determination that state efforts were effective. See, e. g., id., at 6449 (remarks of Sen. Dirksen). The bill’s opponents voiced their concerns against the backdrop of the federal-state civil rights conflicts of the early 1960’s, which no doubt intensified their fear of “the steady and deeper intrusion of the Federal power.” See id., at 8193 (remarks of Sen. Dirksen). These concerns were resolved by the “Dirksen-Mansfield substitute,” which proposed the 60-day deferral period now in § 706(c) of the Act. See 110 Cong. Rec., at 11926-11935.

The proponents of the Dirksen-Mansfield substitute identified two goals of the deferral provisions, both of which fully support the EEOC’s conclusion that States may, if they choose, waive the 60-day deferral period but retain jurisdiction over discrimination charges by entering into work-sharing agreements with the EEOC. First, the proponents of the substitute deferral provisions explained that the 60-day deferral period was meant to give States a “reasonable opportunity to act under State law before the commencement of any Federal proceedings.” Id., at 12708 (remarks of Sen. Humphrey). Nothing in the waiver provisions of the worksharing agreements impinges on the opportunity of the States to have an exclusive 60-day period for processing a discrimination charge. The waiver of that opportunity in specified instances is a voluntary choice made through individually negotiated agreements, not an imposition by the Federal Government. Indeed, eight worksharing States and the District of Columbia filed a brief as amici in this case, explaining their satisfaction with the operation of the waiver provisions of the worksharing agreements: “By clarifying primary responsibility for different categories of charges, work-sharing agreements benefit both the EEOC and the states.” Brief for Colorado et al. as Amici Curiae 5. Moreover, most worksharing agreements are flexible, permitting States to express interest in cases ordinarily waived under the agreement and to call upon the EEOC to refrain from assuming jurisdiction in such cases. See, e. g., Worksharing Agreement Between CCRD and EEOC, App. to Pet. for Cert. 49a.

In contrast, respondent’s argument that States should not be permitted to waive the deferral period because its creation reflected a congressional preference for state as opposed to federal enforcement is entirely at odds with the voluntarism stressed by the proponents of deferral. Congress clearly foresaw the possibility that States might decline to take advantage of the opportunity for enforcement afforded them by the deferral provisions. It therefore gave the EEOC the authority and responsibility to act when a State is “unable or unwilling” to provide relief. 110 Cong. Rec. 12725 (1964) (remarks of Sen. Humphrey). This Court, too, has recognized that Congress envisioned federal intervention when “States decline, for whatever reason, to take advantage of [their] opportunities” to settle grievances in “a voluntary and localized manner.” Oscar Mayer & Co. v. Evans, 441 U. S., at 761. As counsel for the EEOC explained, deferral was meant to work as “a carrot, but not a stick,” affording States an opportunity to act, but not penalizing their failure to do so other than by authorizing federal intervention. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 11. The waiver provisions of worksharing agreements are fully consistent with this goal.

In addition to providing States with an opportunity to forestall federal intervention, the deferral provisions were meant to promote “time economy and the expeditious handling of cases.” 110 Cong. Rec. 9790 (1964) (remarks of Sen. Dirksen). Respondent’s proposed interpretation of § 706(c), adopted by the Court of Appeals, is irreconcilable with this purpose because it would result in extraordinary inefficiency without furthering any other goal of the Act. The EEOC would be required to wait 60 days before processing its share of discrimination claims under a worksharing agreement, even though both the EEOC and the relevant state or local agency agree that the State or locality will take no action during that period. Or, in an effort to avoid this pointless 60-day delay, state and local agencies could abandon their work-sharing agreements with the EEOC and attempt to initially process all charges during the 60-day deferral period, a solution suggested by respondent. See Brief for Respondent 29-30. Such a solution would create an enormous backlog of discrimination charges in States and localities, preventing them from securing for their citizens the quick attention to discrimination claims afforded under worksharing agreements. Or, in another scenario proposed by respondent, see id., at 29, n. 29, state or local agencies could rewrite their worksharing agreements with the EEOC to provide for “termination” of state or local proceedings in accordance with respondent’s definition of that term — complete relinquishment of jurisdiction. This solution would prevent a pointless 60-day delay, but it would also preclude a State’s reactivation of a discrimination charge upon the conclusion of federal proceedings. Requiring that States completely relinquish authority over claims in order to avoid needless delay turns on its head the dual purposes of the deferral provisions: deference to the States and efficient processing of claims. As the amici States observe, such a requirement “frustrates the congressional intent to ensure state and local agencies the opportunity to employ their expertise to resolve discrimination complaints.” Brief for Colorado et al. as Amici Curiae 1..

The most dramatic result of respondent’s reading of the deferral provisions is the preclusion of any federal relief for an entire class of discrimination claims. All claims filed with the EEOC in worksharing States more than 240 but less than 300 days after the alleged discriminatory event, like Leers-sen’s claim in this case, will be rendered untimely because the 60-day deferral period will not expire within the 300-day filing limit. Respondent’s interpretation thus requires the 60-day deferral period — which was passed on behalf of state and local agencies — to render untimely a claim filed within the federal 300-day limit, despite the joint efforts of the EEOC and the state or local agency to avoid that result. As petitioner epigrammatically observes, a claim like Leerssen’s that is filed with the EEOC within the last 60 days of the federal filing period is “too early until it is too late.” Brief for Petitioner 25. This severe consequence, in conjunction with the pointless delay described above, demonstrates that respondent’s interpretation of the language of § 706(c) leads to “absurd or futile results . . . ‘plainly at variance with the policy of the legislation as a whole,”’ which this Court need not and should not countenance. United States v. American Trucking Assns., Inc., 310 U. S. 534, 543 (1940), quoting Ozawa v. United States, 260 U. S. 178, 194 (1922).

C

The EEOC’s construction of § 706(c) also finds support in other, related sections of Title VII. These sections reinforce our reading of the legislative history that the 1964 Congress did not intend to preclude the operation of the waiver provisions of the worksharing agreements now widely in force.

Section 706(d) provides that when a member of the EEOC, rather than an individual complainant, files a discrimination charge in a State or locality with concurrent jurisdiction, “the Commission shall, before taking any action with respect to such charge, notify the appropriate State or local officials and, upon request, afford them a reasonable time, but not less than sixty days . . . unless a shorter period is requested, to act.” 42 U. S. C. §2000e-5(d) (emphasis added). This language clearly permits state and local agencies to waive the 60-day deferral period and thus authorize the EEOC to take immediate action in cases arising under § 706(d). There is every reason to believe that Congress intended the same result in § 706(c), notwithstanding the variance in language. The legislative history of the deferral provisions reflects the legislators’ understanding that the time limits of §§ 706(c) and (d) were the same. See, e. g., 110 Cong. Rec. 12690 (1964) (remarks of Sen. Saltonstall); id., at 15896 (remarks of Rep. Celler). Moreover, this Court already has recognized in Love v. Pullman Co., 404 U. S., at 526-527, n. 6, that “the difference in wording between [the two sections] seems to be only a reflection of the different persons who initiate the charge.” We concluded in Love that “[t]here is no reason to think” that Congress meant to permit the EEOC to hold a claim in abeyance during the deferral period under § 706(d), but not under § 706(c) — even though the former section expressly authorizes such action, and the latter section does not. Ibid. Similarly, in the instant case, there is no reason to think that Congress meant to make the deferral period waivable by States under § 706(d) when the EEOC files a claim, but mandatory under § 706(c) when an individual files a claim.

