JESSE LINCOLN WOODARD, APPELLANT,
v.
VIRGINIA BOARD OF BAR EXAMINERS, W. SCOTT STREET, III, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY AND TREASURER OF THE VIRGINIA BOARD OF BAR EXAMINERS, J. SLOAN KUYKENDALL, WILLIAM H. KING, JOHN L. WALKER, CARL C. GILLESPIE, FRANCIS N. CRENSHAW, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITIES AS MEMBERS OF THE VIRGINIA BOARD OF BAR EXAMINERS, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that Title VII does not apply to the bar examination and that other claims were properly dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Appellant Woodard applied for admission to the Virginia Bar, failed the examination, and his application was denied. He then filed suit alleging viola…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Title Vii Discrimination cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Appellant Woodard applied for admission to the Virginia Bar and sat for the bar examination. He failed to achieve a passing score on the examination and his application for admission to the bar was therefore denied. After filing discrimination charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and being issued a “Right to Sue” letter, he brought this suit as a class action in district court alleging violations of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985 and 1988 (1970). The district court denied class certification and dismissed the claims for lack of jurisdiction. We affirm.
The district court found and we agree that Title VII, by its own terms, does not apply to the bar examination. The Board of Bar Examiners is neither an “employer,” an “employment agency,” nor a “labor organization” within the meaning of the Act. Tyler v. Vickery (5th Cir. 1975) 517 F. 2d 1089, 1096, cert. denied 426 U.S. 940, 96 S.Ct. 2660, 49 L.Ed.2d 393 (1976).
The district court properly dismissed the remaining claims for lack of jurisdiction. Appellant must present his grievance to the Supreme Court of Virginia and, if it is decided adversely to him, may then petition the Supreme Court of the United States for certiorari. Doe v. Pringle (10th Cir. 1976) 550 F. 2d 596, 599, cert. denied 431 U.S. 916, 97 S.Ct. 2179, 53 L.Ed.2d 227 (1977).1
Finally, we see no error in the refusal of the district court to certify the action as a class action. Accordingly, for the reasons herein stated, and on the basis of the district court’s opinions,2 the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
. See Judge Hall’s concurring opinion in Richardson v. McFadden (4th Cir. 1977) 563 F. 2d 1130, 1132-33 (en banc).
. Woodard v. Virginia Bd. of Bar Examiners (E.D.Va.1978) 454 F.Supp. 4; Woodard v. Virginia Bd. of Bar Examiners (E.D.Va.1976) 420 F.Supp. 211.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Held v. Gulf OIL Co., 684 F.2d 427 (6th Cir. 1982)
-
Brown v. Bd. OF BAR Exam'rs OF the State OF Nev. & Bd. of Governors of the State Bar of Nev., 623 F.2d 605 (9th Cir. 1980)
-
Younger v. The Colo. State Bd. OF LAW Exam'rs, 625 F.2d 372 (10th Cir. 1980)
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Tyler v. Trammell E. Vickery, 517 F.2d 1089 (5th Cir. 1975)
- DOE v. Pringle, 550 F.2d 596 (10th Cir. 1976)
- Marker v. Int'l Union, 431 U.S. 916 (U.S. 1977)
- Navajo Freight Lines, Inc. v. Vacco Indus., 431 U.S. 916 (U.S. 1977)
- Richardson v. McFADDEN, 563 F.2d 1130 (4th Cir. 1977)
- Treftz v. Pennsylvania, 426 U.S. 940 (U.S. 1976)
- Morgan v. California, 426 U.S. 940 (U.S. 1976)