461 BLACKMUN, J., dissenting crimination claim, the Court declares the state remedy to be exclusive. B But the Court qualifies its holding. The Court permits the state agency's decision to be the complainant's exclusive remedy only if the agency's procedures satisfy the minimal requirements of due process. Ante, at 481-485. The Court surveys the procedures of the NYHRD and concludes that they are in accord with due process. Ante, at 483-485." This discussion by itself demonstrates the fallacy of the Court's attempt to differentiate between the state agency's decision and the state court's affirmance of that decision. By relying more heavily on the adequacy of the state agency's procedures than on the adequacy of the state court's procedures, the Court underscores that it is, in fact, granting preclusive effect to a state administrative decision. It is important, also, to note that in two different ways the Court's inquiry violates the congressional intent. First, the Court undertakes to determine whether the state procedures are adequate when Congress has expressly left that decision to the EEOC. Congress explicitly permitted a state complainant to file suit in federal court despite a final state agency decision, unless the EEOC has signed a worksharing agreement with the state agency foreclosing subsequent federal suits. If the EEOC agreed with the Court that minimal due process in agency procedures justified barring subsequent Title VII suits when the state agency's decision had been affirmed by a state court, the EEOC could sign worksharing agreements with state agencies on those terms. By assuming the authority to make that decision, the Court usurps a role that Congress reserved to the EEOC. "The Court is quite correct in holding that a state decision must satisfy at least due process before it can be given preclusive effect in the federal courts. Indeed, this aspect of the Court's decision follows directly from BLACKMUN, J., dissenting 456 U. S. Second, throughout its consideration of Title VII, Congress was concerned that state agency procedures were not the equivalent of those that it intended federal authorities to employ. Senator Clark told the Senate that "State and local FEPC laws vary widely in effectiveness." 110 Cong. Rec. 7205 (1964). He continued: "In many areas effective enforcement is hampered by inadequate legislation, inadequate procedures, or an inadequate budget." Ibid. Unlike the Court, Congress realized that no legal doctrine could accurately gauge the effectiveness of state agencies and laws in eliminating discrimination. In their interpretative memorandum, Senators Clark and Case" explained: "It has been suggested... that there should be some provision automatically providing for exclusive State jurisdiction where adequate State remedies for discrimination in employment exist. Such a proposal is unworkable. Congress cannot determine nor can we devise a formula for determining which State laws and procedures are adequate. . . . An antidiscrimination law cannot be evaluated simply by an examination of its provisions, for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life."" Id., at 7214. Yet the Court concludes that minimal due process standards provide safeguards sufficient to warrant denying a discrimination victim federal remedies if a state court rejects his request to overturn an adverse state agency decision. Title VII, Congress wanted to assure discrimination victims more than bare due process; it wanted them to have the benefit of a vigorous effort to eliminate discrimination. See Al In our decision earlier this term in Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U. S. 422 (1982). "The Clark-Case memorandum is a particularly authoritative source for determining the congressional intent behind Title VII. See Teamsters v. United States, 431 U. S. 324, 350-352, and 351, n. 35 (1977). 461 BLACKMUN, J., dissenting exander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U. S. 36, 44-45 (1974). By affording some discrimination complainants less, the Court contravenes the congressional intent behind Title VII. C The Court's search of the legislative history uncovers only a single bit of concrete support for its interpretation of Title VII.13 But, ironically, the legislative history cited by the Court actually undercuts its position. During the 1972 debates over changes in Title VII, Senator Hruska proposed an amendment that would have made Title VII the exclusive remedy for a discrimination victim, with certain exceptions. One of the exceptions permitted concurrent state proceedings. The Senator explained: "[T]here would be a further exception and that would be proceedings in a State agency. Those proceedings could continue notwithstanding the pendency of an employee's action under section 706 of title VII. 13 The Court also cites legislative materials indicating that congressional defenders of employers and unions preferred trial de novo in federal court over conclusive administrative proceedings before the EEOC. See ante, at 473-475. But the Court focuses on the wrong choice. The question is not why Congress chose federal trial de novo over conclusive EEOC proceedings, but why Congress chose to provide a federal remedy rather than relying on state remedies. The reason is that Congress wanted to provide a federal remedy, whether before a federal court or the EEOC, separate from and