green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
6.5 score
“he purpose of the notice provision, which is to encourage settlement of discrimination disputes through conciliation and voluntary compliance, would be defeated if a complainant could litigate a claim not previously presented to and investigated by the eeoc”
Treatment trajectory · 1982 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1982
2004
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 42 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
Laborers International Union v. HSA Contractors, Inc.
But see, e.g., Service, Hospital, Nursing Home and Public Employees Union, Local No. 47, Affiliated with the Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC v. Commercial Property Services, 755 F.2d 499, 505 (6th Cir.1985) (employer could not be compelled to arbitrate with local union when it was not a signatory of collective bargaining agreement and was found not to be an alter-ego of signatory employer), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 850 , 106 S.Ct. 147 , 88 L.Ed.2d 122 (1985); General Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local Union No. 89 v. Public Service Company of Indiana, 705 F.2d 238, 240-…
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Huskins v. Pepsi Cola of Odgensburg Bottlers, Inc.
he purpose of the notice provision, which is to encourage settlement of discrimination disputes through conciliation and voluntary compliance, would be defeated if a complainant could litigate a claim not previously presented to and investigated by the eeoc
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hopson v. Dollar Bank
Comp., 755 F.2d 20 , 25 (2nd Cir.1985.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 851 , 106 S.Ct. 148 , 88 L.Ed.2d 122 *338 (1985) (stating that “the commencement of the statute of limitations may be delayed until the last discriminatory act in furtherance of it-... provided that such a continuing violation is clearly asserted both in the EEOC filing and in the complaint”) (citations omitted); see also Brown v. City of New York, 869 F.Supp. 158, 168 (S.D.N.Y.1994) (providing that “[t]o benefit from the continuing violation doctrine, a plaintiff must clearly assert the continuing violation both in the EEOC…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Baron v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey
Id.; Van Zant v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, 870 F.Supp. 572 (S.D.N.Y.1994), aff'd., 80 F.3d 708, 713 (2d Cir.1996); Miller v. International Telephone & Telegraph Corp., 755 F.2d 20, 23 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 851 , 106 5.Ct. 148, 88 L.Ed.2d 122 (1985).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Trans-Orient Marine Corporation v. Star Trading & Marine, Inc., and the Republic of the Sudan
Corp., 755 F.2d 20 , 24 (2d Cir.) (same), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 851 , 106 S.Ct. 148 , 88 L.Ed.2d 122 *573 (1985); Perma Research & Dev.
cited
Cited "see"
Kent v. General Motors Regional Personnel Center-East Region
See Miller v. International Telephone & Telegraph Corp., 755 F.2d 20, 25 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 851 , 106 S.Ct. 148 , 88 L.Ed.2d 122 (1985).
cited
Cited "see"
Ghose v. Century 21, Inc.
See Miller v. ITT Corp., 755 F.2d 20 , 26 (2d Cir.1984), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 851 , 106 S.Ct. 148 , 88 L.Ed.2d 122 (1985).
cited
Cited "see"
Dorothy Joseph v. New York City Board of Education
See id. at 262 & n. 17, 101 S.Ct. 498 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Greater Lansing Ambulatory Surgery Center Co., LLC v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Michigan
See Service, Hospital, Nursing Home & Public Employees Union v. Commercial Property Services, Inc., 755 F.2d 499 , 506 (6th Cir.) (“We therefore hold that a district court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over a non-signatory to a collective bargaining agreement, where no rights or duties of the non-signatory party are stated in the terms and conditions of the contract.”), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 850 , 106 S.Ct. 147 , 88 L.Ed.2d 122 (1985); Mulder, 31 F.3d at 370 (“§ 301 contemplates suits between unions and employers for breaches of collective bargaining agreements....”) This…
discussed
Cited "see"
Shaver v. Corry Hiebert Corp.
