(a) If the commission fails to effect the elimination of the unlawful employment practices
and to obtain voluntary compliance with this chapter, or, if the circumstances warrant,
in advance of any preliminary investigation or endeavors, the commission shall have
the power to issue and cause to be served on any person or respondent a complaint
stating the charges in that respect and containing a notice of hearing before the
commission, a member of the commission, or a hearing examiner at a place fixed in
the complaint to be held not less than ten (10) days after the service of the complaint.
(b) Any complaint issued pursuant to this section must be issued within two (2) years
after a signed and notarized charge has been filed with the commission pursuant to
§ 28-5-17.
(c) No proceeding which was pending under this chapter on April 5, 1996, shall be subject
to dismissal on the basis of the commission’s failure to issue a complaint within
one year after the alleged unfair employment practice occurred or has been applied
to affect adversely the person aggrieved, where that charge was filed with the commission
within one year after the alleged unfair employment practice occurred or has been
applied to affect adversely the person aggrieved, whichever is later, and the respondent
had agreed to extend or waive the one-year period of limitations.
Notes of Decisions
Fricker v. Town of Foster, 596 F. Supp. 1353 (D.R.I. 1984).
· cites it 11× “151B, § 5, namely, that contained in R.I.Gen.Laws § 28-5-18. That statutory directive is in harmony with the First Circuit trilogy, and has heretofore been applied by this court to employment claims arising under the Civil Rights Acts.”
Wayne Distrib. Co. v. Rhode Island Comm'n for Human Rights, 673 A.2d 457 (R.I. 1996).
· cites it 6× “As an initial matter, § 28-5-18 specifically provides that a complaint served upon a respondent must be “issued within one (1) year after the alleged unfair employment practices were committed.”
Horn v. S. Union Co., 927 A.2d 292 (R.I. 2007).
· cites it 4× “Section 28-5-18. If the commission determines that the respondent did engage in an unlawful employment practice, remedies may include an order to cease the unlawful practice, reinstatement, back pay, and "[i]n appropriate circumstances" attorneys' fees and other litigation…”
Town of Johnston v. Ryan, 485 A.2d 1248 (R.I. 1984).
· cites it 7× “1956 (1979 Reenactment) § 28-5-18, which states that any complaint issued by the commission must be issued within one year after the alleged unfair-employment practice has been committed.”
Ctr. for Behavioral Health, Rhode Island, Inc. v. Barros, 710 A.2d 680 (R.I. 1998).
“General Laws 1956 § 28-5-18 states that any complaint issued by the commission pursuant to this section must be so issued "within one year after the alleged unfair employment practices occurred.”
Gonsalves v. Alpine Country Club, 563 F. Supp. 1283 (D.R.I. 1983).
· cites it 2× “G.L. §§ 28-5-18 to -32. The standard for judicial review of the administrative determination is sufficiently stringent.”
In Re Rhode Island Comm'n for Human Rights, 472 A.2d 1211 (R.I. 1984).
· cites it 2× “*1213 The commission is empowered and directed by the terms of § 28-5-16 to prevent any person from engaging in any of the unlawful employment practices set forth in the act, but before a formal hearing can be conducted pursuant to the provisions of §§ 28-5-18 to 28-5-27…”
Rhode Island State Police v. Madison, 508 A.2d 678 (R.I. 1986).
· cites it 2× “This court analyzed the Logan case and its effect on our own Fair Employment Practices Act § 28-5-18 in Town of Johnston v. Ryan, 485 A.”
Rathbun v. Autozone, Inc., 253 F. Supp. 2d 226 (D.R.I. 2003).
“In discussing the one-year limitation period in FEPA, the court has stated as follows: The time limit imposed by § 28-5-18 also ensures that persons charged with violating the Act will receive notice of those charges within one year of the alleged violation.”
Paulo v. Cooley, Inc., 686 F. Supp. 377 (D.R.I. 1988).
· cites it 2× “R.I.Gen.Laws § 28-5-18; Roadway Express, Inc.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.