The EEOC’s interpretation of § 706(c) also finds support in provisions of the Act calling for formal cooperation between the EEOC and state and local agencies. Section 705(g)(1) gives the EEOC the power “to cooperate with and, with their consent, utilize regional, State, local, and other agencies.” 78 Stat. 258, 42 U. S. C. §2000e-4(g)(1). Section 709(b) specifies that “[i]n furtherance of such cooperative efforts, the Commission may enter into written agreements with such State or local agencies.” 86 Stat. 108, 42 U. S. C. §2000e-8(b). These sections clearly envision the establishment of some sort of worksharing agreements between the EEOC and state and local agencies, and they in no way preclude provisions designed to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort or waste of time. Because the EEOC’s interpretation of the “termination” requirement of § 706(c) is necessary to give effect to such provisions in most of the existing worksharing agreements, we find that interpretation more consistent with the cooperative focus of the Act than respondent’s contrary construction.

I — I 1-H hH

In the alternative, respondent argues in support of the result below that the extended 300-day federal filing period is inapplicable to this case because the complainant failed to file her discrimination charge with the CCRD within Colorado’s 180-day limitations period. Respondent reasons that the extended 300-day filing period applies only when “the person aggrieved has initially instituted proceedings with a state or local agency with authority to grant or seek relief” from the practice charged, § 706(e), 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-5(e), and that in the absence of a timely filing under state law, a state agency lacks the requisite “authority to grant or seek relief.” The Tenth Circuit rejected this argument below, as has every other Circuit to consider the question, on the ground that the words “authority to grant or seek relief” refer merely to enabling legislation that establishes state or local agencies, not to state limitations requirements. We join the Circuits in concluding that state time limits for filing discrimination claims do not determine the applicable federal time limit.

Although respondent is correct that this Court’s opinion in Oscar Mayer & Co. v. Evans, 441 U. S. 750 (1979), did not decide the precise issue we address today, see Brief for Respondent 36, the reasoning of Oscar Mayer provides significant guidance. In Oscar Mayer, we found in the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) context that a complainant’s failure to file a claim within a state limitations period did not automatically render his federal claim untimely. We reasoned that the federal statute contained no express requirement of timely state filing, 441 U. S., at 759, and we declined to create such a requirement in light of the remedial purpose of the ADEA and our recognition that it is a “ ‘statutory scheme in which laymen, unassisted by trained lawyers, initiate the process.’” Id., at 761, quoting Love v. Pullman Co., supra, at 527. In the instant case, we decide the separate question whether under Title VII, untimely filing under state law automatically precludes the application of the extended 300-day federal filing period, but the reasoning of Oscar Mayer is entirely apposite. As we noted in Oscar Mayer itself, the filing provisions of the ADEA and Title VII are “virtually in haec verba,” the former having been patterned after the latter. 441 U. S., at 755. Title VII, like the ADEA, contains no express reference to timeliness under state law. In addition, the policy considerations that militate against importing such a hurdle into the federal ADEA scheme are identical in the Title VII context: Title VII also is a remedial scheme in which laypersons, rather than lawyers, are expected to initiate the process.

The importation of state limitations periods into § 706(e) not only would confuse lay complainants, but also would embroil the EEOC in complicated issues of state law. In order for the EEOC to determine the timeliness of a charge filed with it between 180 and 300 days, it first would have to determine whether the charge had been timely filed under state law, because the answer to the latter question would establish which of the two federal limitations periods should apply. This state-law determination is not a simple matter. The EEOC first would have to determine whether a state limitations period was jurisdictional or nonjurisdictional. And if the limitations period was nonjurisdictional, like Colorado’s in this case, the EEOC would have to decide whether it was waived or equitably tolled. The EEOC has neither the time nor the expertise to make such determinations under the varying laws of the many deferral States and has accordingly construed the extended 300-day period to be available regardless of the state filing. See 52 Fed. Reg. 10224 (1987). In contrast to the difficulties presented by respondent’s argument, our broadly worded statement in Mohasco Corp. v. Silver, 447 U. S. 807 (1980), a case presenting a related issue regarding the application of the extended 300-day federal filing period, that a complainant “need only file his charge within 240 days of the alleged discriminatory employment practice in order to ensure that his federal rights will be preserved,” id,., at 814, n. 16, establishes a rule that is both easily understood by complainants and easily administered by the EEOC. We reaffirm that rule today.

Because we find that the extended 300-day federal limitations period is applicable to this case and that the CCRD’s waiver of the 60-day deferral period “terminated” its proceedings within that 300-day limit, we conclude that Leers-sen’s claim was timely filed under Title VII. We therefore reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

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

Justice O’Connor

concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.

I join Parts I and III of the Court’s opinion. I also join Part II-A, in which the Court correctly concludes that in light of the statute’s language, structure, and legislative history, sufficient ambiguity exists to warrant deference to the agency’s construction of the word “terminated” in § 706(c). Indeed, deference is particularly appropriate on this type of technical issue of agency procedure. But while I agree with much of what the majority says in Parts II-B and II-C in indicating that the agency’s construction is reasonable, in my view the majority goes too far by suggesting that the agency’s position is the only one permissible. For example, the majority labels the respondent’s position “absurd,” ante, at 120, which of course implies that we would refuse to countenance an agency decision to adopt such an approach. See, e. g., NLRB v. Food and Commercial Workers, 484 U. S. 112, 123 (1987) (agency given deference only “as long as its interpretation is rational and consistent with the statute”); Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837, 844 (1984) (agency regulations given deference “unless they are arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary to the statute”). Any such implication is incorrect. As the dissent concisely points out, post at 126, and n. 1, the agency could quite reasonably conclude that the statutory language warrants giving the word “terminated” what the Court recognizes is its more natural reading, ante, at 115.

In short, I believe the result in this case is correct solely due to the traditional deference accorded the EEOC in interpretation of this statute. Because Parts II-B and II-C could be read to go beyond this view, I join only Parts I, II-A, and III of the Court’s opinion and in the judgment.

Justice Stevens,

with whom The Chief Justice and Justice Scalia join, dissenting.

In my opinion the Court’s decision is not faithful to the plain language of the statute, to the legislative compromise that made it possible to enact the Civil Rights Act of 1964, or to our prior interpretation of the very provision the Court construes today. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.

       Section 706(e) provides:
      “A charge under this section shall be filed within one hundred and eighty days after the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred and notice of the charge (including the date, place and circumstances of the alleged unlawful employment practice) shall be served upon the person against whom such charge is made within ten days thereafter, except that in a case of an unlawful employment practice with respect to which the person aggrieved has initially instituted proceedings with a State or local agency with authority to grant or seek relief from such practice or to institute criminal proceedings with respect thereto upon receiving notice thereof, such charge shall be filed by or on behalf of the person aggrieved within three hundred days after the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred, or within thirty days after receiving notice that the State or local agency has terminated the proceedings under the State or local law, whichever is earlier, and a copy of such charge shall be filed by the Commission with the State or local agency.” 86 Stat. 106, 42 U. S. C. §2000e-5(e).

