had worked, to another project. (Christian Dep. Tr. at 30-33). At the time these individuals were transferred, Christian was disabled and receiving Workmen's Compensation benefits, which he claimed and received from the time of his layoff through December 13, 1982 (Christian Dep. Exhibit 1).
This testimony makes it clear that the facts on which plaintiffs rely to support their charges of discrimination were apparent to them in November, 1982 (Christian Dep. Tr. at 33). However, they did not file charges with the EEOC until December 14, 1983.
From this new information that has been provided to the court, we find that plaintiffs have failed to file timely charges with the EEOC and therefore failed to state a Title VII claim. Moffett v. Bolger, 527 F. Supp. 1098 (W.D.Pa. 1981); Wetzel v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, 511 F.2d 199 (3d Cir. 1975). However, the administrative procedures required in a Title VII suit create no judicial barrier to a suit under the Civil Rights Act. Johnson v. Host Enterprise, Inc., 470 F. Supp. 381, 383-384 (E.D. Pa. 1979); Young v. International Tel. & Tel. Co., 438 F.2d 757, 763 (3d Cir. 1971). Further, the remedies available under Title VII and under § 1981, although related, and directed to most of the same ends are separate, distinct and independent. Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, 421 U.S. 454, 459-60, 44 L. Ed. 2d 295, 95 S. Ct. 1716 (1975). Therefore, plaintiffs' untimely filing of EEOC charges have no effect on their right to proceed under their § 1981 theory, which must be brought in Pennsylvania within six years from the accrual date. Alston v. Allegheny Ludlum Steel Corp., 449 F. Supp. 553 (W.D. Pa. 1978).
Defendant next argues that there is no genuine issue of material fact for trial. In support of this argument, defendant analyzes plaintiffs' allegations and evidence in support thereof. Plaintiffs allege in their Amended Complaint, their affidavits and brief that the defendant selectively discriminated against blacks in the recall process. Defendant has provided plaintiffs' subsequent admissions to show that neither plaintiff can provide any evidence of a discriminatory failure to recall or rehire them. (Bey Dep. Tr. at 42-43; Christian Dep. Tr. at 30-33; Christian Dep. Exhibit 1). Rather plaintiffs appear to describe a situation in which employees on defendant's payroll at the time were transferred to new job sites as they became open. Plaintiffs appear to object to the transfer of currently employed white employees in lieu of defendant's rehiring them. Plaintiffs admit that they have no right to recall under the collective bargaining agreement. (Bey Dep. Tr. at 9; Christian Dep. Tr. at 10). The rights which plaintiffs assert appear to be based on their understanding of Executive Order 11246, Section 202.
(Christian Dep. Tr. at 10)
Plaintiffs have come forward with no evidence of any white employee who was recalled or hired during the relevant period, or of any discriminatory employment practice. On this summary judgment motion we must view the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs. However this does not mean that plaintiffs may rest on the allegations of their pleadings, bare assertions or conclusory allegations, suspicions or doubts. Rather they must, by affidavit or otherwise set forth specific facts showing there is a genuine issue for trial. Ness v. Marshall, 660 F.2d 517, 519 (3d Cir. 1981). Plaintiffs have not done this despite the closing of discovery and filing of their pretrial narrative and, therefore, we must grant summary judgment in favor of defendants on the § 1981 claim as well.
An appropriate order will issue.