42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5

Section 2000e-5(e)(1) requires a Title VII charge concerning a discrete retaliatory act to be filed within 300 days when the extended filing period applies.

Zelaya v. UNICCO Service Co. · filed 2010-08-20(e)(1)

Thus, plaintiff had 300 days from the discovery of the second lapse to bring her claim. Plaintiffs retaliation complaint, as it pertains to the two temporary lapses in benefits, is time-barred under Title VII.

Section 2000e-5(e)(1) requires a Title VII plaintiff to file an administrative charge within 300 days of the alleged discriminatory or retaliatory act.

Matthews v. Corning Inc. · filed 2010-09-16(e)(1)

Where a plaintiff fails to file an administrative charge within 300 days of the complained-of actions, the plaintiff is barred from thereafter initiating a lawsuit in federal court based upon those actions.

Section 2000e-5(e) requires an EEOC charge within 300 days after notice of a denied promotion; a continuing violation theory does not extend that deadline for a discrete failure to promote.

INDIANAPOLIS CHAPTER OF NAACP v. Ballard · filed 2010-09-16(e)

The point at which the City in its promotions process tabulated the points and notified a particular plaintiff of the denial of promotion is the alleged adverse employment action that is discrete and actionable. ... Each plaintiff had 300 days from that notification to file their EEOC charges.

Section 2000e-5(e)(1) allows 300 days to file an EEOC charge when a worksharing agreement with a local agency applies; a charge filed after that period is untimely.

Stone v. Landis Construction Corp. · filed 2010-10-26(e)(1)

Applying the correct time period does not change the outcome of this case, however. The plaintiff stated in the EEO charge dated June 13, 2007, that the underlying discriminatory act had occurred more than 300 days earlier, on May 8, 2006.

Section 2000e-5(e)(1) allows 300 days to file an EEOC charge after an initial filing with a qualifying state agency, even if the state filing was untimely under state law.

Richardson v. Hartford Public Library · filed 2010-11-09(e)(1)

Pursuant to Commercial Office Products and Goodman, the 300-day limitations period applies where a plaintiff initially files a Title VII or ADEA discrimination charge with a qualifying state agency, regardless of whether that charge was timely under state law.

In a deferral state, a Title VII charge must be filed within 300 days of each discrete discriminatory act to exhaust that claim.

Riley v. Tulsa County Juvenile Bureau Ex Rel. Tulsa County Board of Commissioners · filed 2010-11-30(e)(1)

Mr. Riley filed his December 31 Charge of Discrimination more than 300 days after the last wrongful action described in his complaint. The December 31 Charge therefore did not timely exhaust any of his claims.

Section 2000e-5(e)(1) allows 300 days to file an EEOC charge when a state and the EEOC have a work sharing agreement, even if the claimant files first with the EEOC.

Flores v. Merced Irrigation District · filed 2010-12-09(e)(1)

For plaintiffs Title VII claims, the Court finds that the applicable limitations period is 300 days before the filing of the EEOC claims, not 180 days as argued by MID. Based on plaintiffs filing with the EEOC, and the state work share agreement, the 300 days limitations period applies. Therefore, acts preceding 300 days before the May 5, 2009 file date are barred under Title VII.

Section 2000e-5(e) requires a discrimination charge to be filed within 300 days; conduct within that period can make a hostile work environment claim timely.

Diaz v. JITEN HOTEL MANAGEMENT, INC. · filed 2011-01-20(e)

Title VII and Chapter 151B require plaintiffs to file claims with the EEOC and the MCAD before filing suit in court and within 300 days of complained acts of discrimination. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e); M.G.L. c. 151B, § 5. ... As such, Diaz’s hostile work environment claim is not time-barred.

Section 2000e-5(e)(1) requires a Title VII claimant to file a discrimination charge within 300 days of the alleged unlawful employment practice.

Flynn v. AT & T YELLOW PAGES · filed 2011-01-21(e)(1)

Title VII and the ADEA both require plaintiffs to file charges of discrimination within 300 days after the "alleged unlawful employment practice occurred" before bringing their claims in court. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1); see also, e.g., Dring v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 58 F.3d 1323, 1327 (8th Cir.1995) ("If a plaintiff fails to file a timely charge, the lawsuit is barred unless he or she can demonstrate that the limitations period is subject to equitable modification such as waiver, estoppel, or tolling."). ... Accordingly, the applicable statutes of limitations bar Flynn from asserting all claims arising from Southwestern Bell promoting these individuals except as to Cheryl Loehr.

Section 2000e-5 requires a plaintiff to file an EEOC charge within 180 days of the alleged unlawful employment practice and a lawsuit within 90 days of receiving a right-to-sue letter.

Waiters v. Aviles · filed 2011-03-22(e), (f)

A plaintiff must file a charge with the EEOC within 180 days of the allegedly unlawful employment practice, and then must file a complaint in district court within 90 days of receiving a right-to-sue letter. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e), (f). ... Because she complained of discrete acts -- specifically, unwarranted disciplinary action -- the 90-day limitations period applied, and her January 2007 District Court complaint was untimely as to that conduct.

Section 2000e-5(e)(1) gives a Title VII complainant in New York 300 days to file an EEOC charge; equitable tolling requires extraordinary circumstances and reasonable diligence.

Falso v. Gates Chili Central School District · filed 2011-02-07(e)(1)

Nothing in the record here suggests that Falso’s failure to meet the time requirements of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1) was excusable.

Section 2000e-5(e)(1) gives a claimant in a deferral state 300 days to file a charge with the EEOC.

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Randstad · filed 2011-02-23(e)(1)

A Title VII claimant in a deferral state, such as Maryland, however, has 300 days in which to file a charge with the EEOC. ... Thus, on its face, the disability discrimination claim is time-barred since it was filed well after the 300 day time limit.

Section 2000e-5(e)(1) requires a discrimination charge within 180 days of the alleged practice, extended to 300 days when the complainant begins state or local agency proceedings.

Noack v. YMCA, of the Greater Houston Area · filed 2011-03-16(e)(1)

Title VII requires the plaintiff to file his petition alleging discrimination within 180 days of the alleged unlawful employment practice, unless the complainant has begun proceedings with a state or local agency, in which case the limitations period is extended to 300 days.

Section 2000e-5(e)(1) requires a Title VII charge to be filed within 180 or 300 days of the alleged unlawful employment action, depending on the state.

Musgrove v. Government of the District of Columbia · filed 2011-04-07(e)(1)

Title VII requires that a charge be filed within 180 or 300 days — depending on the state — “after the alleged unlawful employment action occurred.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(l). In this case, plaintiff had 300 days from the alleged violation to file her charge. ... Accordingly, the Court finds that plaintiffs hostile work environment claim under Title VII is time-barred with respect to the purported incidents that occurred in 2002.

Section 2000e-5(e)(1) limits a Title VII claim to discriminatory conduct within 300 days before the charge is filed.

Hull v. COLORADO BD. OF GOVERNORS OF COLORADO · filed 2011-03-28(e)(1)

Furthermore, plaintiff did not file his Charge of Discrimination until September 26, 2007. "Title VII requires a litigant to file a claim within 300 days of the alleged discriminatory conduct." Duncan v. Manager, Dep't of Safety, City & County of Denver, 397 F.3d 1300, 1308 (10th Cir.2005) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1)). [17] Therefore, plaintiff's Title VII claim may only rely upon discriminatory conduct he believes occurred on or after January 16, 2007.

Section 2000e-5(e)(1) requires a Title VII charge to be filed within 300 days of the alleged discriminatory conduct.

Hull v. Colorado Board of Governors of the Colorado State University System · filed 2011-03-28(e)(1)

Therefore, plaintiffs Title VII claim may only rely upon discriminatory conduct he believes occurred on or after January 16, 2007.

Section 2000e-5(e)(1) requires a timely discrimination charge before a Title VII suit; the filing period in this case was 300 days.

Musgrove v. District of Columbia Public Schools · filed 2011-04-07(e)(1)

In this case, plaintiff had 300 days from the alleged violation to file her charge. ... Accordingly, the Court finds that plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim under Title VII is time-barred with respect to the purported incidents that occurred in 2002.

Section 2000e-5(e)(1) requires a discrimination charge within 180 days of the alleged discriminatory act; later review of the employment decision does not extend that period.

Williams v. Gwinnett County Public Schools · filed 2011-04-25(e)(1)

To exhaust his administrative remedies, Williams was required to file a charge of discrimination within 180 days after the alleged act of discrimination. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1); Watson v. Blue Circle, Inc., 324 F.3d 1252, 1258 (11th Cir. 2003). ... The 180-day period began to run on April 3, 2009, when Fleenor fired him, and Williams included that date on his charge of discrimination. Williams’s charge of discrimination was untimely.