       Section 706(c) provides:
      “In the case of an alleged unlawful employment practice occurring in a State, or political subdivision of a State, which has a State or local law prohibiting the unlawful employment practice alleged and establishing or authorizing a State or local authority to grant or seek relief from such practice or to institute criminal proceedings with respect thereto upon receiving notice thereof, no charge may be filed under [subsection (b)] of this section by the person aggrieved before the expiration of sixty days after proceedings have been commenced under the State or local law, unless such proceedings have been earlier terminated, provided that such sixty-day period shall be extended to one hundred and twenty days during the first year after the effective date of such State or local law. If any requirement for the commencement of such proceedings is imposed by a State or local authority other than a requirement of the filing of a written and signed statement of the facts upon which the proceeding is based, the proceeding shall be deemed to have been commenced for the purposes of this subsection at the time such statement is sent by registered mail to the appropriate State or local authority.” 86 Stat. 104, 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-5(e).

       This point was made by other Senators and has been emphasized by this Court in our previous Title VII eases. See, e. g., 110 Cong. Rec. 12688 (1964) (remarks of Sen. Saltonstall) (deferral provisions preserve “the opportunity and authority of the State and local governments to work out their own problems if they are willing to do so”); id., at 14313 (remarks of Sen. Miller) (deferral provisions “giv[e] the States the opportunity to carry out their responsibilities first”); Mohasco Corp. v. Silver, 447 U. S. 807, 821 (1980) (deferral provisions “give state agencies an opportunity to redress the evil at which the federal legislation was aimed, and to avoid federal intervention unless its need was demonstrated”); Oscar Mayer & Co. v. Evans, 441 U. S. 750, 755 (1979) (deferral provisions “give state agencies a limited opportunity to resolve problems of employment discrimination and thereby to make unnecessary, resort to federal relief by victims of the discrimination”); Love v. Pullman Co., 404 U. S. 522, 526 (1972) (deferral provisions “give state agencies a prior opportunity to consider discrimination complaints”).

       Respondent’s contrary contention that the compromise provisions represented Congress’ choice of deferral over efficiency, see Brief for Respondent 24, finds no support in the comments of Senator Dirksen, the chief architect of the compromise. His remarks make clear that he believed the compromise would promote efficiency while respecting state prerogatives. See, e. g., 110 Cong. Rec. 8193 (1964) (deferral provisions will “assure individual complainants that they will have fair and expeditious consideration of their grievances”).

       Reactivation of state proceedings after the conclusion of federal proceedings serves the useful function of permitting States to enforce their discrimination laws when these laws are more protective than Title VII. For example, Title VII does not give the EEOC jurisdiction to enforce the Act against employers of fewer than 15 employees or against bona fide private membersliip clubs. § 701(b), 42 U. S. C. § 2000e(b). Each year, the CCRD reactivates four to five charges in which the EEOC has determined after investigation that it lacks jurisdiction. Brief for Colorado et al. as Amici Curiae 7.

       All of the worksharing States, with the possible exception of Oklahoma and Tennessee, retain jurisdiction over a charge when they waive the 60-day deferral period. Brief for Petitioner 27, n. 24. Hence, none of these States “terminates” its proceedings by its waiver under respondent’s interpretation of that term.

       See Gilardi v. Schroeder, 833 F. 2d 1226, 1230-1231 (CA7 1987); Mennor v. Fort Hood National Bank, 829 F. 2d 553, 556 (CA5 1987); Maurya v. Peabody Coal Co., 823 F. 2d 933, 935 (CA6 1987), cert. denied, 484 U. S. 1067 (1988); EEOC v. Shamrock Optical Co., 788 F. 2d 491, 493-494 (CA8 1986); Thomas v. Florida Power & Light Co., 764 F. 2d 768, 771 (CA11 1985); Howze v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. 750 F. 2d 1208, 1211 (CA3 1984).

       In a deferral State, §706(c) of Title VII, 86 Stat. 104, 42 U. S. C. §2000e-5(c), provides that “no charge may be filed . . . before the expiration of sixty days after proceedings have been commenced under the State or local lavt, unless such proceedings have been earlier terminated.” (Emphasis added.) The Court reasons that as used in § 706(c) “termination” might medn a temporary “cessation in time” and thus is sufficiently ambiguous to require deference to the EEOC’s interpretation. Ante, at 115— 116. I doubt that Congress chose the word “terminated” to convey something other than absolute finality, which the majority recognizes is the meaning the word bears “more naturally or more frequently in common usage.” Ante, at 115. The context in which the word “terminate” is used may inform the reader that the termination being referred to is an ending at or for a particular time. This is true of the examples given by the majority. See ibid. In the phrase “terminating work on the job-site knowing that it will resume the next day,” it is the words used after the word “terminating” that convey the promise of future events, not the word “terminating” itself. The context in which “terminate” is used in § 706(c), however, negates the possibility that future activity by the State was contemplated, because Congress provided that state proceedings must have been earlier terminated.
      The majority seeks to construe the statute in a manner that preserves an opportunity for a State to reactivate its proceedings upon the conclusion of federal proceedings. Although such an advantage may be prudent, it is not conferred by the statute, and the failure to afford it does not “tur[n] on its head” the purposes of the statute. See ante, at 120. That the statute operates to prevent concurrent jurisdiction over claims filed over 240 days after the prohibited practice occurred does not frustrate congressional intent to protect state enforcement efforts. What is being denied is not state, but federal intervention.

       See Mohasco Corp. v. Silver, 447 U. S. 807, 819-822 (1980). Although it is perfectly clear that nothing in the legislative history contains any suggestion that complainants in deferral States were to be allowed to proceed with less diligence than those in nondeferral States (who must file within 180 days), the Court assumes that the entire class of claims filed after 240 days is entitled to specially favored treatment. See ante, at 120-121; Moore v. Sunbeam Corp., 459 F. 2d 811, 822-826, 829-830 (CA7 1972).

       In Mohasco, supra, at 821, we stated:
      “Congress chose to prohibit the filing of any federal charge until after state proceedings had been completed or until 60 days had passed, whichever came sooner.”


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: Justice Stevens Justice Marshall,

license: Public Domain

text:
    McLAUGHLIN, SECRETARY OF LABOR v. RICHLAND SHOE CO.
    No. 86-1520.
    Argued February 24, 1988
    Decided May 16, 1988

      Stevens J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and White, O’ConnoR, Scalia, and Kennedy, JJ., joined. MARSHALL, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which BRENNAN and Blackmun, JJ., joined, post, p. 135.

      Deputy Solicitor General Ayer argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Solicitor General Fried, Richard G. Taranto, George R. Salem, Allen H. Feldman, and Mary-Helen Mautner.

      Leon Ehrlich argued the cause and filed a brief for respondent.

        Robert E. Williams, Douglas S. McDowell, and Garen E. Dodge filed a brief for the Equal Employment Advisory Council as amicus curiae urging affirmance.

   Justice Stevens

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The question presented concerns the meaning of the word “willful” as used in the statute of limitations applicable to civil actions to enforce the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The statute provides that such actions must be commenced within two years “except that a cause of action arising out of a willful violation may be commenced within three years after the cause of action accrued.” 61 Stat. 88, 29 U. S. C. § 255(a).

