Page v. Dept. of Corrections, 00-1123EA
Decision Date | 06 June 2000 |
Docket Number | No. 00-1123EA,00-1123EA |
Parties | (8th Cir. 2000) Loretta Page, Appellant, v. Arkansas Department of Correction; Larry Norris; East Arkansas Regional Unit; James T. Banks, Assistant Warden, East Arkansas Regional Unit, Appellees, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission; J. Glover; M. Riley, Defendants Submitted: |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, BOWMAN, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.
Loretta Page appeals the orders of the District Court dismissing as untimely her action brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e to 2000e-17. For the reasons discussed below, we reverse.
In a charge filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), Page contended that her employer, the Arkansas Department of Correction, discriminated against her on the basis of race, sex, and retaliation. The EEOC issued a right-to-sue letter which Page received on April 16, 1999. On July 8, Page wrote a letter to the District Court, requesting assistance in filing a lawsuit. She submitted several documents with this letter, including her right-to-sue letter and EEOC charge. The charge alleged, in pertinent part, that Page had been "subjected to harassment" from her immediate supervisor and the assistant warden; that her supervisor told her she "did not have the authority to tell a white male employee that work[s] in the mailroom what to do"; that she "was written up" for coming to work early and leaving early, although "[a] white male does this all the time but he was not written up"; and that after she filed a grievance complaining about her differential treatment, her position was posted, and she was told the assistant warden "did not want [her] in that position." She stated her belief that she was being discriminated against because of her race and sex, and in retaliation for filing her grievance, in violation of Title VII.
The District Court docketed Page's documents as a Title VII complaint, but informed her in a July 15 letter that the documents were not in proper form. She submitted an amended complaint on a district court form on August 2.
The District Court dismissed Page's action, holding that it was not filed within the ninety-day time limit of 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(f)(1) ( ), as the July 8 letter and attachments were insufficient to constitute a complaint under Federal Rule Civil of Procedure 8(a) ( ).
After de novo review, we conclude that Page's July 8 letter and attachments were sufficient to initiate her Title VII proceeding in a timely manner. See Huston v. General Motor Corp., 477 F.2d 1003, 1008 (8th Cir. 1973) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Carroll v. Barnhart, No. C02-4036-MWB (N.D. Iowa 9/25/2003)
-
Keehn v. Halter, No. C00-3064-MWB (N.D. Iowa 3/23/2002)
... ... of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, Neurofibromatosis Information Page, www.ninds.nih.gov/health_and_medical/disorders/neurofibro.htm (visited ... ...
-
Deakins v. Barnhart, No. C02-4054-MWB (N.D. Iowa 5/29/2003)
... ... page A-5, note 2 ... 2. This quotation is from the ALJ's opinion. The court ... ...
- Weishaar v. Barnhart, No. CO1-3048-MWB (N.D. Iowa 2/23/2002), CO1-3048-MWB.