At page 199 Determining when employer intent constitutes termination21 citing cases“when the employer, by acts or words, shows a clear intention to dispense with the services of an employee, a discharge occurs at the latest as of the date after which the services are no longer accepted.”
- Buchanan, No. 3:24-cv-06798 (D.S.C. Sept. 8, 2026).Therefore, “an actual discharge occurs when the employer, by words or acts, manifests a clear intention to dispense with an employee’s services.” E.E.O.C. v. Marion Motel Assocs., No. 91-2070, 1992 WL 90283 , at *5 (4th Cir. May 5, 1992) (…
- Carl Nelson v. Crane Serv. Co., Inc., No. 8:24-cv-00766 (D. Md. Jan. 15, 2026).Rather, ‘an actual discharge occurs when the employer, by words or acts, manifests a clear intention to dispense with an employee’s services.’” Id. (quoting Payne v. Crane Co., 560 F.2d 198, 199 (5th Cir. 1977)).
- Andazola v. Logan's Roadhouse, Inc., 871 F. Supp. 2d 1186 (N.D. Ala. 2012).published(holding that an actual discharge occurs when an employer “by acts or words, shows a clear intention to dispense with the ser vices of an employee)
- Kevin Dvorak v. Mostardi Platt Assocs., Inc., 289 F.3d 479 (7th Cir. 2002).published Payne v. Crane Co., 560 F.2d 198, 199 (5th Cir.1977).
- Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Marion Motel Assocs., A/K/A Park Inn Int'l, 961 F.2d 211 (4th Cir. 1992).unpublishedPayne v. Crane Co., 560 F.2d 198, 199 (5th Cir. 1977).
- Willie L. Thurman v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 952 F.2d 128 (5th Cir. 1992).publishedThe court, examining the date of plaintiff’s termination for purposes of determining whether plaintiff filed a charge with the Secretary of Labor within the federal 180-day period, held that “where unequivocal notice of termination and the…
- 32 Fair empl.prac.cas. (Bna) 1451, 32 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 33,813 Jack Elliott, Plaintiffs-Appellees-Cross v. Grp. Med. & Surgical Serv., Grp. Hosp. Serv., Inc., Defendant-Appellant-Cross, 714 F.2d 556 (5th Cir. 1983).publishedAccordingly, we must determine the state of the law of this circuit before Ricks and Chardon. 21 Our standard had been that "when the employer, by acts or words, shows a clear intention to dispense with the services of an employee, a disch…
- Elliott v. Grp. Med. & Surgical Serv., 714 F.2d 556 (5th Cir. 1983).publishedOur standard had been that “when the employer, by acts or words, shows a clear intention to dispense with the services of an employee, a discharge occurs at the latest as of the date after which the services are no longer accepted.” Payne,…
- Fernandez v. Chardon, 681 F.2d 42 (1st Cir. 1982).publishedOne of the cases cited stands essentially for the Ricks rule of accrual rather than for plaintiffs’ asserted rule, NLRB v. California School of Professional Psychology, 583 F.2d 1099, 1101-02 (9th Cir. 1978) (applying § 10(b) of National L…
- Rafael Rivera Fernandez v. Carlos Chardon, Etc., Juan Fumero Soto, Plaintiffs-Appellees-Cross-Appellants v. Carlos Chardon, Etc., Defendants-Appellants-Cross-Appellees, 681 F.2d 42 (1st Cir. 1982).publishedOne of the cases cited stands essentially for the Ricks rule of accrual rather than for plaintiffs' asserted rule, NLRB v. California School of Professional Psychology, 583 F.2d 1099, 1101-02 (9th Cir. 1978) (applying § 10(b) of National L…
Show 10 more citing cases
- Arthur N. ARONSEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CROWN ZELLERBACH, a Corp., Defendant-Appellee, 662 F.2d 584 (9th Cir. 1981).published See, e.g., Wilkerson v. Siegfried Insurance Agency, Inc., 621 F.2d 1042, 1044-45 (10th Cir. 1980); Coke v. General Adjustment Bureau, Inc., 616 F.2d 785, 788 (5th Cir. 1980), aff’d on other grounds, 640 F.2d 584, 585, 587-595 (5th Cir. 198…
- Needham v. Beecham, Inc., 515 F. Supp. 460 (D. Me. 1981).publishedSee Delaware State College v. Ricks, - U.S. -, 101 S.Ct. 498, 502-506 , 66 L.Ed.2d 434 (1980). 6 The limitation period begins to run at the time when “the employee knows, or as a reasonable person should know, that the employer has made a…
- Stout v. Amoco Prod. Co., 508 F. Supp. 30 (D. Wyo. 1980).publishedGoldseker Co., 539 F.2d 1326 , 1328 n.3 (4th Cir. 1976); Payne v. Crane Co., 560 F.2d 198,199 (5th Cir. 1977) (per curiam).