I

Respondent, a manufacturer of shoes and boots, employed seven mechanics to maintain and repair its equipment. In 1984, the Secretary of Labor (Secretary) filed a complaint alleging that “in many work weeks” respondent had failed to pay those employees the overtime compensation required by the FLSA. As an affirmative defense, respondent pleaded the 2-year statute of limitations. The District Court found, however, that the 3-year exception applied because respondent’s violations were willful, and entered judgment requiring respondent to pay a total of $11,084.26, plus interest, to the seven employees. Donovan v. Richland Shoe Co., 623 F. Supp. 667 (ED Pa. 1985).

In resolving the question of willfulness, the District Court followed Fifth Circuit decisions that had developed the so-called Jiffy June standard. The District Court explained:

“The Fifth Circuit has held that an action is willful when ‘there is substantial evidence in the record to support a finding that the employer knew or suspected that his actions might violate the FLSA. Stated most simply, we think the test should be: Did the employer know the FLSA was in the picture?’ Coleman v. Jiffy June Farms, Inc., 458 F. 2d 1139, 1142 (5th Cir.)[, cert. denied, 409 U. S. 948 (1972)].
“This standard requires nothing more than that the employer has an awareness of the possible application of the FLSA. Id.; Castillo v. Givens, 704 F. 2d 181, 193 (5th Cir.)[, cert. denied, 464 U. S. 850 (1983)]. ‘An employer acts willfully and subjects himself to the three year liability if he knows, or has reason to know, that his conduct is governed by the FLSA.’ Brennan v. Heard, 491 F. 2d 1, 3 (5th Cir. 1974) (emphasis in original). See also Donovan v. Sabine Irrigation Co., Inc., 695 F. 2d 190, 196 (5th Cir.)[, cert. denied, 463 U. S. 1207 (1983)].” 623 F. Supp., at 670-671.

On appeal respondent persuaded the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit “that the Jiffy June standard is wrong because it is contrary to the plain meaning of the FLSA.” Brock v. Richland Shoe Co., 799 F. 2d 80, 82 (1986). Adopting the same test that we employed in Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Thurston, 469 U. S. 111, 125-130 (1985), the Court of Appeals held that respondent had not committed a willful violation unless “it knew or showed reckless disregard for the matter of whether its conduct was prohibited by the FLSA.” 799 F. 2d, at 83 (emphasis in original). Accordingly, it vacated the District Court’s judgment and remanded the case for reconsideration under the proper standard.

The Secretary filed a petition for certiorari asking us to resolve the post -Thurston conflict among the Circuits concerning the meaning of the word “willful” in this statute. The petition noted that the statute applies not only to actions to enforce the overtime and recordkeeping provisions of the FLSA, but also to the Equal Pay Act, the Davis-Bacon Act, the Walsh-Healey Act, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). Somewhat surprisingly, the petition did not endorse the Jiffy June standard that the Secretary had relied on in the District Court and the Court of Appeals, but instead invited us to adopt an intermediate standard. We granted certiorari, 484 U. S. 813 (1987), and now affirm.

II

Because no limitations period was provided in the original 1938 enactment of the FLSA, civil actions brought thereunder were governed by state statutes of limitations. In the Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947, 61 Stat. 84, 29 U. S. C. §§216, 251-262, however, as part of its response to this Court’s expansive reading of the FLSA, Congress enacted the 2-year statute to place a limit on employers’ exposure to unanticipated contingent liabilities. As originally enacted, the 2-year limitations period drew no distinction between willful and nonwillful violations.

In 1965, the Secretary proposed a number of amendments to expand the coverage of the FLSA, including a proposal to replace the 2-year statute of limitations with a 3-year statute. The proposal was not adopted, but in 1966, for reasons that are not explained in the legislative history, Congress enacted the 3-year exception for willful violations.

The fact that Congress did not simply extend the limitations period to three years, but instead adopted a two-tiered statute of limitations, makes it obvious that Congress intended to draw a significant distinction between ordinary violations and willful violations. It is equally obvious to us that the Jiffy June standard of willfulness — a standard that merely requires that an employer knew that the FLSA “was in the picture” — virtually obliterates any distinction between willful and nonwillful violations. As we said in Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Thurston, 469 U. S., at 128, “it would be virtually impossible for an employer to show that he was unaware of the Act and its potential applicability.” Under the Jiffy June standard, the normal 2-year statute of limitations would seem to apply only to ignorant employers, surely not a state of affairs intended by Congress.

In common usage the word “willful” is considered synonymous with such words as “voluntary,” “deliberate,” and “intentional.” See Roget’s International Thesaurus §622.7, p. 479; §653.9, p. 501 (4th ed. 1977). The word “willful” is widely used in the law, and, although it has not by any means been given a perfectly consistent interpretation, it is generally understood to refer to conduct that is not merely negligent. The standard of willfulness that was adopted in Thurston — that the employer either knew or showed reckless disregard for the matter of whether its conduct was prohibited by the statute — is surely a fair reading of the plain language of the Act.

The strongest argument supporting the Jiffy June standard is that it was widely used for a number of years. The standard was not, however, consistently followed in all Circuits. In view of the fact that even the Secretary now shares our opinion that it is not supported by the plain language of the statute, we readily reject it.

We also reject the intermediate alternative espoused by the Secretary for the first time in this Court. Relying on the opinion of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Laffey v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 185 U. S. App. D. C. 322, 352-354, 567 F. 2d 429, 461-462 (1976), cert. denied, 434 U. S. 1086 (1978), she argues that we should announce a two-step standard that would deem an FLSA violation willful “if the employer, recognizing it might be covered by the FLSA, acted without a reasonable basis for believing that it was complying with the statute. ” Brief for Petitioner 41. This proposal differs from Jiffy June because it would apparently make the issue in most cases turn on whether the employer sought legal advice concerning its pay practices. It would, however, permit a finding of willfulness to be based on nothing more than negligence, or, perhaps, on a completely good-faith but incorrect assumption that a pay plan complied with the FLSA in all respects. We believe the Secretary’s new proposal, like the discredited Jiffy June standard, fails to give effect to the plain language of the statute of limitations.

Ordinary violations of the FLSA are subject to the general 2-year statute of limitations. To obtain the benefit of the 3-year exception, the Secretary must prove that the employer’s conduct was willful as that term is defined in both Thurston and this opinion.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is

Affirmed.

Justice Marshall,

with whom Justice Brennan and Justice Blackmun join, dissenting.

The Court today imports into a limitations provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) the “knowing or reckless” definition of “willful” that we previously adopted in construing a liquidated damages provision of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), 81 Stat. 602, as amended, 29 U. S. C. § 621 et seq. See Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Thurston, 469 U. S. 111 (1985). In doing so, the Court departs from our traditional contextual approach to the definition of the term “willful,” ignores significant differences between the relevant provisions of the two Acts, and fails to accommodate the remedial purpose of civil actions under the FLSA. For these reasons, I would accept the slightly more expansive definition of “willful” urged by the Secretary of Labor and adopted by the District of Columbia Circuit in Laffey v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 185 U. S. App. D. C. 322, 354-355, 567 F. 2d 429, 461-462 (1976), cert. denied, 434 U. S. 1086 (1978). Under this latter standard, a violation of the FLSA is “willful” and therefore subjects an employer to a 3-year rather than a 2-year statute of limitations if the employer knew that there was an appreciable possibility that it was covered by the Act and failed to take steps reasonably calculated to resolve the doubt.

