Lipscomb v. Clearmont Const. Dev. Co.

6 Citing cases

  1. Leskinen v. Utz Quality Foods, Inc.

    30 F. Supp. 2d 530 (D. Md. 1998)   Cited 11 times
    Granting summary judgment to the defendant because the plaintiff's generalized statements of harassment did not establish that any violations of Title VII occurred within the limitations period

    In order to pursue a Title VII or ADA claim in this Court, a plaintiff must first file a timely charge with the EEOC. See Lipscomb v. Clearmont Constr. and Dev. Co., Inc., 930 F. Supp. 1105, 1106 (D.Md. 1995). The charge must "be in writing under oath or affirmation.

  2. Mason v. Capitol Office Solutions

    Civil No. PJM 13-2290 (D. Md. Sep. 22, 2014)   Cited 1 times

    A federal court may only consider those claims alleged in the EEOC Charge. Balas v. Huntington Ingalls Indus., Inc., 711 F.3d 401. 407 (4th Cir. 2013) (citing Evans v. Techs. Applications & Serv. Co., 80 F.3d 954, 962-63 (4th Cir. 1996). This applies to claims under both Title VII and the ADA. Lipscomb v. Clearmont Constr. and Dev. Co., 930 F. Supp. 1105, 1106 (D. Md. 1995) ("Under Title VII and the ADA, a plaintiff must first timely file a charge with the EEOC before commencing a suit."). If the EEOC decides not to pursue the claims in the Charge, it will issue a right to sue letter giving the claimant 90 days to sue following receipt of the letter.

  3. Smith v. Cecil Cnty. Sheriff Dep't

    CIVIL ACTION NO. WDQ-13-2996 (D. Md. Oct. 18, 2013)

    "Under Title VII and the ADA, a plaintiff must first timely file a charge with the EEOC before commencing a suit." Lipscomb v. Clearmont Construction and Development Co., 930 F.Supp. 1105, 1106 (D. Md. 1995), see also Bishop v.Okidala, Inc., 864 F.Supp. 416, 424 (D. N.J. 1994). A plaintiff's failure to file a charge within the applicable limitations period bars a later lawsuit in federal court. See McCullough v. Branch Banking & Trust Co., 35 F.3d 127, 131 (4th Cir. 1994) ("When the plaintiff fails to file such a complaint in a timely fashion with the EEOC, the claim is time-barred in federal court.")

  4. Knickman v. Prince George's County

    187 F. Supp. 2d 559 (D. Md. 2002)   Cited 28 times
    Finding plaintiff's six and a half year delay in bringing suit "inexcusable and unreasonable" when plaintiff alleged she failed to bring suit because she was under medical care for depression and post-traumatic stress as a result of defendant's conduct

    Defendants respond that Knickman failed to comply with the procedural requirements of the ADA by not including a disability claim when she filed her notice of discrimination with the EEOC in April, 1995. "Under Title VII and the ADA, a plaintiff must first timely file a charge with the EEOC before commencing a suit." Lipscomb v. Clearmont Construction and Development Co., 930 F.Supp. 1105, 1106 (D.Md.1995), see also Bishop v. Okidata, Inc., 864 F.Supp. 416, 424 (D.N.J.1994) ("Those proceeding with employment discrimination claims under the ADA must follow the administrative procedures set forth in Title VII"). Although Knickman did bring an administrative action with the EEOC in a timely fashion, she did not include a disability or ADA claim in her filing with the EEOC in April 1995.

  5. Tangires v. Johns Hopkins Hospital

    79 F. Supp. 2d 587 (D. Md. 2000)   Cited 63 times
    Finding plaintiff whose asthma was correctable but who refused to take her medication not to be substantially limited in a major life activity for purposes of the ADA

    Even if plaintiff were able to prove that she suffered from a disability, she would not in any event on the record here be permitted to proceed to trial on the claim asserted by her in Count I. Plaintiff has alleged that she requested reasonable accommodations on the following four separate occasions December 1991, January 1992, September 1992 and January 1993. As in cases brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a plaintiff bringing a discrimination action under the ADA is required to first timely file a charge of discrimination with the EEOC before commencing suit in federal court. Lipscomb v. Clearmont Constr. Dev. Co., Inc., 930 F. Supp. 1105, 1105 (D. Md. 1995). The charge must be filed with the EEOC within 180 days of the alleged unlawful employment practice, unless within that period the claimant had initially instituted proceedings with a state or local agency, in which event the charge must be filed with the EEOC within 300 days.

  6. SHIN v. SHALALA

    Civ. No. AW-99-916 (D. Md. Sep. 24, 1999)

    A plaintiff may proceed with his case despite missing the deadline by showing waiver, estoppel, or equitable tolling. See Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, 455 U.S. 385, 393 (1982); Lipscomb v. Clearmont Construction, 930 F. Supp. 1105, 1106 (D. Md. 1995). The government, however, cannot be estopped from asserting the 15-day time limit as grounds for a motion to dismiss if "plaintiff has made no showing of affirmative misconduct on the part of the government."