29 Fair empl.prac.cas. 841, 19 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 9260 Jesse Lincoln Woodard v. Virginia Bd. of Bar Examiners, W. Scott Street, Iii, Individually & in His Off. Capacity as Sec'y & Treasurer of the Virginia Bd. of Bar Examiners, J. Sloan Kuykendall, William H. King, John L. Walker, Carl C. Gillespie, Francis N. Crenshaw, Individually & in Their Off. Capacities as Members of the Virginia Bd. of Bar Examiners, 598 F.2d 1345 (4th Cir. 1979). · Go Syfert
Search
29 Fair empl.prac.cas. 841, 19 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 9260 Jesse Lincoln Woodard v. Virginia Bd. of Bar Examiners, W. Scott Street, Iii, Individually & in His Off. Capacity as Sec'y & Treasurer of the Virginia Bd. of Bar Examiners, J. Sloan Kuykendall, William H. King, John L. Walker, Carl C. Gillespie, Francis N. Crenshaw, Individually & in Their Off. Capacities as Members of the Virginia Bd. of Bar Examiners, 598 F.2d 1345 (4th Cir. 1979). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
68 citation events (14 in the last 25 years) across 25 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. New York State Department of Motor Vehicles (nyed, 2000-01-12)
Treatment trajectory · 1979 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1979 2002 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 17 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. New York State Department of Motor Vehicles
E.D.N.Y · 2000 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Association of Mexican-American Educators v. State of California, 195 F.3d 465, 483 (9th Cir.1999) [hereinafter “AMAE”]; EEOC v. Illinois, 69 F.3d at 170 ; George, 794 F.2d at 114 ; Woodard v. Virginia Board of Bar Examiners, 598 F.2d 1345, 1346 (4th Cir.1979); Tyler v. Vickery, 517 F.2d 1089, 1096 (5th Cir.1975); Equal Employment Opportunity Comm’n v. Waterfront Comm’n of New York Harbor, 665 F.Supp. 197, 200 (S.D.N.Y.1987); National Organization of Women v. Waterfront Comm’n of New York Harbor, 468 F.Supp. 317, 320 (S.D.N.Y.1979) [hereinafter “NOW”]; Lavender-Cabelle…
cited Cited as authority (rule) George v. New Jersey Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners
D.N.J. · 1985 · confidence medium
The Board of Bar Examiners is neither an “employer,” an “employment agency,” nor a “labor organization” within the meaning of the Act. 598 F.2d at 1346.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Lowrie v. Goldenhersh
N.D. Ill. · 1981 · confidence medium
Woodard v. Virginia Board of Bar Examiners, 598 F.2d 1345, 1346 (4th Cir. 1979); Doe v. Pringle, 550 F.2d 596, 599 (10th Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 916 , 97 S.Ct. 2179 , 53 L.Ed.2d 227 (1977); Feldman v. State Board of Bar Examiners, 438 F.2d 699, 704 (8th Cir. 1971).
cited Cited "see" Giri v. National Board of Medical Examiners
D.D.C. · 2025 · signal: see · confidence high
See Woodard v. Virginia Bd. of Bar Exam’rs, 598 F.2d 1345 , 1346 (4th Cir. 1979), Munsif v. Am.
cited Cited "see" Clark v. Saval
D. Maryland · 2020 · signal: see · confidence high
See Jones, 192 F.3d at 423 (citing Woodard v. Va. Bd. of Bar Examiners, 598 F.2d 1345 , 1346 (4th Cir. 1979)).
cited Cited "see" Bolls v. Virginia Board of Bar Examiners
E.D. Va. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
See Woodard, 598 F.2d at 1345-46.
cited Cited "see" Watson v. CSA, LTD.
D. Maryland · 2005 · signal: see · confidence high
See Woodard v. Virginia Bd. of Bar Examiners, 598 F.2d 1345 (4th Cir.1979).
cited Cited "see" Shestul v. Moeser
E.D. Va. · 2004 · signal: see · confidence high
See Woodard v. Virginia Bd. of Bar Examiners, 454 F.Supp. 4, 6 (E.D.Va.1978), aff'd, 598 F.2d 1345 (4th Cir.1979).
discussed Cited "see" Robert E. Jones v. American Postal Workers Union, National
4th Cir. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See Woodward v. Virginia Bd. of Bar Examiners, 598 F.2d 1345 , 1346 (4th Cir. 1979) (affirming dismissal of Title VII claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because defendant was neither an "employer," an "employment agency," nor a "labor organization" as those terms are defined in Title VII).
discussed Cited "see" Jones v. American Postal Workers Union, National
4th Cir. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See Woodard v. Virginia Bd. of Bar Examiners, 598 F.2d 1345 , 1346 (4th Cir.1979) (affirming dismissal of Title VII claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because defendant was neither an “employer,” an “employment agency,” nor a “labor organization” as those terms are defined in Title VII).
discussed Cited "see" 39 Fair empl.prac.cas. 764, 38 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 35,777 Sherman Haddock v. Board of Dental Examiners of California, Lawrence A. Puccinelli, David W. Hamrock, Edward J. Hoefling, Knud Flygenring, Takeyasu, J. Frisch, David Maudsley, Thomas M. Stewart, Helyn C. Luechauer, Marlene Schultz, Peter Young, Jr., Paul F. Senise, Kent Madsen, Adkins, Shirley J. Bailey