I have no quarrel with the opinion of the Court to the extent that it rejects the “in the picture” standard of willfulness elaborated in Coleman v. Jiffy June Farms, Inc., 458 F. 2d 1139, 1142 (CA5 1971), cert. denied, 409 U. S. 948 (1972). As the Court succinctly explains, by permitting a finding of willful violation every time an employer knew that the FLSA was “in the picture,” the Jiffy June standard “virtually obliterates any distinction between willful and nonwillful violations.” Ante, at 132-133. But the Court’s focus on the shortcomings of the Jiffy June standard is disingenuous, because neither party in the instant case urged the adoption of that standard before this Court. Rather, the dispute in this case pits the Thurston “knowing or reckless” standard, adopted by the Third Circuit in this case and urged by respondent Richland Shoe, against the Laffey standard, adopted by the D. C. Circuit in an earlier case and urged by petitioner Secretary of Labor. The Court does not address this dispute until the penultimate page of its opinion, and its reasons for embracing the former standard over the latter are not convincing.

The Court seems to rely in part on “common usage” of the word “willful” in adopting the “knowing or reckless” standard. Ante, at 133, citing Roget’s International Thesaurus § 622.7, p. 479; § 653.9, p. 501 (4th ed. 1977). The Court fails to acknowledge, however, that the dictionary includes a wide variety of definitions of “willful,” ranging from “malicious” to “not accidental,” and including precisely the intermediate definition urged by the Secretary — under which an act is willful if it is “done without ground for believing it is lawful.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1434 (5th ed. 1979); see United States v. Murdock, 290 U. S. 389, 394 (1933) (acknowledging all three possible meanings of “willful”). By refusing to recognize the various meanings that the term “willful” has come to bear in different legal settings, the Court today departs from our previous contextual approach to defining that term. In Spies v. United States, 317 U. S. 492, 497 (1943), this Court explained that “willful” is a word “of many meanings, its construction often being influenced by its context.” Since Spies, we consistently have looked to the statutory context in which the word appears in order to determine its proper meaning. See, e. g., Screws v. United States, 325 U. S. 91, 101-103 (1945); United States v. Bishop, 412 U. S. 346, 356-361 (1973). The Court’s apparent abandonment of this approach in favor of a nonexistent “plain language” definition of “willful,” ante, at 133, is unprecedented and unwise.

Had the Court properly applied the traditional contextual approach, I believe it would have adopted the willfulness standard urged by the Secretary. Such an approach would have revealed that the definition of “willful” adopted previously in the context of the ADEA in Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Thurston, supra, does not transplant easily to the context of the FLSA. In Thurston, this Court explicitly acknowledged that its choice of the “knowing or reckless” definition of “willful” was influenced by the “punitive” nature of the double damages that flow from a finding of willfulness under the ADEA. Id., at 125. In the instant case, a finding of willfulness leads not to a punitive sanction, but merely to an extended period during which an unlawfully underpaid employee may recover compensatory damages. What is at stake here is the applicability of the remedial provisions of the FLSA in the first instance. Perhaps recognizing this crucial distinction, the Court in Thurston expressly left open the possibility that the “knowing or reckless” definition of “willful” adopted for the ADEA might not be appropriate for the FLSA statute of limitations. See id,., at 127-128, and n. 21. The answer that the Court provides today may have an attractive tidiness, but it fails to recognize the contextual differences that call for different standards of willfulness in varying provisions of the two Acts. As a result, the Court has adopted a definition, of “willful” that is improperly narrow in light of its effect on the remedial scope of the FLSA.

Just how narrow that definition is remains to be seen. It is not entirely clear that the “knowing or reckless” definition of willfulness adopted by the Court will differ significantly in practical application from the approach that I would adopt. Employers who know that there is an appreciable possibility that the FLSA covers their operations but fail to take reasonable measures to resolve their doubts may well be deemed “reckless” in many cases under the Thurston standard. Although it is difficult to foretell, it appears to me unlikely that a large number of FLSA defendants will fall into the narrow category of employers who “unreasonably” but not “recklessly” fail to apprise themselves of the requirements of the Act. See ante, at 135, n. 13. Despite the potentially small significance of our different interpretations, however, I cannot agree with the Court’s approach to or resolution of the willfulness issue in this case. I therefore respectfully dissent.

       Compare Russo v. Trifari, Krussman & Fishel, Inc., 837 F. 2d 40, 45 (CA2 1988) (applying Thurston standard); Peters v. Shreveport, 818 F. 2d 1148, 1167-1168 (CA5 1987) (overruling Jiffy June, applying Thurston), cert. dism’d, 485 U. S. 930 (1988); and Walton v. United Consumers Club, Inc., 786 F. 2d 303, 308-311 (CA7 1986) (applying Thurston), with Brock v. Shirk, 833 F. 2d 1326, 1329 (CA9 1987) (adhering to Jiffy June); Crenshaw v. Quarles Drilling Corp., 798 F. 2d 1345, 1349-1350 (CA10 1986) (adhering to Jiffy June); Donovan v. Bel-Loc Diner, Inc., 780 F. 2d 1113, 1117 (CA4 1985) (adhering to Jiffy June); Secretary of Labor v. Daylight Dairy Products, Inc., 779 F. 2d 784, 789 (CA1 1985) (adhering to Jiffy June); and Brock v. Georgia Southwestern College, 765 F. 2d 1026, 1038-1039 (CA11 1985) (adhering to Jiffy June; no mention of Thurston).

       See 52 Stat. 1062, as amended, 29 U. S. C. § 206(d)(3).

       46 Stat. 1494, as amended, 40 U. S. C. § 276(a) et seq.

       49 Stat. 2036, as amended, 41 U. S. C. §35 et seq. (1982 ed. and Supp. IV).

       See 81 Stat. 604, as amended, 29 U. S. C. § 626(e)(1).

       See Lorillard v. Pons, 434 U. S. 575, 581, n. 8 (1978).

       The Portal-to-Portal Act also made the award of liquidated damages discretionary rather than mandatory and authorized exemptions for certain types of wage plans. In this case, respondent contended that one of those exemptions — the exemption for “Belo” plans, see 29 U. S. C. § 207(f) — was applicable.

       Petitioner directs us to a memorandum placed in the Congressional Record by Senator Taft during a 1974 debate over amendments to the FLSA that did not alter the language at issue here. See Brief for Petitioner 32. The memorandum described the Jiffy June standard as the then-prevailing interpretation of § 255(a). See 120 Cong. Rec. 4710 (1974). Petitioner concludes that “[notwithstanding that explicit focus on the judicial construction of willfulness, Congress amended Section 255 without addressing the ‘willful violation’ standard of Section 255(a).” Brief for Petitioner 33. This passing reference to the then-prevailing standard is too slender a reed, we think, to support the inference petitioner would have us draw, namely, that Congress approved the Jiffy June standard in enacting the 1974 amendments by mentioning it as the current interpretation and failing to amend that reading.