Section 2000e-5(e)(1) requires an EEOC charge in a state with a fair employment agency to be filed within 300 days of the alleged discrimination or 30 days after notice that state proceedings ended, whichever comes first.

Tompkins v. AlliedBarton Security Services · filed 2011-06-08(e)(1)

It is clear from the record that amendment of Tompkins’s complaint to add an ADA claim would have been futile because the claim was untimely, 42 U.S.C. § 12117(a) (adopting the filing requirements of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5 for Title I ADA claims); 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1) (after the filing of a complaint in a state with a fair employment agency, such as New York, a charge must be filed with the EEOC within 300 days of the alleged discrimination or within 30 days of notice of termination of state proceedings, whichever comes first).

Section 2000e-5(e)(1) requires a discrimination charge to be filed within 300 days of the alleged unlawful employment practice.

McCauley v. Akal Security, Inc. · filed 2011-06-17(e)(1)

Additionally, the Court notes that McCauley’s Complaint as to her denial of a work assignment in January 2006 is time-barred because an employee must file a charge of discrimination within 300 days of the alleged unlawful employment practice.

Section 2000e-5(e)(1) requires a discrimination charge to be filed within 180 days of the adverse employment decision; an intake questionnaire that is not a charge does not meet that deadline.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Summer Classics, Inc. · filed 2011-07-06(e)(1)

The complaining party, arguing now through EEOC, followed the advice of EEOC, and overlooked or ignored the clear requirements of the applicable federal statute, which plainly requires a “charge” to be filed within 180 days of the adverse employment decision.

Section 2000e-5(e)(1) bars claims based on discrete acts outside the applicable 300-day charge-filing period.

Jacobs v. Connecticut Community Technical Colleges · filed 2011-07-27(e)(1)

Thus, any claims of “discrete acts” that occurred more than 300 days prior to June 25, 2007 ... are outside the statutory period and not properly before this Court.

Section 2000e-5(e)(1) generally limits Title VII damages to violations within 300 days before an EEOC charge is filed.

McClain v. Lufkin Industries, Inc. · filed 2011-08-08(e)(1)

Title VII provides that, except for continuing violations like harassment, damages may only be awarded for violations that occurred 300 days before an EEOC charge is filed. See 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(e)(1).

Section 2000e-5(e)(1) bars a Title VII claim when the agency charge is untimely and the claimant shows no basis for equitable tolling.

McIntyre v. City of Wilmington · filed 2011-08-15(e)(1)

We thus agree with the District Court that McIntyre’s charge of discrimination filed with the DDOL on December 31, 2008, was untimely, and that this fact was fatal to his case. ... We also agree with the District Court that McIntyre provided no basis for equitably tolling § 2000e-5(e)(1).

Section 2000e-5(e)(1) gives a complainant in a deferral state 300 days to file a discrimination charge.

Prelich v. Medical Resources, Inc. · filed 2011-08-19(e)(1)

Thus, it is undisputed that, in Maryland, a complainant has 300 days in which to file a charge of discrimination under Title VII or the ADA.

In Missouri, a Title VII claimant must file a charge of discrimination with the EEOC within 300 days of termination.

Brooks v. Midwest Heart Group · filed 2011-09-09(e)(1)

In order to exhaust administrative remedies, a claimant must file a timely charge of discrimination with the EEOC. ... In Missouri, this obligation must be discharged within 300 days of the employee's termination.

Section 2000e-5(e)(1) requires a Title VII discrimination charge to be filed within 300 days of the alleged unlawful employment practice.

Neal v. SHELBY COUNTY GOVERNMENT COMMUNITY SERVICES AGENCY · filed 2011-09-29(e)(1)

Thus, because the continuing violations doctrine does not apply, and Plaintiff has not alleged facts that would allow the Court to conclude that Plaintiff filed a charge alleging that the hiring of a white female for the Counselor C position in May 2004 was a racially discriminatory act within 300 days of its occurrence, she may not bring a claim for racial discrimination under Title VII.

Section 2000e-5(e)(1) limits a charge filed in a deferral state to employment actions occurring within 300 days before the charge was filed.

Murray v. State of Louisiana-Division of Administration-Office of Planning & Budget · filed 2011-08-26(e)(1)

We consider only those adverse employment actions that occurred on or after November 4, 2005, the date three hundred days before Murray filed his charge of discrimination on August 30, 2006.

Section 2000e-5(e) requires a Title VII retaliation charge to be filed within 300 days of the alleged unlawful employment practice when the claimant initially instituted state or local agency proceedings.

Judy Chou Chiung-Yu Wang v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America · filed 2011-08-29(e)

Wang filed her charge of discrimination on February 25, 2009, which was over 300 days after the alleged unlawful conduct occurred; therefore, Wang’s retaliation claims under Title VII and the ADEA are time-barred.

A Title VII discrimination charge is timely if filed with the EEOC within 300 days of the alleged discrimination; for a continuing violation, one discriminatory act must occur within that period.

Grover v. Smarte Carte, Inc. · filed 2011-12-22(e)(3)(A)

Under Title VII, a discrimination charge must be filed with the EEOC within 300 days of the alleged discrimination. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(3)(A). Grover met this standard by filing her EEOC claim on February 27, 2008, less than 300 days after her termination. In cases of alleged continuing violations, as in this case, a claim will be timely as long as one act of discrimination occurred within that 300-day period.

Section 2000e-5(e)(1) requires an EEOC charge within 180 days of a discrete discriminatory act.

Liddell v. Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding, Inc. · filed 2011-12-27(e)(1)

Using the earlier date urged by Defendant, which is more favorable to Liddell, Liddell cannot recover under Title VII for any alleged discrete discriminatory acts which occurred before July 18, 1999.

Section 2000e-5(e)(1) requires a Title VII claimant in Puerto Rico to file an EEOC charge within 300 days of each discrete discriminatory act.

Sánchez-Arroyo v. Department of Education · filed 2012-02-01(e)(1)

For present purposes, it follows that Sánchez was required to file an administrative charge before the EEOC within 300 days of each of the discriminatory acts she complains of.

Section 2000e-5(e)(1) gives a plaintiff in a state with an agency authorized to remedy employment discrimination 300 days after a discriminatory act to file a charge.

James v. Countrywide Financial Corp. · filed 2012-02-02(e)(1)

Plaintiff filed the Charge with the SDHR on October 29, 2008. Thus, only alleged misconduct occurring on or after January 3, 2008 would fall within the 300-day limitations period.

Section 2000e-5(e)(1) makes a discrimination charge filed more than 300 days after the claimant learns of the alleged discrimination untimely.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. UPMC · filed 2012-03-27(e)(1)

She filed the charge more than 300 days after the date she learned of the alleged discrimination, which makes the charge untimely.

Section 2000e-5(e)(1) requires a Puerto Rico plaintiff to file an administrative charge within 300 days, but a hostile work environment claim may include earlier events if one discriminatory act occurred within that period.

García-Ledesma v. Centro · filed 2012-03-27(e)(1)

But since a hostile work environment is conceptually a single employment practice, the exhaustion requirement does not bar consideration of events that comprise that practice so long as any one discriminatory act occurs within the limitations period.

Section 2000e-5(e)(1) allows 300 days to file a Title VII charge when proceedings are also instituted with a state agency; earlier acts are time-barred.

Lam v. City & County of San Francisco · filed 2012-04-13(e)(1)

Because Title VII establishes a limitations period that extends backwards 300 days before the date of the charge (applicable also to charges cross-filed with the DFEH), plaintiffs’ allegations must fall within 300 days of the December 2, 2008 EEOC charge to be actionable — i.e., February 5, 2008.

Section 2000e-5(e)(1) requires a Title VII charge to be filed within 180 days of the alleged unlawful employment practice, extended to 300 days when the person initially pursues a state or local agency procedure.

Peters v. District of Columbia · filed 2012-04-16(e)(1)

The alleged adverse acts occurring in 2008 or earlier fall outside the 300-day statute of limitations for filing an EEOC complaint and are time-barred. Title VII requires “aggrieved persons” to file a charge with the EEOC within 180 days after the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred, but this period is extended to 300 days when the person has initially instituted a procedure with a state or local agency. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1).

Section 2000e-5(e)(1) requires a Title VII claimant to file an EEOC charge within 300 days of the allegedly discriminatory act.

Sloth v. Constellation Brands, Inc. · filed 2012-06-08(e)(1)

Claims brought pursuant to Title VII are subject to a strict limitations period. Specifically, a plaintiff must bring claims of discrimination to the EEOC within 300 days of the allegedly discriminatory act or acts. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(l). In the instant case, plaintiff filed her EEOC complaint on August 27, 2008. As a result, only those acts occurring on or after November 1, 2007 are timely for purposes of plaintiffs Title VII claims.

