Summers v. Walgreen Co.

2 Citing cases

  1. Calloway v. Dowagiac Union Schs.

    1:23-cv-1299 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 29, 2023)

    The 90-day period applies to ADEA claims as well as Title VII claims. See Summers v. Walgreen Co., No. 15-cv-12836, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 26, 2016). The Sixth Circuit has resolved that notice is given, and hence the ninety-day limitations term begins running, on the fifth day following the EEOC's mailing of an RTS notification to the claimant's record residential address, by virtue of a presumption of actual delivery and receipt within that five-day duration, unless the plaintiff rebuts that presumption with proof that he or she did not receive notification within that period.

  2. Schluter v. Encore Rehab. Servs., LLC

    Civil Action No. 19-cv-13092 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 20, 2020)   Cited 1 times

    "As many courts have held, 'Title VII's [90] day period applies to pro se plaintiffs, and even one day's delay is fatal to a claim.'" Hudson v. Genesee Intermediate Sch. Dist., No. 13-12050, 2013 WL 6163220, at *4 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 25, 2013) (collecting cases, and dismissing plaintiff's Title VII and ADEA claims filed 92 days after presumptive receipt of RTS notice as untimely); see also Peete v. Am. Standard Graphic, 885 F.2d 331, 331-32 (6th Cir. 1989) (Title VII claims filed one day late were untimely); Summers v. Walgreen Co., No. 15-cv-12836, 2016 WL 1640418, at *3 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 26, 2016) (dismissing plaintiff's ADEA claim filed 91 days after presumptive receipt of EEOC right-to-sue notice as untimely).