See Miller v. International Telephone & Telegraph Corp., 755 F.2d 20, 23-25 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 851 , 106 S.Ct. 148 , 88 L.Ed.2d 122 (1985) (single date on form is probative of absence of failure-to-rehire claim).
discussed
Cited "see"
Eisert v. Town of Hempstead
See Rodriguez v. Village of Island Park, 1991 WL 128568 , *7 (E.D.N.Y.1991), citing, Miller v. International Telephone & Telegraph Corp., 755 F.2d 20, 24 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 851 , 106 S.Ct. 148 , 88 L.Ed.2d 122 (1985) (rejecting the plaintiffs’ claims in a lawsuit brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981-1983 and RICO that their cause of action did not accrue until they realized that an adverse housing decision was discriminatory as a result of a newspaper article).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Boyett
See United States v. Johanns, 20 MJ 155 (CMA), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 850 , 106 S.Ct. 147 , 88 L.Ed.2d 122 (1985).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Hullett
See United States v. Johanns, 20 MJ 155 (CMA), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 850 , 106 S.Ct. 147 , 88 L.Ed.2d 122 (1985).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Schneider
See United States v. Johanns, 20 MJ 155, 156, 161 (CMA), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 850 , 106 S.Ct. 147 , 88 L.Ed.2d 122 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see"
Cruz v. Ecolab Pest Elimination Division, Ecolab Inc.
See Miller v. International Telephone & Telegraph Corp., 755 F.2d 20 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 851 , 106 S.Ct. 148 , 88 L.Ed.2d 122 , reh’g denied, 474 U.S. 1015 , 106 S.Ct. 552 , 88 L.Ed.2d 479 (1985); Almendral v. New York State Office of Mental Health, 743 F.2d 963 (2d Cir.1984); Ritzie v. City University of New York, 703 F.Supp. 271, 278 (S.D.N.Y.1989); Torriero v. Olin Corp., 684 F.Supp. 1165, 1170 (S.D.N.Y.1988); Gilliard v. New York Public Library System, 597 F.Supp. 1069, 1079 (S.D.N.Y.1984).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Clinical Leasing Service, Inc., Melvin Soll and Leroy T. Brinkley
See id. at 197.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Fox
See United States v. Johanns, 20 MJ 155 (CMA), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 850 , 106 S.Ct. 147 , 88 L.Ed.2d 122 (1985).
cited
Cited "see"
Vesey v. Grover
See Miller v. International Telephone And Telegraph Corporation, 755 F.2d 20, 23 (2d Cir.1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 851 , 106 S.Ct. 148 , 88 L.Ed.2d 122 (1985).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Wilson
See United States v. Johanns, 20 M.J. 155 (C.M.A.), cert. denied 474 U.S. 850 , 106 S.Ct. 147 , 88 L.Ed.2d 122 (1985); United States v. Callaway, 21 M.J. 770 (A.C.M.R.1986).
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re Rospatch Securities Litigation
See Service Hospital Nursing Home and Public Employees Union v. Commercial Property Services, 755 F.2d 499 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 850 , 106 S.Ct. 147 , 88 L.Ed.2d 122 (1985) (dismissal of pendent state claim required once federal claim dismissed).
discussed
Cited "see"
Atlantis Group, Inc. v. Rospatch Corp.
See Service Hospital Nursing Home and Public Employees Union v. Commercial Property Services, 755 F.2d 499 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 850 , 106 S.Ct. 147 , 88 L.Ed.2d 122 (1985) (dismissal of pendent state claim required once federal claim dismissed).
cited
Cited "see"
Peter N. Tolliver, Leon A. Wiater, Helen A. Fordham, Donald Schaefer, Walter L. Pidek, James Carroll, Lawrence L. Travis, William Brant, James Dammen, Charles Dolcimascolo, John L. Bennett, Joseph G. Golossi, Harold Siebert, Alfred E. Rizzari, Alfonse Oliveri, Paul J. Mittak, and Richard B. Van Maaren v. Xerox Corporation, a New York Corporation, Paul F. Braun v. Xerox Corporation
See Miller v. International Telephone and Telegraph Corp., 755 F.2d 20, 23-24 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 851 , 106 S.Ct. 148 , 88 L.Ed.2d 122 (1985).
cited
Cited "see"
Tolliver v. Xerox Corp.