Section 2000e-5(e)(1) requires a Title VII charge to be filed within 180 days of the alleged unlawful employment practice.

Gross-Jones v. Mercy Medical · filed 2012-06-11(e)(1)

November 3, 2010 is thus the concluding date of the 180-day filing period. The opening day of the filing period is thus May 7, 2010.

An employee who institutes proceedings with an appropriate state or local agency has 300 days from the alleged discrimination to file an EEOC charge.

Williams v. Target Stores · filed 2012-07-12(e)(1)

Under Title VII, an employee has 300 days from the date of the alleged discrimination to file a charge of discrimination with the EEOC if the employee, as Williams did in this case, instituted proceedings with an appropriate state or local agency.

Section 2000e-5(e)(1) requires a Title VII claimant who has not pursued state or local administrative proceedings to file an EEOC charge within 180 days, rather than 300 days.

Ashraf-Hassan v. Embassy of France in the United States · filed 2012-07-20(e)(1)

Where Plaintiff has failed to pursue her grievances through the state’s administrative processes, as here, she cannot invoke the longer presentment window and must file her claims within the 180-day window to be timely.

Section 2000e-5(e)(1) requires a Title VII plaintiff in a state with an agency authorized to address employment discrimination to file an EEOC charge within 300 days of a discrete unlawful employment practice.

Richmond v. Coastal Bend College District · filed 2012-08-01(e)(1)

Plaintiff had 300 days from that date, or until July 3, 2006, to file her EEOC complaint. She did not file it until January 31, 2007 (Mot. for Sum. Jmt., Ex. 9; D.E. 35-2 at 40). Accordingly, the charge was not timely filed and Huff is barred from bringing those claims as discrete acts of discrimination.

Section 2000e-5(e)(1) gives District of Columbia plaintiffs 300 days to file an EEOC charge because filing with the EEOC also initiates local agency proceedings.

Craig v. Metropolitan Police Department · filed 2012-08-02(e)(1)

As a result, plaintiffs in the District of Columbia who file a complaint with the EEOC are deemed to have instituted proceedings with a state or local agency and are thus afforded 300 days to file their complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–5(e)(1).

Section 2000e-5(e)(1) requires a timely EEOC charge to preserve a Title VII claim, subject to equitable tolling.

Kosegarten v. Department of Prosecuting Attorney · filed 2012-08-31(e)(1)

Title VII requires a claimant to exhaust her administrative remedies prior to filing a civil action against the employer that allegedly discriminated against her. ... These incidents clearly occurred more than 300 days before Plaintiff filed the October 2008 Charge.

Section 2000e-5(e)(1) requires a Title VII retaliation charge to be filed with the EEOC within 180 days when the relevant state agency lacks jurisdiction over retaliation claims.

Perez v. Developers Diversified Realty Corp. · filed 2012-09-04(e)(1)

Therefore, his retaliation claim is time-barred inasmuch as he filed the retaliation charge before the EEOC 185 days after the last alleged retaliatory act, that is, his termination.

Section 2000e-5(e)(1) gives a claimant in New York 300 days to file a discrimination charge with the EEOC.

Odom v. Doar · filed 2012-09-20(e)(1)

Because Odom’s EEOC complaint was not filed until nearly three years later, in August 2010, it was untimely under Title VII’s 300-day statute of limitations.

Section 2000e-5(e)(1) sets deadlines for filing an EEOC charge, but those deadlines are subject to equitable tolling.

Johnson v. MacDonald · filed 2012-09-20(e)(1)

Nonetheless, since it is clear that plaintiff actively pursued his administrative remedies — albeit ineffectively — it is impossible to discount entirely the possibility that equitable tolling might be appropriate in this case. ... Accordingly, this Court declines to dismiss plaintiffs discrimination claims arising from the trips as time-barred and will reach the question of whether Defendant’s actions relating to the trips took place under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination.

Section 2000e-5(e)(1) requires an employee to submit a discrimination charge to the EEOC within 180 days of the alleged violation, or within 300 days if the employee first presents it to a state or local equal employment opportunity agency.

Panicker v. State Department of Agriculture · filed 2012-09-28(e)(1)

Furthermore, to preserve a claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, an aggrieved employee must submit a charge of discrimination to the EEOC within 180 days of the allegedly unlawful incident, or within 300 days of the incident if the employee first presented the charge to a state or local equal employment opportunity agency. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1). On July 15, 2011, the EEOC dismissed Mr. Panicker’s claim as untimely.

In a deferral state, an ADA claimant must file an EEOC charge within 300 days of the alleged unlawful employment practice; a conditional warning does not start that period when termination is not inevitable.

Furry v. Lehigh Valley Health System · filed 2012-09-28(e)(1)

In a deferral state, the ADA provides that a plaintiff must, file a charge with the EEOC within 300 days “after the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(l). ... Accordingly, the date of the “alleged unlawful employment practice” was, at the earliest, June 18, 2008, the date by which Furry was required to produce medical documentation or be terminated.

Section 2000e-5(e)(1) requires an employee to file an EEOC charge within the applicable filing period after an alleged unlawful employment practice.

Torres v. Gonzalez · filed 2012-09-30(e)(1)

In the instant case, the record shows that plaintiff filed her police administrative claim with the PRPD on March 5, 2008, and the EEOC charge on April 8, 2009. Hence, the EEOC charge is time-barred as it was filed more than three hundred days after the date that plaintiff filed her administrative claim with the PRPD.

Section 2000e-5(e)(1) bars Title VII claims based on discrete employment acts that occurred before the applicable EEOC charge-filing period.

Daoud v. City of Wilmington · filed 2012-10-01(e)(1)

Three hundred days prior to March 28, 2008 was June 2, 2007; any allegedly unlawful employment practices prior to June 2, 2007 are time-barred by the EEOC filing limitation.

Section 2000e-5(e)(1)’s 300-day charge-filing period, applied through the ADA, bars claims based on discrete discriminatory acts outside that period.

Byington v. NBRS Financial Bank · filed 2012-10-10(e)(1)

At the outset, all claims of intentional discrimination that allegedly occurred prior to August 2008 are dismissed because they constitute discrete acts that occurred more than 300 days before Byington filed the administrative charge in June 2009.

In New York, a Title VII plaintiff must file an EEOC charge within 300 days of the alleged discriminatory act; claims based on earlier acts are time-barred.

Workneh v. Pall Corp. · filed 2012-10-11(e)(1)

Because Plaintiff filed his charge with the EEOC on October 13, 2009, claims of discrimination that are predicated on conduct before December 17, 2008—300 days prior to filing the EEOC charge — are time-barred.

Section 2000e-5(e)(1) requires a timely EEOC charge before a Title VII suit; the court applied a 180-day filing period to the alleged acts.

McMillan v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority · filed 2012-10-12(e)(1)

Before suing under Title VII, an aggrieved party must first file a charge of discrimination with the EEOC within 180 days of the alleged discriminatory incident.

Section 2000e-5(e)(1) requires a charge alleging a noncontinuous discriminatory act to be filed within 300 days of the act.

Sosebee v. Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission · filed 2012-10-16(e)(1)

For an allegation of noncontinuous discrimination, Title VII requires a plaintiff to file his or her charge within 300 days of the allegedly discriminatory act. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(l). Given this, any conduct occurring prior to August 25, 2010 (the conduct making up the bulk of her harassment allegations) is time-barred.

Section 2000e-5(e)(1) requires a Title VII claimant in the District of Columbia to file an EEOC charge within 300 days of the alleged unlawful act; submitting an intake questionnaire does not toll that deadline.

Duberry v. Inter-Con Security Systems, Inc. · filed 2012-10-17(e)(1)

But submission of the Intake Questionnaire is neither a substitute for the charge, nor tolls the deadline.

Section 2000e-5(e)(1) requires a discrimination charge concerning a discrete employment act to be filed within 300 days of that act.

Williams v. City of New York · filed 2013-01-08(e)(1)

Furthermore, the conduct complained of was a discrete act and not of a continuing nature. As such, the 300-day limitations period began to run on August 4, 2008, and expired before July 13, 2009.

In states with an agency authorized to address employment discrimination, an employee must file an EEOC charge within 300 days of the discriminatory act.

Gallentine v. Housing Authority · filed 2013-01-22(e)(1)

Generally, the limitations period begins on the date the discriminatory act occurred, and a plaintiff cannot sustain her claims based on incidents that occurred more than 300 days before the filing of a charge of discrimination.

