## Facts

- Multiple Proctor & Gamble employees filed employment discrimination charges with the EEOC under Title VII.
- The EEOC filed a civil enforcement action against Proctor & Gamble based on those charges.
- Title VII § 706(f)(1) granted the charging parties an unconditional right to intervene in the EEOC’s action, but none intervened.
- The EEOC and Proctor & Gamble resolved the enforcement action through a consent decree that provided monetary and other relief for charging parties.
- Some charging parties rejected the consent decree awards.
- After the consent decree, the EEOC issued right-to-sue letters to those who rejected awards.
- Sixteen employees then filed individual Title VII actions in federal district court asserting claims based on the same underlying charges.
- The district court dismissed the employees’ suits; a panel initially reversed, but the Fourth Circuit reheard the case en banc.

## Issues

1. Whether charging parties who failed to intervene in an EEOC Title VII action are precluded from bringing later individual Title VII suits after the EEOC action is resolved by consent decree.
2. How § 706(f)(1)’s intervention right and private-suit provisions allocate enforcement authority between the EEOC and charging parties once the EEOC timely files suit.

## Decision

- The en banc Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the employees’ individual actions.
- The court held that when the EEOC timely brings a Title VII action, charging parties must protect their interests by intervening; if they do not, they are bound by the outcome, including a consent decree.
- The court treated § 706(f)(1) as establishing a scheme in which private suits are authorized when the EEOC does not timely sue (or dismisses), not as a second round of litigation after an EEOC case has been settled.
- Policy concerns raised by the EEOC as amicus did not justify departing from the statute’s text.

## Legal Principles

- Under Title VII § 706(f)(1), when the EEOC files a civil action within the statutory period, charging parties have an unconditional right to intervene in that action.
- Charging parties who do not intervene in an EEOC-initiated Title VII suit are precluded from later bringing individual actions based on the same claims after the EEOC litigation ends in a consent decree.
- The statutory structure links the right to bring a private action to circumstances where the EEOC has not filed suit (or has dismissed the charge or failed to secure a conciliation agreement to which the person is a party), rather than permitting serial litigation following an EEOC settlement.

## Conclusion

The Fourth Circuit held that charging parties who decline to intervene in a timely EEOC Title VII enforcement action are bound by the resulting consent decree and may not later litigate the same claims through individual suits.


Adams v. Proctor & Gamble Mfg. Co., 697 F.2d 582 (4th Cir. 1983) (en banc)