See Miller v. International Telephone and Telegraph Corp., 755 F.2d 20, 23-24 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 851 , 106 S.Ct. 148 , 88 L.Ed.2d 122 (1985).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Morris
See United States v. Johanns, 20 M.J. 155 (C.M.A.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 850, 106 S.Ct. 147 , 88 L.Ed.2d 122 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see"
Gentile v. County of Suffolk
See Cranberg v. Consumers Union, Inc., 756 F.2d 382, 391 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 850 , 106 S.Ct. 148 , 88 L.Ed.2d 122 (1985) (not only does Rule 611(a) put affirmative obligation on the judge to avoid consumption of time, but, as common law judge, he or she has overall responsibility to see that the trial is not subject to delay) (citing Ruiz v. Estelle, 679 F.2d 1115, 1129 (5th Cir.1982), modified, 688 F.2d 266 (5th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1042 , 103 S.Ct. 1438 , 75 L.Ed.2d 795 (1983)); In re Summa T Corp., 73 B.R. 388, 392 (Ark. 1987) (Rule 1006).
discussed
Cited "see"
Ballard Medical Products v. Concord Laboratories, Inc.
See In Re Cordis, 769 F.2d 733 (Fed.Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 851 , 106 S.Ct. 148 , 88 L.Ed.2d 122 (1985) (holding permanent and continuous presence in forum is a regular and established place of business in that forum).
cited
Cited "see"
Bates v. Board of Regents of Northern New Mexico Community College
See Miller v. International Telephone and Telegraph Corp., 755 F.2d 20, 24 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 851 , 106 S.Ct. 148 , 88 L.Ed.2d 122 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see"
LaBeach v. Nestle Co., Inc.
See Defendants’ Answer, Affirmative Defense No. 7. 7 Moreover, plaintiff has failed to contend that he was “actively misled by [Nestle], ... was prevented in some extraordinary way from exercising his rights, or ... asserted his rights in the wrong forum, in which event tolling of the time bar might be permitted as a matter of fairness.” Miller v. International Telephone and Telegraph Corp., 755 F.2d 20, 24 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 106 S.Ct. 148 , 88 L.Ed.2d 122 (1985) (citation omitted).
cited
Cited "see"
Two's Co. v. Transamerica Insurance
See Tedeschi v. Smith Barney, Harris, Upham & Co., 579 F.Supp. 657, 661 (S.D.N.Y.1984) (Weinfeld, J.), affd, 757 F.2d 465 (2d Cir.), cert, denied, — U.S. -, 106 S.Ct. 147 , 88 L.Ed.2d 122 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see"
40 Fair empl.prac.cas. 311, 39 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 35,971 E. Kingsley Mull v. Arco Durethene Plastics, Inc., Successor to Arco Polymers, Inc., and Atlantic Richfield Company, Appeal of Eugene Crane, Bankruptcy Trustee in the Matter of E. Kingsley Mull
See Miller v. International Telephone & Telegraph Corp., 755 F.2d 20, 24 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 106 S.Ct. 148 , 88 L.Ed.2d 122 (1985). 7 Contrary to the trustee's assertion, the district court's decision in Monnig v. Kennecott Corp., 603 F.Supp. 1035 (D.Conn.1985), is not inconsistent with the result we reach in this case.
cited
Cited "see"
Mull v. Arco Durethene Plastics, Inc.
See Miller v. International Telephone & Telegraph Corp., 755 F.2d 20, 24 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 106 S.Ct. 148 , 88 L.Ed.2d 122 (1985). .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Moorehead v. New York City Transit Authority
June 19, 1997); see also Miller v. IT & T Corp., 755 F.2d 20 , 23 (2d Cir.1985) (limitations period begins to run “on the date when the employee receives a definite notice of the termination”), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 851 , 106 S.Ct. 148 , 88 L.Ed.2d 122 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Thompson v. Federal Reserve Bank of New York
June 19, 1997); see also Miller v. IT & T Corp., 755 F.2d 20 , 23 (2d Cir.1985) (limitations period begins to run “on the date when the employee receives a definite notice of the termination”), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 851 , 106 S.Ct. 148 , 88 L.Ed.2d 122 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Gulino v. Board of Education of the City School District of New York
Under that doctrine, when a plaintiff alleges a continuing violation of Title VII, as opposed to discrete violations, “the plaintiff is entitled to bring suit challenging all conduct that was a part of that violation, even conduct that occurred outside the limitations period.” Cornwell v. Robinson, 23 F.3d 694, 704 (2d Cir.1994); see also, Gomes v. Avco, 964 F.2d 1330, 1333 (“[T]he normal statute of limitations rules under Title VII do not apply where ‘employees are hired or refused employment [or promotion] pursuant to a continuous pattern or policy of discrimination’ ” (quoting M…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Fox v. Massey-Ferguson, Inc.