Section 2000e-5(e)(1) requires an employee to file an EEOC charge within 300 days of an allegedly unlawful act.

Hutchinson v. City of Oklahoma City · filed 2013-01-23(e)(1)

To prevent “ ‘the pressing of stale claims,’ ” aggrieved employees must file a charge of discrimination with the EEOC within 300 days of the allegedly unlawful act.

Section 2000e-5(e)(1) bars Title VII claims based on events more than 300 days before a discrimination charge is filed with a state or local employment agency.

Mazyck v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority · filed 2012-09-04(e)(1)

Title VII’s statute of limitations bars claims based on events occurring more than 300 days prior to filing a charge of discrimination with a state or local employment agency. ... Accordingly, only those incidents allegedly occurring on or after August 25, 2005 are actionably under Title VII.

When a complainant first seeks relief from a state or local agency, § 2000e-5(e)(1) requires an EEOC charge within 30 days after notice that the agency has ended its proceedings if that deadline comes before the 300-day limit.

Dave v. District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department · filed 2012-11-09(e)(1)

Plaintiff did not file his EEOC charge within 30 days of being informed by the DC Office of Human Rights that his administrative complaint had been dismissed.

Section 2000e-5(e) requires an EEOC charge within 180 days of the alleged unlawful employment action, or within 300 days if a charge was filed with a state or local equal employment agency.

Lioi v. New York City Department of Health & Mental Hygiene · filed 2012-12-19(e)

This allegation, even if true, is untimely. For a Title VII claim to be timely, “a claimant [must] file a charge of discrimination with the EEOC within 180 days of the alleged unlawful employment action or, if the claimant has already filed the charge with a state or local equal employment agency, within 300 days of the alleged discriminatory action.” ... Lioi filed an Intake Questionnaire with the EEOC on August 31, 2009. Thus, events occurring before November 4, 2008 are time-barred, as Lioi conceded at oral argument.

The EEOC is bound by § 2000e-5(e)(1)’s 300-day charge-filing limit when it brings claims on behalf of employees.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Swissport Fueling, Inc. · filed 2013-01-07(e)(1)

The Court rejects this claim. Multiple courts have found that the EEOC is bound by the time limits set out in § 2000e-5(e)(l).

Section 2000e-5(e)(1) gives claimants in Illinois 300 days to file an EEOC charge; a right-to-sue letter does not revive a late charge.

Gatto v. Indian Prairie School District 204 · filed 2013-02-15(e)(1)

Having the letter could not salvage her discrimination claim because, as district court observed, she had waited more than five years ... after her resignation to file a charge with the EEOC, long past the 300-day deadline applicable to claimants in Illinois.

Section 2000e-5(e)(1) gives ADA claimants in a deferral jurisdiction 300 days after an alleged unlawful employment practice to file an EEOC charge.

Johnson - Parks v. D.C. Chartered Health Plan · filed 2013-02-28(e)(1)

The District of Columbia is a “deferral jurisdiction,” see Kornegay v. AT&T, 579 F. Supp. 2d 34, 37 (D.D.C. 2008), such that a claimant must file her charge with the EEOC no later than 300 days after the alleged unlawful practice occurred.

Section 2000e-5(e)(1) requires an EEOC charge to be filed within 300 days of the alleged discriminatory act in New York.

Jordan v. Forfeiture Support Associates · filed 2013-03-05(e)(1)

Yet, as set forth in defendant’s documentary exhibits supporting its motion to dismiss, plaintiff signed her EEOC Charge on December 6, 2010 and subsequently filed the Charge on December 10, 2010, long after the three hundred-day period within which plaintiff was required to file her administrative charge.

Section 2000e-5(e)(1) requires an EEOC charge within 300 days of the alleged discrimination or retaliation.

Harp v. Department of Human Services, Colorado Mental Health Institute · filed 2013-03-18(e)(1)

Ms. Harp’s discrimination and retaliation claims are timely only if they were the subject of an EEOC charge filed within 300 days of the alleged acts of discrimination or retaliation.

Section 2000e-5(e)(1) allows 300 days to file an EEOC charge only when the claimant first proceeds before a state or local agency with authority to grant or seek relief; otherwise, the deadline is 180 days.

Whorton v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority · filed 2013-02-21(e)(1)

Thus, because WMATA is not subject to the state or local anti-discrimination laws, the local authority (in this case the Prince George’s County Human Rights Commission) was without authority to grant or seek relief for the plaintiff. Consequently, the 300 day provision is inapplicable and the 180 day provision controls.

Section 2000e-5(e)(1)’s EEOC filing period begins when an employee receives unequivocal notice of an allegedly discriminatory termination, even if employment ends later.

McAleer v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America · filed 2013-02-28(e)(1)

Title VII requires plaintiffs to file discrimination claims with the EEOC “within one hundred and eighty days after the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1). In Massachusetts, however, a plaintiff may file an action no later than 300 days from the date of the alleged discrimination. ... An employment discrimination claim accrues when the employee has unequivocal notice of some harm resulting from an allegedly discriminatory act. ... Prudential notified McAleer of his termination on July 24, 2009. The fact that the final consequences of that decision came later does not change when McAleer learned of the decision.

Section 2000e-5(e)(1) bars a hostile work environment claim when no act contributing to it occurred within 300 days before the EEOC charge.

Brown v. New York City Department of Education · filed 2013-03-11(e)(1)

First, the District Court correctly concluded that Brown’s hostile work environment claim was time-barred. No act contributing to the allegedly hostile work environment at M.S. 50 occurred within 300 days of Brown’s complaint to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1); Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 109-10 (2002).

Section 2000e-5(f)(1) gives a plaintiff 90 days after receiving an EEOC right-to-sue notice to file a Title VII complaint; a pro se complaint presented to the clerk before that deadline is timely even if the clerk files it later.

Friedman v. Swiss Re America Holding Corp. · filed 2013-02-25(f)(1)

Here, as in Toliver, Friedman should not be penalized for the delay caused by the clerk's office – namely, its refusal to accept his complaint for filing on March 11, which preceded the expiration of the 90-day filing deadline. Accordingly, Friedman’s Title VII and ADEA claims should be treated as timely, and to that extent his complaint should be reinstated.

Section 2000e-5(f)(1) requires a plaintiff to file a civil complaint within 90 days of receiving an EEOC right-to-sue letter.

Perry v. Southern Wine Spirits · filed 2013-03-04(f)(1)

Second, the plaintiff must file her civil complaint within 90 days of receiving a right-to-sue letter from the EEOC. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1). ... Because Perry waited until 22 December 2010 to file her lawsuit -- more than 90 days after the right-to-sue letter issued -- the claims in her first charge were time-barred and summary judgment was proper.

Section 2000e-5(f)(1)’s ninety-day filing period presumptively begins on the fifth day after the EEOC mails a right-to-sue notice.

Kovac v. Superior Dairy, Inc. · filed 2013-03-12(f)(1)

Applying the Sixth Circuit’s five-day rule, Kovac’s federal discrimination claim was timely filed. The EEOC mailed its right-to-sue notice on February 24, 2012, and therefore the limitations period began to run five days later, on February 29, 2012.

Section 2000e-5(f)(1) allows a civil action within 90 days of a right-to-sue notice, and the filing period may be tolled when there is a basis to do so.

Dawson v. Wells Fargo Corporation · filed 2013-03-13(f)(1)

Dawson’s Title VII ... claim was untimely, and there was no basis for tolling the time limits. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) (civil action may be brought within 90 days of right-to-sue notice).

Section 2000e-5(f)(1) gives a Title VII plaintiff ninety days after receiving an EEOC right-to-sue notice to file suit; evidence of later receipt can create a factual dispute about timeliness.

Freeman v. Dal-Tile Corp. · filed 2013-03-14(f)(1)

Title VII plaintiffs have a ninety-day period in which to file their claims after the EEOC has given them a Notice of Right to Sue (“Notice”). ... If plaintiff received the Notice on 25 August 2010, then her complaint was timely filed within the statutory period. Thus, a genuine dispute of material fact exists with respect to this issue, and Dal-Tile cannot obtain summary judgment on plaintiffs Title VII claims based on the ninety-day statutory limitations period.

Section 2000e-5(e)(1) requires a charge within 180 days of a discrete unlawful employment act, or within 300 days if the claimant first begins state or local agency proceedings.

Lee v. Department of Children & Families · filed 2013-04-15(e)(1)

There is no dispute between the parties as to the applicable time bar for the ADA Title I claims — namely, that a charge must be filed with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) within 180 days of the alleged unlawful employment action, unless the claimant initially institutes proceedings with a state or local employment agency, in which case the claimant has 300 days. ... Therefore, the Title I claims are being dismissed to the extent they concern conduct alleged to have taken place more than 180 days prior to the date the plaintiff filed the charge of discrimination with the EEOC..

