Peete v. American Standard Graphic, 88-6087
| Citation | 885 F.2d 331 |
| Decision Date | 19 September 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 88-6087,88-6087 |
| Parties | 50 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 1377, 51 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 39,333, 14 Fed.R.Serv.3d 1397 Vaughn L. PEETE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AMERICAN STANDARD GRAPHIC, et al., Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit) |
Richard B. Fields (argued), Cox & Fields, Memphis, Tenn., for plaintiff-appellant.
Leo Bearman, Jr., Stephen H. Biller (argued), Heiskell, Donelson, Bearman, Adams, Williams & Kirsch, Memphis, Tenn., for defendants-appellees.
Before KEITH and NORRIS, Circuit Judges, and EDWARDS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Plaintiff, Vaughn L. Peete, appeals from the grant of summary judgment in favor of his former employer in this action filed pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e et seq. The sole issue presented by this appeal is whether Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(e) extends the statutory ninety-day period within which suit must be brought under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e-5(f)(1), by three days where, as is the usual practice, the right-to-sue letter is mailed to the plaintiff. Because we conclude that no such expansion is effected, we affirm.
The facts underlying this appeal are undisputed. Peete filed charges alleging discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on June 10, 1986. Peete received a right-to-sue letter from the EEOC on March 26, 1987. He then filed this action in the district court on June 25, 1987. Thus, ninety-one days elapsed between Peete's receipt of his right-to-sue letter and the filing of his complaint, or one more day than the ninety day limit under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e-5(f)(1).
Peete argues that, because the right-to-sue letter was mailed to him, Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(e) operated to provide him with ninety-three days within which to act. Rule 6(e) provides that:
Whenever a party has the right or is required to do some act or take some proceedings within a prescribed period after the service of a notice or another paper upon him and the notice or paper is served upon him by mail, three days shall be added to the prescribed period.
However, it is impossible to understand the purpose of Rule 6(e) without reference to Fed.R.Civ.P. 5(b), which provides that service by mail is complete upon mailing. Norris v. Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 730 F.2d 682, 683 (11th Cir.1984). When taken together with Rule 5(b), it is easy to perceive the purpose of Rule 6(e)--"to protect parties who are served notice by mail from suffering a systematic diminution of their time to respond through the application of Rule 5(b) ..." 4A Wright and Miller Sec. 1171; Kessler Institute for Rehabilitation v. NLRB, 669 F.2d 138, 141 (3rd Cir.1982).
In contrast with Rule 5(b), 2000e-5(f)(1) requires that a complaint be filed within ninety days after the right-to-sue notice is actually received. The mailing time from the EEOC to the plaintiff...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. Sears, Roebuck and Co.
...(dismissing pro se plaintiff's Title VII claim filed ninety one days after receipt of right to sue letter). In Peete v. Am. Standard Graphic, 885 F.2d 331 (6th Cir.1989), plaintiff alleged that he received his right to sue letter from the EEOC on March 26, 1987. He then filed suit in distri......
-
Sanchez Ramos v. Puerto Rico Police Dept.
...limitation period established by 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) from ninety (90) 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 Rehab......
-
Lentz v. City of Cleveland
...summary judgment in favor of a defendant when the plaintiff missed the 90-day requirement by a single day. See Peete v. American Standard Graphic, 885 F.2d 331 (6th Cir.1989). The Supreme Court has cautioned, "procedural requirements established by Congress for gaining access to the federal......
-
Epps-Milton v. Genesee Intermediate Sch. Dist.
...of discrimination, she was still employed as a Nutrition Advocate at Genesee ISD. 4. Defendants repeatedly cite Peete v. American Standard Graphic, 885 F.2d 331 (6th Cir. 1989) for the proposition that a plaintiff seeking to state an ADA claim must first properly exhaust administrative reme......