9th Cir. · 1985 · signal: see · confidence high
See Woodard v. Virginia Bd. of Bar Examiners, 598 F.2d 1345 , 1346 (4th Cir.1979) (per curiam) (The Virginia Board of Bar Examiners is not an employer within the meaning of the Act); Tyler v. Vickery, 517 F.2d 1089, 1096 (5th Cir.1975), cert. denied, 426 U.S. 940 , 96 S.Ct. 2660 , 49 L.Ed.2d 393 (1976) (The Georgia Board of Bar Examiners is not an employer within the meaning of the Act); National Org'n for Women v. Waterfront Com'n, 468 F.Supp. 317, 320 (D.C.N.Y.1979) (licensing agency not an employer). 5 The provision of Title VII defining employer is as follows: 6 The term "employer" means a…
discussed Cited "see" Haddock v. Board of Dental Examiners of California
9th Cir. · 1985 · signal: see · confidence high
See Woodard v. Virginia Bd. of Bar Examiners, 598 F.2d 1345 , 1346 (4th Cir.1979) (per curiam) (The Virginia Board of Bar Examiners is not an employer within the meaning of the Act); Tyler v. Vickery, 517 F.2d 1089,1096 (5th Cir.1975), cert. denied, 426 U.S. 940 , 96 S.Ct. 2660 , 49 L.Ed.2d 393 (1976) (The Georgia Board of Bar Examiners is not an employer within the meaning of the Act); National Org’n for Women v. Waterfront Com’n, 468 F.Supp. 317, 320 (D.C.N.Y.1979) (licensing agency not an employer).
cited Cited "see" Nestler v. Board Of Law Examiners
4th Cir. · 1980 · signal: see · confidence high
See Woodard v. Virginia Board of Bar Examiners, 598 F.2d 1345 (4th Cir. 1979).
cited Cited "see" Nestler v. Board of Law Examiners
4th Cir. · 1980 · signal: see · confidence high
See Woodard v. Virginia Board of Bar Examiners, 598 F.2d 1345 (4th Cir. 1979).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Crain v. Butler
E.D.N.C. · 2005 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare, e.g., Woodard, 598 F.2d at 1346 with Curl, 740 F.2d at 1327 n. 2.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." James L. Martin v. Court of Appeals of Maryland, Robert C. Murphy, John C. Eldridge, Harry A. Cole, Lawrence F. Rodowsky, John F. McAuilffe William H. Atkins, Ii, Albert T. Blackwell, Jr., Maryland State Board of Law Examiners, Charles H. Dorsey, Jr., William F. Abell, Jr., John F. Mudd, John W. Sause, Jr., Pamela J. White, Character Committee for the Third Judicial Circuit, Constance K. Putzel, John H. Zink, Iii, Rowland R. Bounds, T. Carroll Brown, E. Harrison Stone, James L. Martin v. Virginia Board of Bar Examiners, Francis N. Crenshaw, John F. Kay, Jr., A. Hugo Blankenship, Jr., Robert E. Glenn, Stephen M. Quillen, National Conference of Bar Examiners
3rd Cir. · 1989 · signal: see also · confidence low
Feldman, supra; see also Woodward v. Virginia Board of Bar Examiners, 598 F.2d 1345 (4th Cir.1979). 5 For the foregoing reasons, the judgments of the district courts dismissing the suits are affirmed.
cited Cited "see, e.g." Anna Lee Brown v. Board of Bar Examiners of the State of Nevada and Board of Governors of the State Bar of Nevada
9th Cir. · 1980 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also n. 1, supra. 8 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
29 Fair empl.prac.cas. 841, 19 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 9260 Jesse Lincoln Woodard
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
78-1586.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
May 24, 1979.
598 F.2d 1345
Published

598 F.2d 1345

29 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 841, 19 Empl. Prac.
Dec. P 9260
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.

No. 78-1586.

United States Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit.

Argued April 2, 1979.
Decided May 24, 1979.

W. Edward Thompson, Washington, D. C. (James A. Winstead, Chesapeake, Va., on brief), for appellant.

Walter H. Ryland, Deputy Atty. Gen., Richmond, Va. (Marshall Coleman, Atty. Gen. of Virginia, Stuart H. Dunn, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen., Leonard L. Hopkins, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Richmond, Va., on brief), for appellees.

Before BREITENSTEIN, Circuit Judge for the Tenth Circuit, sitting by designation, and RUSSELL and WIDENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

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.

2

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).

3

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]

4

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

5

AFFIRMED.

1

See Judge Hall's concurring opinion in Richardson v. McFadden (4th Cir. 1977) 563 F.2d 1130, 1132-33 (en banc)

2

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