       The ease with which the Jiffy June standard can be met is exemplified in this case. As the District Court wrote:
      “[T]he vice president and general manager of the defendant was aware that the FLSA existed and that it governed overtime systems such as that used for the Richland mechanics. . .« Thus, although Isenberg did not state that he thought that the system used was contrary to the provisions of the FLSA, he did state that he knew that the FLSA applied. I believe that this admission is sufficient to satisfy the liberal willfulness requirement of the FLSA.” Donovan v. Richland Shoe Co., 623 F. Supp. 667, 671 (ED Pa. 1985).

       See, e. g., Coleman v. Jiffy June Farms, Inc., 458 F. 2d 1139, 1142 (CA5 1971), cert. denied, 409 U. S. 948 (1972); Brennan v. Heard, 491 F. 2d 1, 3 (CA5 1974); Marshall v. Union Pacific Motor Freight Co., 650 F. 2d 1085, 1091-1093 (CA9 1981); Marshall v. Erin Food Services, Inc., 672 F. 2d 229, 231 (CA1 1982); Donovan v. Carls Drug Co., Inc., 703 F. 2d 650, 652-653 (CA2 1983); EEOC v. Central Kansas Medical Center, 705 F. 2d 1270, 1274-1275 (CA10 1983).

       See, e. g., Hodgson v. Cactus Craft of Arizona, 481 F. 2d 464, 467 (CA9 1973) (willful violation after two prior warnings and unkept promises of compliance); Laffey v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 186 U. S. App. D. C. 322, 352-355, 567 F. 2d 429, 459-462 (1976) (intermediate standard; see text following this footnote), cert. denied, 434 U. S. 1086 (1978); Donovan v. KFC National Management Co., 682 F. 2d 603, 605 (CA6 1982) (voluntary conduct that employer knows might violate Act is willful).

       The Secretary’s present opinion of the Jiffy June standard is expressed in her brief:
      “As this Court found in Thurston (469 U. S. at 128), the ‘in the picture’ standard seems to give too little effect to Congress’s express intent to create two tiers of liability in the FLSA limitations provision. Among employers eventually found to have violated the FLSA, it would seem that there are not many who did not know that the Act was ‘in the picture.’ It may be ‘virtually impossible for an employer to show that he was unaware of the Act and its potential applicability’ (ibid.). In addition, the Jiffy June standard would impose a third year of liability even on those employers who firmly and reasonably (albeit wrongly) believe that their pay practices are lawful, a result that seems counter to the concerns expressed in the legislative process during the 89th Congress.” Brief for Petitioner 39-40 (footnote omitted).

       We recognize that there is some language in Trans World Airlines v. Thurston, 469 U. S. 111 (1985), not necessary to our holding, that would seem to permit a finding of unreasonableness to suffice as proof of knowing or reckless disregard, and thus that would render petitioner’s standard an appropriate statement of the law. See id., at 126. Our decision today should clarify this point: If an employer acts reasonably in determining its legal obligation, its action cannot be deemed willful under either petitioner’s test or under the standard we set forth. If an employer acts unreasonably, but not recklessly, in determining its legal obligation, then, although its action would be considered willful under petitioner’s test, it should not be so considered under Thurston or the identical standard we approve today.

       Of course, we express no view as to whether, under the proper standard, respondent’s violation was “willful.” That determination is for the District Court to make on remand from the Court of Appeals.

      The Court bases its adoption of the Thurston standard of willfulness on the fear that the Secretary’s alternative standard, like the Jiffy June standard, would undermine Congress’ two-tiered liability scheme by permitting a finding of willfulness on a showing of “nothing more than negligence.” Ante, at 135. This fear is ungrounded. In order for a violation to be “willful” under the Secretary’s standard, an employer must operate in the face of a known risk that the FLSA covers its operation, without taking reasonable steps to ensure its compliance. This state of mind is sufficiently different from mere negligence to maintain the two-tiered structure of the FLSA.


author: Justice O’Connor Justice White,

text:
    CHICK KAM CHOO et al. v. EXXON CORP. et al.
    No. 87-505.
    Argued March 30, 1988
    Decided May 16, 1988

      O’ConnoR, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. White, J., filed a concurring opinion, post, p. 151.

      Benton Musslewhite, pro se, argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the briefs were Joseph C. Blanks, pro se, Joel I. Klein, and David Boyd.

      James Patrick Cooney argued the cause and filed a brief for respondents.

      Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for Crowley Maritime Corp. by Ernest N. Reddick III; for the International Association of Drilling Contractors et al. by Eugene J. Silva; for the International Chamber of Shipping by John R. Geraghty; for the Maritime Law Association of the United States by John C. McHose, Richard W. Palmer, and Michael

        Marks Cohen; and for McClelland Engineers, Inc., et al. by Harold A. Stone, Steven M. Perl, Graydon S. Staring, and Elliot L. Bien.

        Burt Ballanfant filed a brief for Shell Oil Co. as amicus curiae.

   Justice O’Connor

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case concerns the propriety of an injunction entered by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The injunction prohibited specified parties from litigating a certain matter in the Texas state courts. We must determine whether this injunction is permissible under the Anti-Injunction Act, 28 U. S. C. § 2283, which generally bars federal courts from granting injunctions to stay proceedings in state courts.

I

In 1977 Leong Chong, a resident of the Republic of Singapore, was accidentally killed in that country while performing repair work on a ship owned by respondent Esso Tankers, Inc., a subsidiary of respondent Exxon Corporation. Petitioner Chick Kam Choo, also a resident of Singapore, is Chong’s widow. In 1978 she brought suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, presenting claims under the Jones Act, 46 U. S. C. §688, the Death on the High Seas Act (DOHSA), 46 U. S. C. § 761, the general maritime law of the United States, App. 4, and the Texas Wrongful Death Statute, Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. §§71.001-71.031 (1986).

Respondents moved for summary judgment on the Jones Act and DOHSA claims, arguing that Chong was not a seaman, which rendered the Jones Act inapplicable, and that Chong had not died on the “high seas” but while the ship was in port, which rendered the DOHSA inapplicable. App. 9-10. Respondents also moved for summary judgment on the claim involving the general maritime law of the United States, arguing that due to the lack of substantial contacts with the United States, the maritime law of Singapore, not that of the United States, governed. Id., at 10 (citing Lauritzen v. Larsen, 345 U. S. 571 (1953); Romero v. International Terminal Operating Co., 358 U. S. 354 (1959)). In addition to seeking summary judgment, respondents moved for dismissal under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, arguing that under the criteria identified in Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U. S. 501 (1947), the District Court was not a convenient forum.

In 1980, the District Court, adopting the memorandum and recommendations of a Magistrate, granted respondents’ motion for summary judgment on the Jones Act and DOHSA claims. The court agreed with respondents that those statutes were inapplicable. App. 29-31, 34. With respect to the general maritime law claim, the District Court applied factors identified in Lauritzen and Hellenic Lines Ltd. v. Rhoditis, 398 U. S. 306 (1970), to the choice-of-law question and concluded that the “statutory and maritime law of the United States should not be applied.” App. 32. This conclusion led the court to grant summary judgment on petitioner’s general maritime law claim, as well as to consider whether dismissal of the rest of the case was warranted under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. After reviewing the various factors set out in Gilbert, the court concluded that dismissal was appropriate and accordingly granted respondents’ motion to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds, provided respondents submit to the jurisdiction of the Singapore courts. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed. Chick Kam Choo v. Exxon Corp., 699 F. 2d 693, cert. denied, 464 U. S. 826 (1983).

