## Facts

- Minority and female employees and applicants brought a putative class action against Safeway Stores, Inc., union entities, and federal officials.
- Plaintiffs alleged Safeway was a covered federal contractor subject to Executive Order 11246, as amended by Executive Order 11375, and related regulations requiring nondiscrimination and an affirmative action program.
- Plaintiffs claimed Safeway engaged in discrimination based on race, color, national origin, and sex, resulting in underutilization of minorities and women and failure to adopt a compliant affirmative action program.
- Plaintiffs asserted federal-question jurisdiction and sought relief by suing Safeway directly under the Executive Orders and implementing regulations.
- Safeway moved for partial summary judgment, arguing (1) no private right of action exists under Executive Order 11246 and (2) plaintiffs failed to exhaust administrative remedies.
- The court treated Safeway’s motion as a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

## Issues

1. Whether Executive Order 11246 (as amended) and its implementing regulations create an implied private right of action allowing employees or applicants to sue a federal contractor directly in federal court.
2. If such a private right exists, whether plaintiffs must exhaust the Executive Order’s administrative enforcement procedures before filing suit.

## Decision

- The court granted Safeway’s motion, treated as a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.
- Claims against Safeway based solely on Executive Order 11246 and its implementing regulations were dismissed.
- The court held Executive Order 11246 does not create an implied private right of action; therefore, exhaustion was not dispositive.

## Legal Principles

- An executive order governing federal procurement and contractor compliance does not create a judicially enforceable private cause of action absent clear intent to do so.
- A detailed administrative enforcement scheme (compliance reviews, conciliation, and procurement sanctions such as contract cancellation or debarment) indicates enforcement is committed to executive-branch processes rather than private lawsuits.
- Courts are reluctant to imply private remedies where doing so would bypass or disrupt a comprehensive administrative framework and overlap with statutory antidiscrimination regimes that expressly authorize private suits (e.g., Title VII).

## Conclusion

The court dismissed the plaintiffs’ attempt to enforce Executive Order 11246 directly against Safeway, concluding the Order and its regulations provide administrative enforcement mechanisms but no implied private right of action in federal court.


Traylor v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 402 F. Supp. 871 (N.D. Cal. 1975)