- Pravin B. SHAH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HALLIBURTON Co., D/B/A Halliburton Servs., Defendant-Appellee, 627 F.2d 1055 (10th Cir. 1980).publishedHere, Shah offered no evidence of any unlawful employment practice occurring after his discharge, and therefore the discharge must be treated as the last alleged discriminatory practice. “[W]hen the employer, by acts or words, shows a clea…
- Krzyzewski v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville & Davidson Cnty., 584 F.2d 802 (6th Cir. 1978).publishedGoldseker Co., 11 FEP Cas. 468 (D.Md.1975), aff’d in relevant part and remanded, 539 F.2d 1326 , 1328 n. 3 (4th Cir. 1976); Payne v. Crane Co., 560 F.2d 198, 199 (5th Cir. 1977) (per curiam).
- 18 Fair empl.prac.cas. 175, 18 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 8653 Lorraine A. Krzyzewski, Cross-Appellee v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville & Davidson Cnty., Metro. Nashville-Davidson Cnty. Police Dep't, Joe Casey, James C. Abernathy, Cross-Appellants, 584 F.2d 802 (6th Cir. 1978).publishedGoldseker Co., 11 FEP Cas. 468 (D.Md.1975), Aff'd in relevant part and remanded, 539 F.2d 1326 , 1328 n. 3 (4th Cir. 1976); Payne v. Crane Co., 560 F.2d 198, 199 (5th Cir. 1977) (per curiam). 15 We reject the rule propounded in Moses v. Fa…
- Emra Joseph Bonham v. Dresser Indus., Inc., a Corp., 569 F.2d 187 (3d Cir. 1978).publishedGoldseker Co., 11 FEP Cas. 468 (D.Md.1975), aff’d in relevant part and remanded, 539 F.2d 1326 , 1328 n.3 (4th Cir. 1976); Payne v. Crane Co., 560 F.2d 198, 199 (5th Cir. 1977) (per curiam).
- Griffith v. Nicholas Fin., Inc., 214 F. Supp. 3d 1215 (N.D. Ala. 2016).published(holding that a termination has occurred when an employer “by acts or words, shows a clear intention to dispense with the services of an employee’’)
- Thomas v. Dillard Dep't Stores, Inc., 116 F.3d 1432 (11th Cir. 1997).published (finding that a termination occurs for purposes of the statute of limitations under the ADEA when an employer “by acts or words, shows a clear intention to dispense with the services of an employee)
- 74 Fair empl.prac.cas. (Bna) 430, 71 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 44,891, 11 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 139 Sue E. Thomas v. Dillard Dep't Stores, Inc., a Delaware Corp., 116 F.3d 1432 (11th Cir. 1997).published(finding that a termination occurs for purposes of the statute of limitations under the ADEA when an employer "by acts or words, shows a clear intention to dispense with the services of an employee)
Other citing cases
- Morris v. Frank Ix & Sons, Inc., 486 F. Supp. 728 (W.D. Va. 1980).published
v.
Crane Company
This cause is before this court on an appeal from an Order dismissing an action for lack of jurisdiction. The district court held that the plaintiff, J. C. Payne, failed to comply with the requirements of 29 U.S.C. § 626(d), which requires that a plaintiff give notice to the Secretary of Labor of the United States of his intent to sue his employer within one hundred eighty (180) days after occurrence of the action made unlawful by the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. We affirm.
Plaintiff gave notice to the Secretary of Labor of his intent to sue on December 1, 1975. Thus, the sole issue for the district court was whether plaintiff’s termination, the allegedly unlawful act, occurred more than 180 days prior to December 1, or before June 4,1975. In fact, plaintiff’s supervisor informed him on January 28, 1975, that he would be retired. On April 7,1975, officers of defendant company told plaintiff that he could not perform any services for the company after that date. On May 1, 1975, Payne returned his company credit cards, travel order drafts, and travel authorization letter. Plaintiff’s last salary check covered the period ending June 30, 1975.
Plaintiff relies on the last salary check to make his letter of intent timely, but to no avail. The district court found that the final payments were merely a gratuity to plaintiff while the arrangements for his retirement were being made. That finding is not clearly erroneous. We need only determine here that, when the employer, by acts or words, shows a clear intention to dispense with the services of an employee, a discharge occurs at the latest as of the date after which the services are no longer accepted. Taylor v. Tulsa Tribune, 136 F.2d 981 (10 Cir. 1943); Monroe v. Penn-Dixie Cement Corp., 335 F.Supp. 231 (N.D.Ga., 1971). The district court correctly held that the defendant’s intention was clear to plaintiff at least by May 1, 1975, at which time he returned his company credit cards and travel authorization and was not engaged in any work whatsoever for the defendant.
AFFIRMED.