ARTHUR JUDKINS, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
BEECH AIRCRAFT CORPORATION, JAMES KILLINGSWORTH, SEYMOUR, COLEMAN, ED STACEY AND CHUCK PALMITER, DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the filing of an EEOC 'Charge of Discrimination' along with a right-to-sue letter satisfied the 90-day statute of limitations for filing a lawsuit under Title VII. The court denied the motion to recall its mandate.
Beech Aircraft Corporation moved to recall a mandate previously issued by the court. The prior ruling had held that filing an EEOC right-to-sue letter…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse 90-Day Statute Of Limitations cases and more on FLexlaw
BY THE COURT:
Appellee (“Beech”) moves to recall a mandate of this court issued January 23, 1984.
In earlier proceedings in this case, we held in the context of a Title VII case that the filing of an EEOC right-to-sue letter and a request for appointment of counsel satisfies the statutory requirement that a lawsuit be brought within 90 days from the issuance of the right-to-sue letter, 42 U.S. C.A. § 2000e-5(f)(l), if, in fact, the filing was made within the 90-day time frame. Judkins v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 723 F. 2d 818 (11th Cir.1984). That holding was required by our prior opinion in Wrenn v. American Cast Iron Pipe Co., 575 F. 2d 544 (5th Cir.1978).1
Subsequent to our decision in Judkins, supra, the United States Supreme Court announced its decision in Baldwin County Welcome Center v. Brown, — U.S.—, 104 S.Ct. 1723, 80 L.Ed.2d 196 (1984). In Baldwin County, the Court held that the filing of an EEOC right-to-sue letter2 does not satisfy the 90-day statutory limitation period, — U.S. at—, 104 S.Ct. at 1724-25, 80 L.Ed.2d at 201, thus flatly rejecting the legal basis for our decision in Judkins, supra.
Beech argues, and we agree, that this court has the power to recall its mandate if, as here, there has been a supervening change in the law. Page v. St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co., 349 F. 2d 820 (5th Cir.1965); see also In re Union Nacional de Trabajadores, 527 F. 2d 602 (1st Cir. 1975); cf. 11th Cir.R. 27(b) (“A mandate once issued shall not be recalled except to prevent injustice ”) (emphasis added). We recognize that Baldwin County effectively reverses our decision as to the effect of the filing of the right-to-sue letter, and we hereby modify that aspect of our decision in Judkins, supra. However, Baldwin County is ultimately based upon the requirement that a Title VII plaintiff, like any other federal plaintiff, file a proper complaint within the meaning of Fed.R. Civ.P. 8(a)(2). — U.S. at—, 104 S.Ct. at 1724, 80 L.Ed.2d at 201. Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2) states that a complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” A right-to-sue letter, the district court in Baldwin had held, does not qualify as a complaint under Rule 8 because “there [is] no statement in the letter of the factual basis for the claim of discrimination____” Baldwin County, — U.S. at —, 104 S.Ct. at 1724, 80 L.Ed.2d at 200.
On the other hand, in conjunction with the filing of his right-to-sue letter in this case, Judkins also filed the EEOC “Charge of Discrimination.” In the “charge,” Judkins lays out the “factual basis for the claim of discrimination,” — U.S. at—, 104 S.Ct. at 1724, 80 L.Ed.2d at 200, in considerable detail. Compare Form 9, Fed.R.Civ.P. The “charge” more than adequately complies with the “short and plain statement” requirement of Rule 8(a)(2).
Therefore, we conclude that Judkins’ initial filings in this case met the requirements of Baldwin County and, thus, satisfied the 90-day statute of limitations. Beech’s extraordinary motion to recall the mandate issued in Judkins v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 723 F. 2d 818 (11th Cir.1984), is accordingly
DENIED.
. In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F. 2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), this court adopted as binding precedent all of the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981. Id. at 1209.
. Plaintiff in Baldwin County, as in this case, moved for appointment of counsel at the same time she filed her right-to-sue letter with the district court. Baldwin County Welcome Center v. Brown, — U.S. —, —, 104 S.Ct. 1723, 1724, 80 L.Ed.2d 196, 200 (1984).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Delphine Edwards Goldsmith v. City OF Atmore, 996 F.2d 1155 (11th Cir. 1993)…ims. Taken together, these documents constitute a “short and plain statement” of the court’s jurisdiction and the grounds for relief. See Robinson v. City of Fairfield, 750 F. 2d 1507, 1511-12 & n. 5 (11th Cir.1985); Judkins v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 745 F. 2d 1330, 1332 (11th Cir.1984). However, Goldsmith’s initial filing failed to satisfy Rule 8(a)(3)’s requirement that the complaint contain “a demand for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks.” This requirement is not arduous— “any concise statement ide…
-
Robinson v. City OF Fairfield, 750 F.2d 1507 (11th Cir. 1985)…evidence was clearly erroneous. The city further contests the timeliness of this action based upon the late filing of the plaintiff’s amended complaint. This argument, however, is foreclosed by our decision in Judkins v. Beech Aircraft Corporation, 745 F. 2d 1330 (11th Cir.1984). In our original ruling in Judkins, we reversed a district court’s dismissal of a Title VII claim where the plaintiff was late in complying with the magistrate’s order that he file a complaint within twenty days from the magistrate…1 / 2
-
Rodgers v. Bowen, 790 F.2d 1550 (11th Cir. 1986)…r v. City of Prichard, 661 F. 2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir.1981) (en banc), we adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981. . In Judkins v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 745 F. 2d 1330, 1332 (11th Cir.1984), we recognized that the Supreme Court's decision in Baldwin County Welcome Center v. Brown, 466 U.S. 147, 104 S.Ct. 1723, 80 L.Ed.2d 196 (1984), overruled that part of Wrenn holding that the filing of an EEOC right-to-sue lette…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Bonner v. City OF Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981)
- Baldwin Cnty. Welcome Ctr. v. Brown, 466 U.S. 147 (U.S. 1984)
- Emmett E. Page v. ST. Louis Sw. Ry. Co., 349 F.2d 820 (5th Cir. 1965)
- Wrenn v. Am. Cast Iron Pipe Co., 575 F.2d 544 (5th Cir. 1978)
- In re Union Nacional de Traba-Jadores, 527 F.2d 602 (1st Cir. 1975)
- Judkins v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 723 F.2d 818 (11th Cir. 1984)