Section 2000e-5(e)(1) requires an employee to file an EEOC charge within 180 days of an allegedly unlawful act, or within 300 days if the employee first presents the charge to a state or local equal opportunity agency.

Durant v. District of Columbia Government · filed 2013-03-25(e)(1)

Defendant points to a provision of Title VII that provides that an aggrieved employee must submit a charge of discrimination to the EEOC within 180 days of the allegedly unlawful incident, or within 300 days of the incident if the employee first presented the charge to a state or local equal opportunity agency. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1). ... The Court agrees. Accordingly, the Court will grant this portion of defendant’s motion and enter summary judgment for defendant on Count II of the amended complaint to the extent that it is based on any actions alleged to have been taken before October 2007.

Section 2000e-5(e)(1) bars a Title VII claim based on a discrete employment action when the charge is filed more than 300 days after that action.

Rodriquez v. County of Nassau · filed 2013-03-27(e)(1)

This termination is a “discrete” act, and is outside the 300-day time limit for a claim under Title VII.

Section 2000e-5(e)(1) sets a 180-day deadline for filing an EEOC charge, extended to 300 days when the claimant first institutes proceedings with an authorized state or local agency.

Morse v. Jetblue Airways Corp. · filed 2013-03-31(e)(1)

The 300-day limitation applies if the person aggrieved "has initially instituted proceedings with a State or local agency with authority to grant or seek relief from such practice or to institute criminal proceedings.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1). In all other cases, the 180-day limitation applies. ... Because the parties appear to agree that the 300-day limitation applies, the court analyzes plaintiff’s claims according to that limitation.

In Indiana, a Title VII claimant has 300 days from the challenged conduct to file an EEOC charge.

Majors v. General Electric Company · filed 2013-04-16(e)(1)

Ms. Majors’s retaliation claim was subject to the 300-day statute of limitation, and her second EEOC charge was filed 311 days after her first EEOC charge was filed. Consequently, the district court concluded that Ms. Majors’s retaliation claim was limited to GE’s conduct during the 300-day period before the second EEOC charge was filed, i.e., from June 3, 2009 forward. We agree.

Section 2000e-5(e)(1) requires a Title VII charge to be filed with the EEOC within 300 days of the alleged unlawful employment practice.

Lugo v. City of New York · filed 2013-05-01(e)(1)

For a Title VII action to be timely, a plaintiff must file the charge with the EEOC within 300 days of the allegedly unlawful employment practice. ... Thus, all of Lugo’s claims are untimely except his charge that his termination was motivated by discriminatory animus and his malicious prosecution claim.

Section 2000e-5(e)(1)’s 300-day deadline for filing an EEOC charge is tolled until facts supporting a discrimination charge were or should have been apparent to a reasonably prudent person in the plaintiff’s position.

Doyle v. City of Chicago · filed 2013-05-01(e)(1)

If viewed as discrete discriminatory acts, as Defendants argue, the 300-day filing deadline is tolled until the time when facts that would support a charge of discrimination were apparent or should have been apparent to a person with a reasonably prudent regard for his rights similarly situated to the plaintiff. ... Based solely on the Complaint, it is not clear when the Plaintiffs were aware of the facts necessary to support a charge of discrimination.

Section 2000e-5(f)(1) requires a civil action within ninety days of receiving a right-to-sue letter; that deadline is nonjurisdictional and can be waived.

Bergbauer v. Mabus · filed 2013-03-27(f)(1)

It is unclear whether Bergbauer timely filed this action but Navy has waived any defense based on this point. By statute, Bergbauer was required to file her civil action within ninety days of receipt of the right to sue letter. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1). ... Regardless, the 90-day time limit is not jurisdictional and is subject to waiver.

Section 2000e-5(e)(1) requires a Title VII charge within 300 days of each discrete discriminatory act, even when the acts are part of a broader policy.

Pietri v. N.Y.S. Office of Court Administration · filed 2013-03-28(e)(1)

Each incident is only actionable if it occurred within the 300-day time period. ... Therefore, the continuing violation exception does not apply to Plaintiffs Title VII claims for discrimination and retaliation.

Section 2000e-5(e)(1) requires a plaintiff to file an EEOC charge within 300 days of the alleged discriminatory act to bring a Title VII religious discrimination suit.

Wareham v. Dollar Bank · filed 2013-03-29(e)(1)

Dollar Bank correctly states that in order to bring suit in federal court for religious discrimination under Title VII, the plaintiff must file a charge of discrimination with the E.E.O.C. within 300 days of the alleged act of discrimination.

A Title VII failure-to-promote claim is untimely under § 2000e-5(e)(1) when the employee files an EEOC charge two years after the denial.

Hall v. Village of Flossmoor · filed 2013-04-08(e)(1)

Hall was turned down for that assignment in 2008; he filed his EEOC charge in 2010 and his complaint in 2011. Those submissions, the district court reasoned, were untimely. The court was correct about the Title VII claim, see 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(l), and the § 1983 claim, see Williams v. Lampe, 399 F.3d 867, 870 (7th Cir.2005), but wrong about the § 1981 claim.

Section 2000e-5(e)(1) requires an EEOC charge within 300 days of a discrete employment act in a deferral jurisdiction.

Johnson v. University of Puerto Rico · filed 2013-04-18(e)(1)

Puerto Rico is a "deferral" jurisdiction, so the administrative charge must be filed within 300 days of the alleged unlawful conduct. ... Only those acts that occurred within the 300 days before June 4, 2009, are actionable (i.e., from August 8, 2008).

A Title VII claimant in Florida must file an EEOC charge within 300 days of the last discriminatory act, subject to equitable tolling until the facts supporting a claim should be apparent to a reasonably prudent person.

Shedrick v. District Board of Trustees of Miami-Dade College · filed 2013-04-23(e)(1)

Under these circumstances, a person with a reasonably prudent regard for his rights would have been aware of discriminatory treatment and could have filed a charge with the EEOC within 300 days. ... Because Davis did not do so, he has not exhausted his administrative remedies under the statute, and Defendant is entitled to summary judgment on Davis’s claims under Title VII and the FCRA.

Section 2000e-5(e)(1) requires a Title VII discrimination charge within 180 days of the alleged act, or within 300 days if the claimant first brings proceedings before an authorized state or local agency.

Haire v. Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University Agricultural & Mechanical College · filed 2013-05-21(e)(1)

Under Title VII, a plaintiff alleging gender discrimination must file a complaint with the EEOC within 180 days of the alleged discriminatory act or within 300 days if the plaintiff has initially instituted proceedings with a state or local agency with authority to grant relief. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1). ... Thus, to the extent that Haire argues that Durham’s promotion amounted to gender discrimination, that claim is time-barred because Durham’s appointment happened in 2007. The rest of her claims, however, are not time-barred.

Section 2000e-5(f)(1) requires a Title VII plaintiff to file a federal complaint within ninety days after receiving the EEOC's right-to-sue notice.

Willie Edwards, Jr. v. Bay State Milling Co · filed 2013-04-02(f)(1)

Under Title VII, a plaintiff wishing to file a complaint must do so in federal court within ninety days of receipt of the EEOC‟s Notice of Right to Sue.

Section 2000e-5(f)(1) requires a Title VII complaint to be filed within 90 days after receipt of an EEOC right-to-sue notice.

Rajesh M. Patel, MD v. Georgia Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Disabilities · filed 2013-04-22(f)(1)

In a Title VII suit, a party must file his complaint within 90 days of receiving an EEOC notice of his right to sue.

Section 2000e-5(f)(1) gives a claimant 90 days after receiving a notice of right to sue to file a Title VII claim.

Carter v. Thompson Hotels · filed 2013-05-03(f)(1)

Carter exhausted his administrative remedies and timely filed his Title VII claims within 90 days of receiving a notice of right to sue.

Section 2000e-5(f)(1) requires a plaintiff to file a federal complaint within 90 days of receiving an EEOC right-to-sue letter.

Robinson v. Goulet · filed 2013-05-17(f)(1)

We reject Goulet’s argument that granting Robinson leave to amend her complaint would be futile because her complaint was untimely. First, it is unclear whether the date stamp on the EEOC Right to Sue Letter indicates that it was mailed on January 23, 2012 or January 26, 2012 and if it was the latter date, Robinson’s claim was timely filed. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) (requiring a plaintiff to file a federal complaint within 90 days of receipt of an EEOC right-to-sue letter).