Rather than commence litigation in Singapore, however, petitioner filed suit in the Texas state courts. Although the state complaint initially included all the claims in the federal complaint, as well as a claim based on Singapore law, petitioner later voluntarily dismissed the federal claims. This left only the Texas state law claim and the Singapore law claim. See Brief for Petitioners 4, n. 4. .Respondents briefly succeeded in removing the case to the District Court on the basis of diversity of citizenship, but the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ultimately held that complete diversity did not exist and the case was returned to the District Court with instructions to remand it to state court. 764 F. 2d 1148 (1985).

Respondents then initiated a new action in federal court requesting an injunction to prevent petitioner and her attorneys, Benton Musslewhite and Joseph C. Blanks, “from seeking to relitigate in any state forum the issues finally decided” in the federal court’s 1980 dismissal. App. 93. Petitioner moved to dismiss, arguing that the Anti-Injunction Act, 28 U. S. C. § 2283, prohibited the issuance of such an injunction. App. 96-98. Respondents, in turn, moved for summary judgment and a final injunction. Id., at 104-108. The District Court granted respondents’ motion and permanently enjoined petitioner and her attorneys “from prosecuting or commencing any causes of action or claims against [respondents] in the courts of the State of Texas or any other state . . . arising out of or related to the alleged wrongful death of Leong Chong.” Id., at 119.

Petitioner appealed, reiterating her contention that the injunction violated the Anti-Injunction Act. A divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit rejected this argument. The panel majority concluded that the injunction here fell within the “relitigation” exception to the Act, which permits a federal court to issue an injunction “to protect or effectuate its judgments.” The majority reasoned that an injunction was necessary to prevent relitigation of the forum non conveniens issue because petitioner pointed to no additional factor that made the “Texas court in Houston a more convenient forum for this litigation than a United States District Court in Houston.” 817 F. 2d 307, 312 (1987). The majority acknowledged that due to an “open courts” provision in the Texas Constitution, Art. I, § 13, which is reflected in the Texas Wrongful Death Statute, Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 71.031 (1986), the state courts may not apply the same, or indeed, any forum non conveniens analysis to petitioner’s case. Rather, as the Court of Appeals noted, it is possible that “Texas has constituted itself the world’s forum of final resort, where suit for personal injury or death may always be filed if nowhere else.” 817 F. 2d, at 314 (footnote omitted). In this maritime context, however, the Court of Appeals majority concluded that the so-called “re vers e-Erie” uniformity doctrine, see, e. g., Offshore Logistics, Inc. v. Tallentire, 477 U. S. 207, 222-223 (1986), required that federal forum non conveniens determinations pre-empt state law. Because the Court of Appeals found any independent state/oram non conveniens inquiry to be pre-empted, it held that the injunction was permissible. Chief Judge Clark wrote separately but joined this conclusion. 817 F. 2d, at 325. Judge Reavley dissented, maintaining that the Texas courts should be allowed to apply their own open courts forum non conveniens standard. The dissent also criticized the majority’s “bold new rule of preemption” which had the effect of “nullifying] the Texas open forum law for admiralty cases.” Ibid.

The Court of Appeals’ ruling conflicted with a decision of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Zipfel v. Halliburton Co., 832 F. 2d 1477 (1988), cert. pending sub nom. Crowley Maritime Corp. v. Zipfel, No. 87-1122, which held that the Anti-Injunction Act precluded an injunction in similar circumstances. We granted certiorari to resolve the conflict, 484 U. S. 952 (1987), and now reverse and remand.

The Anti-Injunetion Act generally prohibits the federal courts from interfering with proceedings in the state courts:

“A court of the United States may not grant an injunction to stay proceedings in a State Court except as expressly authorized by Act of Congress, or where necessary in aid of its jurisdiction, or to protect or effectuate its judgments.” 28 U. S. C. §2283.

The Act, which has existed in some form since 1793, see Act of Mar. 2, 1793, ch. 22, § 5, 1 Stat. 335, is a necessary concomitant of the Framers’ decision to authorize, and Congress’ decision to implement, a dual system of federal and state courts. It represents Congress’ considered judgment as to how to balance the tensions inherent in such a system. Prevention of frequent federal court intervention is important to make the dual system work effectively. By generally barring such intervention, the Act forestalls “the inevitable friction between the state and federal courts that ensues from the injunction of state judicial proceedings by a federal court.” Vendo Co. v. Lektro-Vend Corp., 433 U. S. 623, 630-631 (1977) (plurality opinion). Due in no small part to the fundamental constitutional independence of the States, Congress adopted a general policy under which state proceedings “should normally be allowed to continue unimpaired by intervention of the lower federal courts, with relief from error, if any, through the state appellate courts and ultimately this Court.” Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Locomotive Engineers, 398 U. S. 281, 287 (1970).

Congress, however, has permitted injunctions in certain, specific circumstances, namely, when expressly authorized by statute, necessary in aid of the court’s jurisdiction, or necessary to protect or effectuate the court’s judgment. These exceptions are designed to ensure the effectiveness and supremacy of federal law. But as the Court has recognized, the exceptions are narrow and are “not [to] b,e enlarged by loose statutory construction.” Ibid. See also Clothing Workers v. Richman Brothers Co., 348 U. S. 511, 514 (1955). Because an injunction staying state proceedings is proper only if it falls within one of the statutory exceptions, Atlantic Coast Line, supra, at 286-287, and because the last of the three exceptions is the only one even arguably applicable here, the central question in this case is whether the District Court’s injunction was necessary “to protect or effectuate” the District Court’s 1980 judgment dismissing petitioner’s lawsuit from federal court.

The relitigation exception was designed to permit a federal court to prevent state litigation of an issue that previously was presented to and decided by the federal court. It is founded in the well-recognized concepts of res judicata and collateral estoppel. The proper scope of the exception is perhaps best illustrated by this Court’s decision in Atlantic Coast Line, supra.

That case arose out of a union’s decision to picket a railroad. The railroad immediately sought an injunction from a Federal District Court to prevent the picketing. The court refused to enjoin the union, issuing an order in 1967 that concluded. in part, that the unions were “free to engage in self-help." Id., at 289. The railroad then went to state court, where an injunction was granted. Two years later this Court held that the Railway Labor Act, 45 U. S. C. § 151 et seq., prohibited state court injunctions such as the one the railroad had obtained. Railroad Trainmen v. Jacksonville Terminal Co., 394 U. S. 369 (1969). This decision prompted the union to move in state court to dissolve the injunction, but the state court declined to do so. Rather than appeal, however, the union returned to federal court and obtained an injunction against the enforcement of the state court injunction. The District Court read its 1967 order as deciding not just that federal law did not authorize an injunction, but that federal law pre-empted the State from interfering with the union’s right of self-help by issuing an injunction. Accordingly, the court concluded that an injunction was necessary to protect that judgment.