independent of the antidiscrimination procedures afforded by the States. Furthermore, the Court's decision is contrary to its own reading of the legislative history. Presumably, if the complainant prevails before the state agency and also before the state courts, the Court would give that decision in his favor preclusive effect. Thus, if state law provides the complainant with an inadequate remedy, evidently he will be able to bring a Title VII suit in federal court asserting the state decision as res judicata on the issue of the employer's liability. Yet the Court insists that Congress intended that employers not be bound by administrative findings but instead intended that employers have the protection of a trial de novo in federal court. Ibid. BLACKMUN, J., dissenting 456 U. S. It seems to me and others that this is only fair." 118 Cong. Rec. 3369 (1972). Thus, even Senator Hruska would not have prevented duplicative state and federal proceedings. Here is strong evidence of a congressional consensus that state and federal remedies should exist independently of each other. The Court quotes part of Senator Javits' response to Senator Hruska's proposal. See ante, at 475. What the Court fails to point out is that the bulk of Senator Javits' response rejected the suggestion that the number of discrimination remedies should be reduced. Senator Javits quoted with approval from the testimony of an official of the Department of Justice: "In the field of civil rights, the Congress has regularly insured that there be a variety of enforcement devices to insure that all available resources are brought to bear on problems of discrimination. . . . "At this juncture, when we are all agreed that some improvement in the enforcement of Title VII is needed, it would be... unwise to diminish in any way the variety of enforcement means available to deal with discrimination in employment." 118 Cong. Rec. 3369-3370 (1972). Thus, since Senator Javits was responding to a proposed amendment that expressly provided for separate federal and state proceedings, he certainly did not suggest that state proceedings should bar Title VII suits when he spoke of res judicata. See ante, at 475." At the most, he may have been "The Court finds it significant that Senator Javits referred to New York state administrative proceedings during his remarks. Ante, at 475 476, n. 17. But Senator Javits cited New York proceedings only to show that businessmen had not been subject to harassment through discrimination complaints; he did not mention state proceedings during his discussion of res judicata. See 118 Cong. Rec. 3370 (1972). Furthermore, when Senator Javits discussed res judicata, he spoke of litigation instigated by the EEOC, the Attorney General, and an individual. See ante, at 475. Thus, Senator Javits was addressing only federal proceedings; he was not sug 461 BLACKMUN, J., dissenting referring to suits brought under overlapping federal statutes. And, given his reluctance to reduce the number of available antidiscrimination remedies, it is not clear that his remarks were intended to reach even that far. 15 In no sense can the defeat of Senator Hruska's amendment be interpreted as a congressional endorsement of the Court's decision to bar a complainant's Title VII suit based on a state court affirmance of an adverse state agency decision. 16 In Senator Javits' own words, "[w]e should not cut off the range of remedies which is available." 118 Cong. Rec. 3370 (1972).1 III The Court's opinion today is also contrary to the rationales underlying its past Title VII decisions. Time and again, the Court has held that Congress did not intend to foreclose a gesting that the outcome of state proceedings might have res judicata effect. The EEOC and the Attorney General of the United States obviously do not participate in proceedings before the New York state agency. 15 Since Senator Javits specifically mentioned successive suits brought by the EEOC, the Attorney General, and an individual, see ibid., he may have been referring only to successive suits brought under Title VII. See also 118 Cong. Rec. 3371-3372 (1972) (remarks of Sen. Williams) (rejecting Hruska amendment and insisting that 42 U. S. C. § 1981 and Title VII should not be mutually exclusive). "The Court quotes Senator Williams' statement that "the individual claimant should [not] be allowed to litigate his claim to completion in one forum, and then if dissatisfied, go to another forum to try again." 118 Cong. Rec. 3372 (1972). See ante, at 476. But the Court fails to quote Senator Williams' immediately succeeding statement: "I do feel that where one form of relief proves unresponsive or impractical, . . . [the complainant] should have that right." 118 Cong. Rec. 3372 (1972). Indeed, the feared unresponsiveness of some state agencies was a principal reason for the enactment of Title VII. See 110 Cong. Rec. 7214 (1964); Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U. S. 36, 48, n. 9 (1974). "This reading of the statute is fully supported by the original legislative history of Title VII. In 1964, Senator Tower offered an amendment similar to Senator Hruska's 1972 amendment, making Title VII the exclusive federal employment discrimination remedy. 110 Cong. Rec. 13650 (1964). Like Senator Hruska's amendment, Senator Tower's made an exception for state proceedings. Ibid. There was no mention of res judicata during the |