Section 2000e-5 supplies a 90-day filing deadline for ADA claims through the ADA’s incorporation of Title VII’s enforcement provisions, and Georgia’s renewal statute does not extend it.

Ingmire v. Target Corporation · filed 2013-05-29(f)(1)

The ADA also provides for a 90-day statute of limitations, as it expressly incorporates the enforcement mechanisms contained in Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5. ... As in Phillips, the application of the Georgia renewal statute and other state renewal statutes would undermine the uniformity intended by Congress’s adoption of the 90-day limitations period for filing claims under the ADA and ADEA.

Section 2000e-5(e)(1) gives a plaintiff in a deferral state 300 days from an alleged discriminatory or retaliatory act to file an EEOC charge.

Sewell v. Strayer University · filed 2013-07-09(e)(1)

In deferral states such as Virginia, ... that limitations period is 300 days from the date of the allegedly discriminatory or retaliatory act.

Section 2000e-5(f)(1) requires a Title VII plaintiff to file suit within 90 days of receiving an EEOC right-to-sue letter.

Olatunji v. District of Columbia · filed 2013-07-19(f)(1)

A party must file a Title VII suit in federal court within 90 days of receiving an EEOC right-to-sue letter. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–5(f)(1).

Section 2000e-5(e)’s charge-filing periods limit which acts are actionable, but older acts may serve as background evidence for timely claims.

Arnold v. Pfizer, Inc. · filed 2013-09-09(e)

The court takes the same approach in the present case and considers evidence outside the statutory periods as background evidence that may inform Arnold’s timely claims.

Section 2000e-5(e) requires a timely EEOC complaint, subject to equitable estoppel or tolling when a plaintiff establishes grounds for it.

Mendoza v. Lehigh Southwest Cement Compan · filed 2013-10-04(e)

The district court properly dismissed Mendoza’s federal claims because Mendoza failed to file a timely complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), and he failed to demonstrate a basis for equitable estoppel or tolling. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e) (setting forth the time for filing a complaint with EEOC under Title VII); Leong, 347 F.3d at 1123 (discussing the requirements for equitable estoppel and tolling); see also 42 U.S.C. § 12117(a) (adopting 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5 procedures for claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act).

Section 2000e-5(e)(1) bars Title VII claims based on acts occurring more than 300 days before a discrimination charge is filed with a state or local employment agency.

Moore v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority · filed 2013-08-22(e)(1)

Title VII’s statute of limitations bars claims based on events occurring more than 300 days prior to filing a charge of discrimination with a state or local employment agency. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1). Plaintiff filed an administrative complaint with the SDHR on July 21, 2006. (Pl.’s 56.1 Stmt. ¶ RR.) Accordingly, only those incidents that occurred on or after September 24, 2005 are actionable under Title VII.

Section 2000e-5(f)(1)’s ninety-day deadline for filing suit after an EEOC right-to-sue letter is not jurisdictional.

Giles v. City of Dallas · filed 2013-09-09(f)(1)

Giles’ untimely filing of his original Title VII action does not create a jurisdictional bar to suit.

Section 2000e-5(e)(1) requires a Title VII charge to be filed with the EEOC within 180 days of the discriminatory act, extended to 300 days if the person first files with a state agency.

Fuller v. Edward B. Stimpson Co. · filed 2013-08-30(e)(1)

To timely pursue a Title VII claim, the aggrieved party must file a charge with the EEOC within 180 days of the alleged discriminatory act. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1). The filing period is extended to 300 days if the aggrieved party first files a complaint with a state agency. § 2000e — 5(e)(1).

Section 2000e-5(f)(1) requires a Title VII suit to be filed within ninety days after the plaintiff receives the EEOC right-to-sue letter.

Mack v. John L. Wortham & Son, L.P. · filed 2013-09-05(f)(1)

The right to sue is lost if a claim is not filed within ninety days of the plaintiff’s receipt of the right-to-sue letter. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1). ... Despite this discrepancy, we take all facts in the light most favorable to the non-movant at the summary judgment stage and presume that she received the letter some time between September 2, 2010 and September 6, 2010. Because she received the letter after September 2, 2010, her complaint was timely filed.

In New York, a Title VII claimant has 300 days after an alleged discriminatory act to file an EEOC charge.

Russo v. New York Presbyterian Hospital · filed 2013-09-23(e)(1)

Plaintiffs Title VII claims prior to November 22, 2007, are time barred pursuant to the 300-day statute of limitations set forth in Title VII.

Section 2000e-5(e)(1) requires an EEOC charge within 180 days of the alleged unlawful employment practice unless the filing requirement is tolled or waived.

Perry v. Alabama Alcoholic Beverage Control Board · filed 2013-09-23(e)(1)

A charge must be filed within 180 days of the alleged unlawful employment practice. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(l). Because Perry has not pointed to any reason why the filing requirement should be tolled or otherwise waived for her failure to promote claim, and because the claim was not filed until two years later, this claim is barred.

Section 2000e-5(e)(1) gives a plaintiff 300 days to file an EEOC charge in a state with its own employment discrimination agency.

Senecal v. B.G. Lenders Service LLC · filed 2013-09-30(e)(1)

Plaintiffs amended charge naming Defendant Keena, filed on August 24, 2009, was, however, not timely according to the 300-day rule.

Section 2000e-5(f)(1) requires a Title VII plaintiff to file suit within 90 days of receiving an EEOC right-to-sue letter.

Uzoukwu v. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments · filed 2013-09-30(f)(1)

A Plaintiff who wishes to pursue Title VII litigation must file her lawsuit within ninety days of receiving her right to sue letter from the EEOC.

Section 2000e-5(e)(1) limits how far back alleged discriminatory acts may be used as the basis for a Title VII claim.

Nasserizafar v. Indiana Department of Transpo · filed 2013-09-30(e)(1)

The “nuke Iran” comment and the vandalism of his car ... during the first Gulf War are too old to be actionable.

Section 2000e-5(f)(1) gives a person 90 days after notice of the EEOC’s dismissal of a charge to file a civil action.

Jideani v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority · filed 2013-10-08(f)(1)

If the EEOC dismisses a charge of discrimination, it “shall so notify the person aggrieved[,] and within ninety days after the giving of such notice,” she may file a civil action in federal district court. ... Plaintiff filed her original complaint on June 29, 2012, more than four months after the 90-day limitation period expired. Thus, she failed to file her complaint within the 90-day limitation period and it must therefore be dismissed.

Section 2000e-5(f)(1) gives a Title VII plaintiff 90 days after receiving an EEOC notice to sue to file a civil action, subject to equitable tolling in rare circumstances.

Maggio v. Wisconsin Avenue Psychiatric Center, Inc. · filed 2013-10-10(f)(1)

The statutory 90-day window for the commencement of an employment discrimination suit following the receipt of a notice-to-sue from the EEOC is strictly construed and is a precondition to filing suit in district court. ... As such, equitable tolling is not appropriate in this case, and Counts I and III are dismissed for lack of timeliness.

Section 2000e-5(f)(1) gives a claimant ninety days after receiving an EEOC right-to-sue notice to file Title VII claims.

Dornell v. City of San Mateo · filed 2013-11-07(f)(1)

Dornell received her right-to-sue letter from the EEOC on October 31, 2012, FAC ¶ 34, and had ninety days, or until January 29, 2013, to file her Title VII claims with this Court, see 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(l). She filed her original Complaint alleging Title VII claims on November 29, 2012, see Compl., and it was therefore timely.

Section 2000e-5(f)(1) requires a Title VII claimant to file suit within 90 days of receiving a right-to-sue letter.

Dougherty v. Bellevue School District · filed 2014-01-27(f)(1)

The district court properly determined that the claims raised in Dougherty’s first two charges of discrimination, filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), were time-barred because Doughtery did not file this action within 90 days of receiving the right-to-sue letters. See 29 U.S.C. § 626(e) (ADEA); 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) (Title VII); 42 U.S.C. § 12117 (ADA); O’Donnell v. Vencor Inc., 466 F.3d 1104, 1111 (9th Cir. 2006) (per curiam) (Title VII and ADEA claims were untimely because complaint was filed more than 90 days after EEOC’s issuance of right-to-sue letter).

Section 2000e-5(f)(1) requires a Title VII claim to be filed within 90 days after the EEOC issues a right-to-sue letter.

Holmes v. Flower Food Incorporated · filed 2013-10-09(f)(1)

The district court properly dismissed plaintiffs’ Title VII claims without leave to amend because these claims were time-barred.

Section 2000e-5(e)(1) requires an EEOC charge within 180 days of the alleged unlawful employment practice, or within 300 days if the claimant first instituted proceedings with a state or local equal employment agency.