The Court of Appeals affirmed, but this Court reversed, holding that the federal court injunction was improper even assuming that the state court’s refusal to dissolve its injunction was erroneous. 398 U. S., at 291, n. 5. After carefully reviewing the arguments actually presented to the District Court in the original 1967 litigation and the precise language of the District Court’s order, we rejected the District Court’s later conclusion that its 1967 order had addressed the propriety of an injunction issued by a state court:

“Based solely on the state of the record when the [1967] order was entered, we are inclined to believe that the District Court did not determine whether federal law precluded an injunction based on state law. Not only was that point never argued-to the court, but there is no language in the order that necessarily implies any decision on that question.” Id., at 290.

Thus, as Atlantic Coast Line makes clear, an essential prerequisite for applying the relitigation exception is that the claims or issues which the federal injunction insulates from litigation in state proceedings actually have been decided by the federal court. Moreover, Atlantic Coast Line illustrates that this prerequisite is strict and narrow. The Court assessed the precise state of the record and what the earlier federal order actually said; it did not permit the District Court to render a post hoc judgment as to what the order was intended to say. With these principles in mind, we turn to the two claims petitioner seeks to litigate in the Texas state courts.

First, petitioner asserts a claim under Singapore law. App. 40. The District Court did not resolve the merits of this claim in its 1980 order. Rather, the only issue decided by the District Court was that petitioner’s claims should be dismissed under the federal forum non conveniens doctrine. Federal forum non conveniens principles simply cannot determine whether Texas courts, which operate under a broad “open-courts” mandate, would consider themselves an appropriate forum for petitioner’s lawsuit. See Tex. Const., Art. I, §13; Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. §71.031 (1986). Cf. Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco, Inc., 481 U. S. 1, 11-12 (1987). Respondents’ arguments to the District Court in 1980 re-fleeted this distinction, citing federal cases almost exclusively and discussing only federal forum non conveniens principles. See App. 10-12, 17-26. Moreover, the Court of Appeals expressly recognized that the Texas courts would apply a significantly different forum non conveniens analysis. 817 F. 2d, at 314. Thus, whether the Texas state courts are an appropriate forum for petitioner’s Singapore law claims has not yet been litigated, and an injunction to foreclose consideration of that issue is not within the relitigation exception.

Respondents seek to avoid this problem by arguing that any separate state law determination is pre-empted under the “re vers e-Erie” principle of federal maritime law. See generally Offshore Logistics, Inc. v. Tallentire, 477 U. S., at 222-223; Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. Stewart, 253 U. S. 149 (1920); Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen, 244 U. S. 205 (1917). Under this view, which was shared by the Court of Appeals, the only permissible forum non conveniens determination in this maritime context is the one made by the District Court, and an injunction may properly issue to prevent the state courts from undertaking any different approach.

The contention that an independent state forum non conveniens determination is pre-empted by federal maritime law, however, does little to help respondents unless that preemption question was itself actually litigated and decided by the District Court. Since respondents concede that it was not, Tr. of Oral Arg. 32, the relitigation exception cannot apply. As we have previously recognized, “a federal court does not have inherent power to ignore the limitations of § 2283 and to enjoin state court proceedings merely because those proceedings interfere with a protected federal right or invade an area pre-empted by federal law, even when the interference is unmistakably clear.” Atlantic Coast Line, 398 U. S., at 294. See also Clothing Workers v. Richman Brothers Co., 348 U. S. 511 (1955). Rather, when a state proceeding presents a federal issue, even a pre-emption issue, the proper course is to seek resolution of that issue by the state court.

This is the course respondents must follow with respect to the Singapore law claim. It may be that respondents’ reading of the pre-emptive force of federal maritime forum non conveniens determinations is correct. This is a question we need not reach and on which we express no opinion. We simply hold that respondents must present their pre-emption argument to the Texas state courts, which are presumed competent to resolve federal issues. Cf. Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco, Inc., supra, at 15-16; Clothing Workers, supra, at 518. Accordingly, insofar as the District Court enjoined the state courts from considering petitioner’s Singapore law claim, the injunction exceeded the restrictions of the Anti-Injunction Act.

Finally, petitioner asserts a claim under Texas state law. In contrast to the Singapore law claim, the validity of this claim was adjudicated in the original federal action. Respondents argued to the District Court in 1980 that under applicable choice-of-law principles, the law of Singapore must control petitioner’s suit. See App. 10. The District Court expressly agreed, noting that only two of the eight relevant factors “point toward American law,” and concluding that the “statutory and maritime law of the United States should not be applied.” Id., at 32. Petitioner seeks to relitigate this issue in state court by arguing that “there are substantial and/or significant contacts” with the United States such that “the application of American and Texas law is mandated.” Id., at 39. Because in its 1980 decision the District Court decided that Singapore law must control petitioner’s lawsuit, a decision that necessarily precludes the application of Texas law, an injunction preventing relitigation of that issue in state court is within the scope of the relitigation exception to the Anti-Injunction Act. Accordingly, insofar as the District Court enjoined the state courts from considering petitioner’s claim under the substantive law of Texas, the injunction was permissible.

Because the injunction actually entered by the District Court, id,., at 118-119, was broader than the limited injunction we find acceptable, we must reverse the judgment approving a broad injunction and remand for entry of a more narrowly tailored order. Of course, the fact that an injunction may issue under the Anti-Injunction Act does not mean that it must issue. On remand the District Court should decide whether it is appropriate to enter an injunction.

Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

Justice White,

concurring.

I agree with the Court that, as a general matter, “[fjederal forum non conveniens principles simply cannot determine whether [state] courts, which operate under a broad ‘open-courts’ mandate, [will] consider themselves an appropriate forum” for a federal litigant’s lawsuit. Ante, at 148. Consequently, in diversity cases — for example — a district court’s dismissal on forum non conveniens grounds cannot serve as a basis for a later injunction if the plaintiff subsequently brings the same action in a state court.

But, as the Court recognizes, this case involves the special area of federal maritime law. Ante, at 149. In,this field, the federal interest in uniformity is so substantial that a determination that federal law requires that a case be heard in a foreign forum could possibly pre-empt any contrary determination by a state court applying state forum non con-veniens law. The Court acknowledges that our precedents may ultimately support such a conclusion in this case. Ante, at 149-150.

Had the District Court made such a finding here when it dismissed petitioner’s case — holding that federal maritime law required-that this case be heard in Singapore — then I believe that the relitigation exception found in 28 U. S. C. §2283 would permit the injunction that the District Court later issued. Contra, Zipfel v. Halliburton Co., 832 F. 2d 1477, 1488 (CA9 1988), cert. pending sub nom. Crowley Maritime Corp. v. Zipfel, No. 87-1122. This is true whether or not a finding of such pre-emption would have been correct: petitioner’s remedy for an erroneous pre-emption decision would have been an appeal of the District Court’s dismissal, and not relitigation of the issue in state court. However, the District Court’s terse dismissal order in this case lacks any express ruling on uniformity or pre-emption. See App. 34-35. Absent such a holding, the District Court had no “judgment” on this question which it needed to “protect or effectuate” by enjoining the subsequent state court litigation. Cf. 28 U. S. C. §2283.

Consequently, I agree with the Court that the relitigation exception to § 2283 cannot be invoked here, ante, at 150, and the judgment of the Court of Appeals affirming the District Court’s injunction must be reversed in pertinent part.

      Choo’s attorneys, Benton Musslewhite and Joseph C. Blanks, having been specifically enjoined by the District Court, are also petitioners before this Court. For convenience, however, we shall use the term “petitioner” to refer only to Choo.