Ringgold v. National Maintenance Corp.
Decision Date | 11 August 1986 |
Docket Number | No. 85-3528,85-3528 |
Parties | 41 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 801, 41 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 36,550 Albert L. RINGGOLD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NATIONAL MAINTENANCE CORP., et al., Defendants, Dow Chemical, U.S.A., Defendant-Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Carnes & Assoc., James A. Carnes, Baton Rouge, La., for plaintiff-appellant.
Samuel P. Jordan, Jr., Robert W. Morgan, Plaquemiene, La., for Dow Chemical, U.S.A.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana.
Before BROWN, REAVLEY, and JONES, Circuit Judges.
The appellant, Albert L. Ringgold, appeals the dismissal of his Title VII claim of racial discrimination against his employers pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e. The district court entered summary judgment in favor of the appellees, finding that Ringgold failed to file suit within 90 days of receipt of a right-to-sue letter from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) as required by 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e-5(f)(1). We affirm.
In 1983, Ringgold, through his attorney Geraldine Page, filed a charge with the EEOC. At that time, Page was a member of the law firm of Carnes and Page. Page subsequently left the partnership, leaving all partnership cases, files, and records with Carnes. On August 17, 1983, the EEOC contacted Carnes about a settlement offer from Ringgold's former employers. On August 25, Carnes wrote to the EEOC rejecting the settlement offer and requesting the issuance of a right-to-sue letter. On October 6, 1983, a right-to-sue letter was delivered to Carnes's office. Carnes was out of town but his sister signed for the certified letter, which was addressed to "Geraldine Page, Atty., Carnes & Page." Carnes returned to his office on October 10 and delivered several pieces of mail to Page, at which time she opened the right-to-sue letter and gave it to Carnes. 1
Ringgold's suit was filed in the district court on January 6, 1984, 92 days after the delivery of the right-to-sue letter. The district court held that actual notice to the claimant's designated attorney was constructive notice to the claimant, and that equitable tolling was not warranted.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Floyd v. Communications Workers of America, Civil Action No. 3:02-cv-1588WS.
...within the ninety-day limitation period is strictly construed. Taylor v. Books A Million, Inc., at 379; Ringgold v. National Maintenance Corporation, 796 F.2d 769, 770 (5th Cir.1986). In the instant case the plaintiff filed her first charge with the EEOC on October 12, 2001. Then, the plain......
-
Montalvo-Figueroa v. DNA Auto Corp.
...when a person's attorney receives notice, Reschny v. Elk Grove Plating Co., 414 F.3d 821, 823 (7th Cir. 2005) ; Ringgold v. Nat'l Maint. Corp., 796 F.2d 769, 770 (5th Cir. 1986) ; see also Irwin v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs, 498 U.S. 89, 92–93, 111 S.Ct. 453, 112 L.Ed.2d 435 (1990) (conclud......
-
Irwin v. Department of Veterans Affairs
...office which is acknowledged by a representative of that office qualifies as notice to the client. See Ringgold v. National Maintenance Corp., 796 F.2d 769 (CA5 1986); Josiah-Faeduwor v. Communications Satellite Corp., 251 U.S.App.D.C. 346, 785 F.2d 344 (1986). Federal Rule of Civil Procedu......
-
Dade v. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co., Civil Action No. 95-0683.
...to run on the date that the right-to-sue letter is delivered to the claimant. Johnson, 892 F.Supp. at 839; Ringgold v. National Maintenance Corp., 796 F.2d 769 (5th Cir.1986). In the event of ambiguity as to when notice was given, an employee is presumed to have received the letter within a......