Hewitt v. New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene · filed 2013-10-11(e)(1)

Title VII requires a claimant to file a discrimination charge with the EEOC within 180 days of the alleged unlawful employment practice or, if the claimant initially instituted proceedings with a state or local equal employment agency, within 300 days of the alleged unlawful employment practice.

Section 2000e-5(e)(1)’s 300-day period for filing an EEOC charge begins when the employer communicates its final employment decision to the employee.

Han v. University of Dayton · filed 2013-11-05(e)(1)

Thus, the district court was correct in holding that the 300-day limitation began on May 11, 2011, when management communicated its final decision to Plaintiff and Plaintiff was made aware that his contract with the University would not be renewed.

Section 2000e-5(e)(1) allows 300 days to file an EEOC charge in a deferral state when the complainant timely files with an authorized state agency.

Agoh v. Hyatt Corp. · filed 2014-01-13(e)(1)

Because Texas has an agency for receipt of civil rights complaints, i.e., the Texas Workforce Commission Civil Rights Division (“TWC”), and is therefore known as a “deferral state,” Title VII expands the period to file a charge with the EEOC to 300 days if the complainant has filed a timely charge with state agency authorized to receive such within 180 days of the unlawful act. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1).

Section 2000e-5(f)(1) gives an employee 90 days after notice of final EEOC action to file suit; an amended Title VII claim can meet that deadline by relating back to a timely complaint.

Jones v. Ottenberg's Bakers, Inc. · filed 2013-11-21(f)(1)

Upon receiving the November 26, 2012 EEOC Notice, plaintiff had 90 days within which to file a civil action to challenge the EEOC decision. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) (employees must file a civil action “within 90 days after the giving of such notice [of final action]”). ... Plaintiff’s Title VII claim reflects the application of a nearly identical legal theory to identical facts, and thus relates back to January 17, 2013, the date on which the initial complaint was filed. Accordingly, plaintiff’s Title VII claims were timely filed and defendants’ request to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint as time-barred is denied.

Section 2000e-5(e)(1) requires a Title VII plaintiff to file an administrative charge within 300 days of the alleged discriminatory or retaliatory act.

Meadors v. Ulster County · filed 2013-11-21(e)(1)

Before commencing a Title VII action in federal court, a plaintiff must file an administrative charge of discrimination within 300 days of the alleged discriminatory or retaliatory acts. ... Therefore, the Court grants Defendants’ motion for summary judgment with respect to Plaintiffs’ Title VII disparate treatment and retaliation claims insofar as those claims rely on incidents that occurred prior to September 2007.

Section 2000e-5(f)(1) requires an ADA claimant to file suit within 90 days of receiving an EEOC right-to-sue notice; a continuing violation theory did not save these untimely accommodation claims.

Ward v. United Parcel Service · filed 2013-12-16(f)(1)

Fourth, the cases and analysis referenced by UPS in its reply confirm that a continuing violation theory is simply inapplicable in this instance, and that Mr. Ward is without a viable reasonable accommodation claim on account of untimeliness and/or -administrative exhaustion.

Section 2000e-5(f)(1) requires a plaintiff to file a Title VII suit within ninety days after receiving the EEOC’s notice of the right to sue.

Andres v. Cypresswood Surgery Center, et a · filed 2013-12-17(f)(1)

“A plaintiff alleging employment discrimination must file a civil action no more than ninety days after she receives statutory notice of her right to sue from the EEOC.” ... Andres’ suit would be timely only if she received the EEOC Notice of Suit Rights on or after August 12, 2010.

Section 2000e-5(e)(1) allows a timely Title VII claim based on a discrete retaliatory act that occurred within 300 days before the employee filed a charge.

Ramsdell v. Huhtamaki, Inc. · filed 2014-01-15(e)(1)

With respect to the discrete acts of suspension and threatened termination, the Court readily finds that Ramsdell filed a timely claim because these adverse actions occurred within 300 days of filing of her claim.

Section 2000e-5(f)(1) requires a plaintiff to file suit within ninety days after receiving notice of the right to sue from the EEOC.

Andres v. Cypresswood Surgery Center, et a · filed 2014-01-20(f)(1)

“A plaintiff alleging employment discrimination must file a civil action no more than ninety days after she receives statutory notice of her right to sue from the EEOC.” ... Andres’ suit would be timely only if she received the EEOC Notice of Suit Rights on or after August 12, 2010. Andres neither identifies evidence in the record showing that she in fact received the notice on or after this date, nor explains how the district court might have erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants.

Section 2000e-5(f)(1)’s 90-day right-to-sue deadline does not necessarily require dismissal of an ADA wrongful-termination claim when the plaintiff fails to amend a pending complaint within that period.

Sneed v. City of Harvey · filed 2013-12-19(f)(1)

The defendants contend that Sneed’s failure to amend his complaint within 90 days after receiving the notice bars his ADA claim for wrongful termination. ... Under the circumstances, we decline to dismiss Sneed’s claim as untimely.

Section 2000e-5(e)(1) requires an ADA discrimination charge in Indiana to be filed within 300 days of the alleged unlawful employment practice.

DeLon v. Eli Lilly & Co. · filed 2013-12-31(e)(1)

Because Lilly’s rejection of these requests occurred prior to June 4, 2010, any ADA claims Ms. DeLon seeks to advance on the basis of these rejections are time-barred.

Section 2000e-5(e)(1)’s EEOC filing deadline does not restart when an employer rejects a repeated internal appeal without addressing its merits.

Ham v. Metropolitan Police Department · filed 2014-01-10(e)(1)

Plaintiff cannot extend the EEOC filing deadline through repeated appeals to MPD in contravention of its internal hiring review processes. And because MPD did not address the merits of his third appeal in the July 17, 2009 letter, plaintiff’s receipt of that letter did not constitute an unlawful employment practice that served to restart the statute of limitations under § 2000e-5(e)(1).

Section 2000e-5(e)(1) sets the limitations period for Title VII claims, so laches cannot override that period.

Long v. Welch & Rushe, Inc. · filed 2014-06-30(e)(1)

42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1) provides the applicable statute of limitations for Title VII claims. Accordingly, the laches defense is inapplicable and will be stricken.

Section 2000e-5(e)(1) treats an EEOC discrimination charge as filed when the EEOC receives it, rather than when it is mailed.

DeLeon v. General Insulation, Inc. · filed 2014-07-11(e)(1)

A discrimination charge is filed for the purposes of Title VII on the date that EEOC receives the charge, however, not on the date that the charge is mailed. ... Because DeLeon does not dispute that EEOC received his charge after the filing deadline, his first argument fails.

A discrimination charge is filed when the EEOC receives it, rather than when it is signed or mailed.

Lavigne v. Cajun Deep Foundations, LLC · filed 2014-07-10(e)(1)

A discrimination charge is considered “filed” for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5 on the date the EEOC receives the charge, not the date the charged is signed or mailed.

Section 2000e-5(e)(1) requires a Title VII charge to be filed with the EEOC within 180 days of the alleged unlawful practice, or within 300 days if the person first instituted state or local agency proceedings.

Alexander v. Chrysler Motors · filed 2014-07-14(e)(1)

Upon de novo review, we conclude that the district did not err in granting Chrysler’s motion to dismiss Alexander’s complaint, based on his failure to file a timely discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1) (under Title VII, EEOC charge must be filed within 180 days of when alleged unlawful employment practice occurred; 300-day filing period applies if person initially instituted state or local agency proceedings); 42 U.S.C. § 12117(a) (§ 2000e-5 applies to ADA); Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 109-110 (2002) (timely EEOC charge is mandatory).

Section 2000e-5(e)(1) requires a timely EEOC charge before a Title VII discrimination claim may proceed.

Alexander v. UAW · filed 2014-07-14(e)(1)

Upon de novo review, we conclude that the district court did not err in granting UAW’s motion to dismiss Alexander’s complaint, based on his failure to file a timely discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

Section 2000e-5(e)(1) imposes a filing deadline on Title VII claims based on discrete employment actions.

Ortiz v. Hershey Company · filed 2014-09-08(e)(1)

Ortiz failed to file a complaint until more than three years later—well outside the statute of limitations period. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1).

In a deferral state, § 2000e-5(e)(1) allows 300 days to file a Title VII charge after an alleged unlawful employment practice.

Keslosky v. Borough of Old Forge · filed 2014-12-11(e)(1)

In a deferral state, such as Pennsylvania, a claim with the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission is dual filed with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which allows a claimant to file his complaint within 300 days of the alleged unlawful employment practice.

Section 2000e-5(e)(3)(A) treats each paycheck at an allegedly discriminatory rate as a new act of discrimination for the EEOC filing deadline.

