Potter Stewart

“ When a member of EEOC, rather than an aggrieved party, files a complaint with EEOC, '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 . . . to remedy the practice alleged.' Title VII, § 706 (c) , 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5 (c) . It is clear that Congress found nothing wrong, in this circumstance, with EEOC's holding the charge in abeyance until a state agency is given the chance to act. ”

“ The proceedings of the Colorado Commission terminated in 1965 without reaching a resolution of the controversy satisfactory to the petitioner. On May 23, 1966, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission received from the petitioner a 'letter of inquiry' which complained of this same alleged discrimination. In accord with its usual practice, [2] the Commission treated this letter as a complaint but did not formally file it. Instead to insure compliance with Title VII's procedural requirements, EEOC orally advised the Colorado Commission that it had received a complaint from the petitioner. ”

“ The respondent makes no showing of prejudice to its interests. To require a second 'filing' by the aggrieved party after termination of state proceedings would serve no purpose other than the creation of an additional procedural technicality. ”