Mosel v. Hills Dept. Store, Inc., No. 85-3567
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | Before ADAMS, GIBBONS and WEIS; PER CURIAM |
| Citation | 789 F.2d 251 |
| Parties | 40 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 1049, 41 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 36,487, 5 Fed.R.Serv.3d 458 Gary K. MOSEL, Appellant, v. HILLS DEPARTMENT STORE, INC., Appellee. |
| Decision Date | 01 May 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 85-3567 |
Page 251
41 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 36,487, 5 Fed.R.Serv.3d 458
v.
HILLS DEPARTMENT STORE, INC., Appellee.
Third Circuit.
Page 252
Stephen D. Wicks, Altoona, Pa., for appellant.
James B. Brown, Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellee.
Before ADAMS, GIBBONS and WEIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
In this employment discrimination case, the district court granted defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint as untimely filed. We will affirm.
The relevant facts are not in dispute. On April 17, 1984, plaintiff Gary K. Mosel filed a charge against defendant Hills Department Store, Inc. with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), alleging that he was terminated from his job in retaliation for filing earlier sex discrimination complaints against defendant. On December 3, 1984, plaintiff, through his attorney, requested that the EEOC issue a right-to-sue letter permitting suit in federal court pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Secs. 2000e-3, 2000e-5 (1982).
The EEOC issued the requested letter on December 31, 1984, and plaintiff's attorney received it on January 2, 1985. Plaintiff's Title VII complaint was filed on April 3, 1985, ninety-one days after receipt of the right-to-sue letter. 1 Defendant filed a motion under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) to dismiss the complaint as well as plaintiff's amended complaint. Defendant averred that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because of plaintiff's failure to comply with the requirement that a Title VII complaint be filed within ninety days after the plaintiff receives notice of the EEOC's decision not to take action itself. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e-5(f)(1) (1982). The district court granted the motion, and plaintiff filed a timely appeal.
Plaintiff, who was represented by counsel at every stage of these proceedings, offers no excuse for the delay in filing. Rather, he insists that the ninety-day period detailed in Sec. 2000e-5(f)(1) should be extended pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provision concerning service by mail. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(e).
Section 2000e-5(f)(1) provides that if the EEOC dismisses a charge or takes no action within a specified period of time it "shall notify the person aggrieved and within ninety days after the giving of such notice a civil action may be brought against the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Schonewolf v. Waste Mgmt., Inc., CIVIL ACTION No. 17-3745
...her right-to-sue letter three days after the EEOC mailed it." Id. (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 6([d]); Mosel v. Hills Dep't Store, Inc., 789 F.2d 251, 253 n.2 (3d Cir. 1986)). "There is a presumption that a right-to-sue letter properly mailed is not only received by the addressee, but also is re......
-
Sanchez Ramos v. Puerto Rico Police Dept., No. Civ.03-2043 DRD.
...to ninety three (93) days. See Peete v. American Standard Graphic, 885 F.2d 331, 331-32 (6th Cir.1989); Mosel v. Hills Dept. Store, Inc., 789 F.2d 251 (3rd Cir.1986); Norris v. Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 730 F.2d 682 (11th Cir.1984). All, the Third, Sixth, and......
-
Cleveland Newspaper Guild, Local 1 v. Plain Dealer Pub. Co., 86-3140
...See, e.g., Ringgold v. National Maintenance Corp., 796 F.2d 769, 770 (5th Cir.1986) (per curiam); Mosel v. Hills Department Store, Inc., 789 F.2d 251, 252 (3d Cir.1986) (per curiam); Soso Liang Lo v. Pan American World Airways, Inc., 787 F.2d 827, 828 (2d Cir.1986) (per curiam); Josiah-Faed......
-
Burgh v. Borough Council of the Borough of Montrose, No. 99-4032
...right-to-sue letter. See Seitzinger v. Reading Hosp. and Med. Ctr., 165 F.3d 236, 239 (3d Cir. 1999); Mosel v. Hills Dept. Store, Inc. v., 789 F.2d 251, 252 (3d Cir. 1986) (per curiam). Both the 180-day period for filing the administrative complaint3 and the 90-day period for filing the cou......
-
Schonewolf v. Waste Mgmt., Inc., CIVIL ACTION No. 17-3745
...her right-to-sue letter three days after the EEOC mailed it." Id. (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 6([d]); Mosel v. Hills Dep't Store, Inc., 789 F.2d 251, 253 n.2 (3d Cir. 1986)). "There is a presumption that a right-to-sue letter properly mailed is not only received by the addressee, but also is re......
-
Sanchez Ramos v. Puerto Rico Police Dept., No. Civ.03-2043 DRD.
...to ninety three (93) days. See Peete v. American Standard Graphic, 885 F.2d 331, 331-32 (6th Cir.1989); Mosel v. Hills Dept. Store, Inc., 789 F.2d 251 (3rd Cir.1986); Norris v. Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 730 F.2d 682 (11th Cir.1984). All, the Third, Sixth, and......
-
Cleveland Newspaper Guild, Local 1 v. Plain Dealer Pub. Co., No. 86-3140
...See, e.g., Ringgold v. National Maintenance Corp., 796 F.2d 769, 770 (5th Cir.1986) (per curiam); Mosel v. Hills Department Store, Inc., 789 F.2d 251, 252 (3d Cir.1986) (per curiam); Soso Liang Lo v. Pan American World Airways, Inc., 787 F.2d 827, 828 (2d Cir.1986) (per curiam); Josiah-Faed......
-
Burgh v. Borough Council of the Borough of Montrose, No. 99-4032
...right-to-sue letter. See Seitzinger v. Reading Hosp. and Med. Ctr., 165 F.3d 236, 239 (3d Cir. 1999); Mosel v. Hills Dept. Store, Inc. v., 789 F.2d 251, 252 (3d Cir. 1986) (per curiam). Both the 180-day period for filing the administrative complaint3 and the 90-day period for filing the cou......