Niwayama v. Texas Tech University · filed 2014-11-10(e)(3)(A)

Act explicitly excepts pay disparity claims from the Ricks analysis and makes each paycheck at an allegedly discriminatory rate a separate, discrete act of discrimination, effectively resetting the statute of limitations for filing an EEOC charge.

Section 2000e-5(e)(1) allows 300 days to file an EEOC charge when a work-sharing agreement effectively files the charge with a state agency as well.

Williams v. City of Brockton · filed 2014-11-13(e)(1)

Because Williams’ EEOC charge is deemed to have been filed with the MCAD as well, the plaintiff had 300 days after the discriminatory act or practice occurred to file his charges with the EEOC.

Section 2000e-5(e)(1) generally limits actionable discrete employment practices to those within the 300-day charge-filing period.

Hopkins v. Board of Education · filed 2014-11-14(e)(1)

For Hopkins’ Title VII claims, the Court will consider events after August 20, 2009, .until the filing of this case on September 12, 2011, as they relate to her allegations of a hostile work environment, but will otherwise only consider employment practices that occurred within the 300-day statutory period from May 11, 2010 to March 7, 2011.

Section 2000e-5(e)(1)'s 300-day filing period, incorporated into the ADA, requires at least one disability-based hostile act within that period to sustain a hostile work environment claim.

Marini v. Costco Wholesale Corp. · filed 2014-12-01(e)(1)

To this end, a plaintiff must file an administrative complaint within 300 days of the complained-of conduct, and the basis for any subsequent federal court action must in turn be based on the conduct that could properly have been the subject of an administrative complaint. ... In short, plaintiffs hostile work environment claim is time-barred. Notwithstanding substantial evidence from before April 2009 to suggest that plaintiff was subject to a hostile work environment, plaintiffs claim fails for lack of evidence that any disability-based hostile acts occurred within the 300-day time period after April 2009.

Section 2000e-5(e)(1) allows 300 days to file a charge when the employee has instituted proceedings with an authorized state or local agency.

Watkins v. Recreation and Park Commission · filed 2014-12-04(e)(1)

BREC also alleges that the statute of limitations bars Watkins’s claim, and we agree that this is an additional basis to affirm summary judgment on this claim. The most recent incident alleged occurred in April 2010. The statute of limitations for a hostile work environment claim is 300 days. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1) (limitations period is 300 days if plaintiff has instituted proceedings with a state or local agency with authority to grant or seek relief from such practice). The earliest charge filed with the EEOC is dated August 2011, more than 300 days after the date of the last incident.

An earlier discriminatory act does not bar a Title VII claim based on a separate act within the 300-day EEOC charge period.

Stuart v. Local 727, International Brotherhood of Teamsters · filed 2014-11-14(e)(1)

There is no rule that a plaintiff who has been repeatedly discriminated against by her employer can- not challenge any of the discriminatory acts under Title VII unless she files her EEOC charge within 300 days after the first such act.

Section 2000e-5(e)(1) allows 300 days to file an EEOC charge in the District of Columbia because a worksharing agreement automatically cross-files the charge with the local agency.

Craig v. Metropolitan Police Department · filed 2014-11-24(e)(1)

In the District of Columbia, however, a “worksharing agreement” between the EEOC and the local agency tasked with investigating discrimination claims results in the automatic cross-filing of an EEOC complaint with the local agency, thereby extending the filing deadline for plaintiffs in the District to 300 days.

Section 2000e-5(e)(1) requires a timely EEOC charge; a later allegation introducing a new substantive theory does not relate back to the original charge.

Proctor v. District of Columbia · filed 2014-11-25(e)(1)

Moreover, the plaintiff’s subsequent filings cannot be said to “relate back” to the original EEOC charge, as they add an entirely new substantive theory.

In a deferral jurisdiction, § 2000e-5(e)(1) allows 300 days from the challenged employment action to file an EEOC charge.

Fountain v. First Data Merchant Services · filed 2014-12-02(e)(1)

New Hampshire is a deferral jurisdiction, see Miller v. N.H. Dep’t of Corr., 296 F.3d 18, 21 n.1 (1st Cir. 2001), which gave Fountain 300 days from the date of the offending conduct to file her charge with the EEOC. ... Because that e-mail communicated to Fountain that First Data had decided to discharge her, see Morris, 27 F.3d at 750, it is beyond dispute that the limitation period began to run no later than February 7, which rendered her EEOC charge untimely.

Section 2000e-5(e)(1) requires an EEOC charge within 180 days of a discrete discriminatory or retaliatory act.

Jenkins v. Tuscaloosa City Board of Education · filed 2014-12-09(e)(1)

Generally, an employee who hag been discriminated against must file a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC within 180 days after the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(l). ... Therefore, any alleged discriminatory or retaliatory acts that occurred prior to October 27, 2011, are outside of the 180 day statute of limitations, and summary judgment is due to be granted on any claim accruing before October 27, 2011.

Section 2000e-5(e)(1) requires a timely administrative charge for each discrete act of retaliation; a later act does not revive an untimely one.

Scott v. City of Sioux City · filed 2014-12-22(e)(1)

The City is entitled to summary judgment on Scott’s “retaliation” claims to the extent that they are based on untimely incidents, because the “continuing violation” theory is not applicable to Scott’s claims.

Section 2000e-5(e) requires an administrative charge to be filed within 300 days of a discriminatory act in a deferral state.

McQuail v. Tennessee Technological University · filed 2014-11-18(e)

But Dr. Eisen’s appointment to the interim slot occurred years before, and Title VII requires that administrative charges be filed with 300 days of the discriminatory act in deferral states like Tennessee. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e).

Section 2000e-5(e)(1) gives a plaintiff 300 days to file a charge when it is cross-filed with a state or local agency.

Austin v. American Institute for Research · filed 2014-12-03(e)(1)

The charge was filed with the District of Columbia Office of Human Rights, ... so Ms. Austin is entitled to the 300-day period. Therefore, Ms. Austin’s allegations of discrete employment actions are timely only as to those that took place after June 22, 2011.

Section 2000e-5(f)(1) gives a claimant ninety days after receiving an EEOC right-to-sue letter to file a civil action against the respondent named in the charge.

Flum v. Department of Education · filed 2015-01-06(f)(1)

Upon receipt of a right-to-sue letter from the EEOC, a plaintiff has ninety days to commence a civil action against the respondent named in the charge. ... Plaintiff did not file any claims concerning Waterside until March 17, 2014 — more than two years after the statutory deadline applicable to her first EEOC charge.

Section 2000e-5(e)(1) requires an EEOC charge within 180 days of an unlawful employment practice; a hostile work environment claim is timely if at least one act in the same practice falls within that period.

Keeton v. Big Lots Stores, Inc. · filed 2015-01-07(e)(1)

Foremost among these is the requirement that a charge of discrimination be submitted to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission within 180 days “after the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(l). ... Accordingly, plaintiffs hostile work environment and sexual harassment claims are barred on timeliness grounds.

Section 2000e-5(e)(1)’s 300-day filing period does not bar a claim based on a continuing series of related discriminatory acts when the last act falls within that period.

Floyd v. Cosi, Inc. · filed 2015-01-12(e)(1)

In response to a series of leading questions by the court at a January hearing, plaintiff testified that the last discriminatory action occurred some time in July 2013, and that it was part of a continuing series of related actions. Hr’g Tr. July 2013 falls within 300 days of plaintiffs September 27, 2013 filing. As thus construed, plaintiffs Title VII claims are not time-barred.

Section 2000e-5(e) bars an untimely Title VII retaliation claim.

Thomas v. Beaumont Independent School District · filed 2015-01-12(e)

To the extent that he alleges he was retaliated against for filing the lawsuit in 2007, that claim is time-barred. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e).

Section 2000e-5(f)(1) gives a Title VII plaintiff 90 days after receiving an EEOC right-to-sue notice to file suit; evidence can rebut the presumed date of receipt.

Hammel v. Marsh USA Inc. · filed 2015-02-10(f)(1)

Pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a Plaintiff must file a civil action claiming discrimination “within ninety days after the giving of [an EEOC dismissal] notice.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1). ... The Court finds that Plaintiff has provided sufficient evidence at this stage to rebut the presumption that the August 26, 2013, right to sue letter was received three to five days after it was mailed.

For a Title VII hostile work environment claim subject to the 300-day charge period, at least one act comprising the claim must occur within 300 days before the charge is filed.

Ware v. Hyatt Corporation · filed 2015-02-23(e)(1)

In order for a Title VII claim to be actionable, a plaintiff must demonstrate that at least one act that comprises the hostile work environment occurred within 300 days of the filing of a formal charge of discrimination.