WHIRLPOOL CORP.

v.

SIMPSON

Citator

Cited By

• Wright v. State OF Tenn., 628 F.2d 949 (6th Cir. 1980)
  …curs in a so-called “deferral state,” this court declined to treat the notice requirement as a truly jurisdictional prerequisite to a legal action. See Gabriele v. Chrysler Corp., 573 F. 2d 949 (6th Cir. 1978), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 442 U.S. 908, 99 S.Ct. 2819, 61 L.Ed.2d 273 (1979); Ewald v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 620 F. 2d 1183 (6th Cir. 1980). In relaxing our view of the notice requirements of § 626(d) we are in step [*953] with other circuits which have considered the matter…
• Valentine R. Ciccone v. Textron, Inc., 616 F.2d 1216 (1st Cir. 1980)
  …tive remedy — -if not within the state’s limitations period, then at least within the generally longer 180 days afforded plaintiffs in a nondeferral state. See Gabriele v. Chrysler Corp., 573 F. 2d 949, 955 (6th Cir. 1978), vacated on other grounds, 442 U.S. 908, 99 S.Ct. 2819, 61 L.Ed.2d 273 (1979). Any other reading would have Congress arbitrarily extending an additional 120 days in which to file the federal charge simply because the plaintiff’s claim fortuitously arose in a deferral state. See Olson v.…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• Ewald v. The Great Atl. & Pac. TEA Co., Inc., 620 F.2d 1183 (6th Cir. 1980)
  …ons “cannot govern the efficacy of the federal remedy.” Oscar Mayer & Co. v. Evans, supra, 441 U.S. at 762, 99 S.Ct. at 2074; Gabriele v. Chrysler Corp., 573 F. 2d 949, 956 (6th Cir. 1978) (concurring opinion), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 442 U.S. 908, 99 S.Ct. 2819, 61 L.Ed.2d 273 (1979); Bonham v. Dresser Industries, Inc., 569 F. 2d 187, 194 (3d Cir. 1977). Thus the fact that Ewald failed to file with the MCRC within 90 days was of no consequence. However, we must decide whether the fact that…