Hoetger & Co., 672 F.2d 580, 583 (6th Cir.1982); see also, Service, Hospital, etc. Local No. 47 v. Commercial Property Services, Inc., 755 F.2d 499 , 506 (6th Cir.) (“a district court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over a non-signatory to a collective bargaining agreement, where no rights or duties of the non-signatory are stated in the terms and conditions of the contract”), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 850 , 106 S.Ct. 147 , 88 L.Ed.2d 122 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Yoonessi v. State University of New York
See Delaware State College v. Ricks, supra, 449 U.S. at 258 , 101 S.Ct. at 504 ; see also Miller v. IT & T Corp., 755 F.2d 20, 24 (2d Cir.) (“[T]he mere possibility that the decision might be reversed [i]s not enough to label it advisory or ineffective for time-bar purposes.”), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 851 , 106 S.Ct. 148 , 88 L.Ed.2d 122 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Sandom v. Travelers Mortgage Services, Inc.
See, e.g., Miller v. International Telephone and Telegraph Corp., 755 F.2d 20, 25-26 (2d Cir.1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 851 , 106 S.Ct. 148 , 88 L.Ed.2d 122 (1985) (claim of failure to re-hire is sufficiently distinct from claim in the EEOC charge alleging discriminatory discharge); Ritzie v. City University of New York, 703 F.Supp. 271, 278-79 (S.D.N.Y.1989) (administrative complaint filed before state agency, which only detailed instances of alleged discrimination involving another co-worker and within a discrete time period, was not reasonably related to a subsequent claim alleging discr…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Fox v. Parker Hannifin Corporation
As the Supreme Court has explained, "if the federal claims are dismissed before trial, ... the state claims should be dismissed as well." Gibbs, 383 U.S. at 726 , 86 S.Ct. at 1139 ; see also Service, Hosp., Nursing Home and Public Employees Union v. Commercial Property Serv., Inc., 755 F.2d 499 , 506 n. 9 (6th Cir.) ("This circuit has moved away from the position that the court has discretion to retain jurisdiction over a pendent state claim where the federal claim has been dismissed before trial."), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 850 , 106 S.Ct. 147 , 88 L.Ed.2d 122 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Fox v. Parker Hannifin Corp.
As the Supreme Court has explained, “if the federal claims are dismissed before trial, ... the state claims should be dismissed as well.” Gibbs, 383 U.S. at 726 , 86 S.Ct. at 1139 ; see also Service, Hosp., Nursing Home and Public Employees Union v. Commercial Property Serv., Inc., 755 F.2d 499 , 506 n. 9 (6th Cir.) (“This circuit has moved away from the position that the court has discretion to retain jurisdiction over a pendent state claim where the federal claim has been dismissed before trial.”), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 850 , 106 S.Ct. 147 , 88 L.Ed.2d 122 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
James Johnson and Anne Johnson, Dresser Industries, Intervenor-Appellant v. Helmerich & Payne, Inc.
See also Reese v. Mercury Marine, 793 F.2d 1416 , 1423 (5th Cir.1986) and Cranberg v. Consumers Union of U.S., Inc., 756 F.2d 382, 391 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 850 , 106 S.Ct. 148 , 88 L.Ed.2d 122 (1985).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
47 Fair empl.prac.cas. 544, 43 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 37,221, 45 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 37,656 Stanley M. Janikowski v. Bendix Corporation, a Delaware Corporation
See also Miller v. IT & T Corp., 755 F.2d 20 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 851 , 106 S.Ct. 148 , 88 L.Ed.2d 122 (1985), which held that a notice of termination starts the statute of limitations.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Janikowski v. Bendix Corp.
See also Miller v. IT & T Corp., 755 F.2d 20 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 851 , 106 S.Ct. 148 , 88 L.Ed.2d 122 (1985), which held that a notice of termination starts the statute of limitations.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Service, Hospital, Nursing Home & Public Employees Union, Local 47
v.
Commercial Property Services, Inc.
v.
Commercial Property Services, Inc.
No. 85-243.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 7, 1985.
Published
Citer courts: N.D. New York (1)
C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.