SOSO LIANG LO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
PAN AMERICAN WORLD AIRWAYS, INC., AND INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, LOCAL 732, (I.B.T.), DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES

2d Cir. | 1986-04-09
Nos. 1015, Docket 85-7934
Before VAN GRAAFEILAND, WINTER and MINER, Circuit Judges.
787 F.2d 827 United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (1986) Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM:

PER CURIAM:

Appellant filed a charge of racial discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against defendant in 1978. She received her Notice of Right to Sue on February 9, 1979.

However, she failed to bring an action within the next 90 days. Having failed to initiate a timely action after the first Notice, appellant secured a second Notice of Right to Sue on November 30, 1979 and brought the present action in February, 1980. The second Notice is concededly based upon a charge involving exactly the same facts as the first Notice.

We hold that whether the present action is time barred must be determined with reference to only the first Notice of Right to Sue. Otherwise, the time limitations of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(l) would be meaningless, because potential Title VII plaintiffs could evade those requirements simply by seeking additional Notices of Right to Sue whenever they pleased. See Cleveland v. Douglas Aircraft Co., 509 F. 2d 1027 (9th Cir.1975) (per curiam); Dowdell v. Sunshine Biscuits, Inc., 90 F.R.D. 107, 115-16 (M.D.Ga.1981).

Because none of the other issues in this case are of any jurisprudential consequence whatsoever, we dispose of the remainder by summary order under our Rule § 0.23.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • The Cleveland Newspaper Guild v. The Plain Dealer Publ'g Co., 839 F.2d 1147 (6th Cir. 1988)
  • Goodluck v. Kelly Tractor Co., 733 F. Supp. 1479 (S.D. Fla. 1990)
    …leges discrimination on the basis of retaliation, whereas EEOC-2 alleges racially motivated discrimination. In support of its position, Defendant relies primarily on two points of authority. In the case of Lo v. Pan American World Airways, 787 F.2d 827 (2d Cir.1986), plaintiff filed a charge with the EEOC and received a Notice to Sue within 90 days. Rather than suing, plaintiff filed another complaint with the EEOC based on exactly the same facts. In a per curiam opinion, the Second Circuit…
  • Labady v. Gemini Air Cargo, Inc., 350 F. Supp. 2d 1002 (S.D. Fla. 2004)
    …90 day filing requirement and argue the merits of his discrimination claim. See Guevara v. Best Western Stevens Inn, Inc., No. 03-2056, 2003 WL 22407428 (10th Cir. October 22, 2003); see also Soso Liang Lo v. Pan American World Airways, 787 F.2d 827, 828 (2nd Cir.1986) (“whether the present action is time barred must be determined with reference to only the first Notice of Right to Sue. Otherwise the time limitations of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(l) would be meaningless, because potential Title VII…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw