King v. McMillan

8 Citing cases

  1. Woodyard v. Gal-Tex Hotel Corporation

    Civil Action No. 7:07CV00540 (W.D. Va. Jul. 22, 2008)   Cited 3 times

    The EEOC's role in Title VII is thus critical because it can promote voluntary settlement in a manner that a more adversarial process cannot.Chacko, 429 F.3d at 510 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted); see also King v. McMillan, 233 Fed. Appx. 242, 244 (4th Cir. 2007) ("The requirement to file a charge with the EEOC serves two purposes: First, it notifies the charged party of the asserted violation. Secondly, it brings the charged party before the EEOC and permits effectuation of the Act's primary goal, the securing of voluntary compliance with the law.") (internal citation and quotation marks omitted)).

  2. Jarboe v. Md. Dep't of Pub. Safety & Corr. Servs.

    Civil Action No. ELH-12-572 (D. Md. Mar. 13, 2013)   Cited 9 times
    In Jarboe v. Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services, No. 12-572, 2013 WL 1010357 (D. Md. Mar. 13, 2013), a District of Maryland court applied the single filing rule to permit a putative class of Maryland prisoners to rely on the administrative exhaustion of three plaintiffs.

    In one early case, the Fifth Circuit articulated the pragmatic basis for the rule: "It would be wasteful, if not vain, for numerous employees, all with the same grievance, to have to process many identical complaints with EEOC. If it is impossible to reach a settlement with one discriminatee, what reason would there be to assume that the next one would be successful[?]" Oatis v. Crown Zellerbach Corp., 398 F.2d 496, 498 (5th Cir. 1968). The Fourth Circuit "has long applied th[e] 'single-filing rule' to class actions" involving employment discrimination claims, King v. McMillan, 233 F. App'x 242, 244 (4th Cir.) (citing Chisholm, supra, 665 F.2d at 490 n.11), cert. denied, 552 U.S. 991 (2007), although it "has not yet . . . adopted" the rule outside the class action context. White v. BFI Waste Servs., LLC, 375 F.3d 288, 293 (4th Cir. 2004).

  3. Barkhorn v. Ports America Chesapeake, LLC

    CIVIL NO. JKB-10-750 (D. Md. Sep. 26, 2011)   Cited 4 times
    Finding that it was not necessary for plaintiffs to plead that they received a right to sue letter

    (Defs.' Mot. 18.) Plaintiffs rely upon the "single-filing rule" to counter PAC's argument. (Pls.' Opp. 16-17.) The single-filing rule, which permits intervenors in discrimination suits to rely upon the original plaintiff's EEOC charge rather than requiring each to file an individual EEOC charge, has been "long applied" in the Fourth Circuit to class actions. See, e.g., Chisholm v. U.S. Postal Service, 665 F.2d 482, 490 n. 11 (4th Cir. 1981), cited in King v. McMillan, 233 F. App'x. 242, 244 (4th Cir. 2007) (unpublished). The present case is not a class action but a suit by a number of individuals who now work or worked together in the past in a stevedoring gang. Thus far, the Fourth Circuit has not spoken on whether the single-filing rule may be applied in nonclass actions.

  4. King v. McMillan

    552 U.S. 991 (2007)

    Lespia KING, petitioner, v. George M. McMILLAN, Sheriff, City of Roanoke, Virginia, et al.Case below, 233 Fed.Appx. 242. Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

  5. Patterson v. Va. Dep't of Corr.

    CIVIL 3:23cv757(DJN) (E.D. Va. Apr. 19, 2024)   Cited 1 times

    However, it has been "long applied" in the Fourth Circuit in the context of class actions. King v. McMillan, 233 F. App'x. 242, 244 (4th Cir. 2007).

  6. G.T. v. Kanawha Cnty. Sch.

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:20-cv-00057 (S.D.W. Va. Jul. 16, 2020)

    Although the Fourth Circuit has not addressed class exhaustion under IDEA, it has recognized vicarious exhaustion in other contexts. See, e.g., Chisholm v. U.S. Postal Serv., 665 F.2d 482, 490 (4th Cir. 1981) (finding exhaustion by class representative sufficient for a class Title VII claim); King v. McMillan, 233 F. App'x 242, 244-45 (4th Cir. 2007) (recognizing availability of single-filer rule or vicarious exhaustion). In Hoeft, the Ninth Circuit noted that exhaustion by the class representatives, which did not take place in that case, could be sufficient to satisfy the exhaustion requirement in the IDEA.

  7. Bannister v. Wal–Mart Stores E., L.P.

    843 F. Supp. 2d 610 (E.D.N.C. 2012)   Cited 26 times
    Determining that EEOC charge detailing two discrete episodes of discipline would not provide notice of a claim of harassment or hostile work environment, "[n]or would such claims be developed by a reasonable investigation by the EEOC"

    White v. BFI Waste Servs., LLC, 375 F.3d 288, 293 (4th Cir.2004). Although the Fourth Circuit has declined to expressly adopt the single-filing rule, see e.g. King v. McMillan, 233 Fed.Appx. 242, 244 (4th Cir.2007), Plaintiffs urge its application here to cure deficiencies with both the timeliness and the scope of Plaintiffs' complaints. Plaintiffs contend that the similarity of their complaints and the fact that Defendant received notice in some of Plaintiffs' administrative charges of the collective nature of the charges is sufficient to trigger application of the single-filing rule.

  8. Kennedy v. Virginia Polytechnic Ins. State Univ

    Civil Action No. 7:08-cv-00579 (W.D. Va. Mar. 25, 2010)

    The single-filing rule is an exception to the requirement that a party file a charge with the EEOC prior to intervening in a Title VII action where the original plaintiff timely filed a charge. See King v. McMillan, 233 Fed. Appx. 242, 243-4 (4th Cir. 2007) ("When the other requirments for intervention are satisfied, a number of circuits allow intervenors in discrimination suits to rely on the original plaintiff's EEOC charge in lieu of requiring each to file an individual charge with the agency."). The Fourth Circuit has not adopted the single-filing rule except in class actions.