Valenzuela v. Kraft, Inc.
| Decision Date | 22 April 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 85-6348,85-6348 |
| Citation | 815 F.2d 570 |
| Parties | 47 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 644, 43 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 37,085 Daryl Ford VALENZUELA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. KRAFT, INC., Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
John W. Prager, Jr., P.C., Santa Ana, Cal., for defendant-appellant.
Cecil E. Ricks, Jr., Anaheim, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California; David V. Kenyon, Judge.
Before REINHARDT and HALL, Circuit Judges, and MUECKE, * District Judge.
The opinion of October 8, 1986 in the bound volume at 801 F.2d 1170 (9th Cir.1986) is amended by adding the following new paragraph to the end of footnote 3:
Similarly, our per curiam decision in Lofton v. Heckler, 781 F.2d 1390 (9th Cir.1986), is not to the contrary. First, in Lofton, the court construed a different act, the statute governing review of decisions of the Merit Systems Protection Board, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7703(b)(2). Second, Lofton does not consider the effect of the Supreme Court's decisions in Zipes, Mohasco, Crown, Cork & Seal, or Baldwin County on its analytic assumptions. See 781 F.2d at 1392. We need not consider here whether the interpretation of 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7703(b)(2) offered in our Lofton opinion remains valid. However, we note that neither Lofton nor our prior cases upon which it relies considered the applicability of equitable tolling to the statutes of limitations involved.
With this amendment the panel has voted to deny the petition for rehearing. Judges Reinhardt and Hall reject the suggestion for rehearing en banc, and Judge Meucke recommends rejection of the suggestion for rehearing en banc.
The full court has been advised of the suggestion for rehearing en banc, and no active judge requested a vote on it. Fed.R.App.P. 35.
The petition for rehearing is denied, and the suggestion for rehearing en banc is rejected.
* Honorable Carl...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
You v. Longs Drugs Stores Cal., LLC
...claimant must comply with in bringing a civil action.” Valenzuela v. Kraft, Inc., 801 F.2d 1170, 1172 (9th Cir.1986)as amended by,815 F.2d 570 (9th Cir.1987). To file a claim under Title VII, a plaintiff must file a complaint with the EEOC within 180 days of the last discriminatory act. See......
-
Johnson v. Burnley
...subsequently hinted that it might interpret Section 7703(b)(2) differently if presented with the question anew. See Valenzuela v. Kraft, Inc., 815 F.2d 570 (9th Cir.1987), modifying 801 F.2d 1170 (9th Cir.1986).5 Nor have we found any circuit decision interpreting the virtually identical 30......
-
Logan v. West Coast Benson Hotel
...Co., 823 F.2d 1322, 1324 (9th Cir.1987) (citing Valenzuela v. Kraft, Inc., 801 F.2d 1170, 1172 (9th Cir. 1986), amended by 815 F.2d 570 (9th Cir. 1987); Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 455 U.S. 385, 392, 398, 102 S.Ct. 1127, 1131-32, 1135, 71 L.Ed.2d 234 However, the Ninth Circuit has ......
-
Pratt v. Hawai‘i
...by the EEOC," Valenzuela v. Kraft, Inc. , 801 F.2d 1170, 1172 (9th Cir. 1986) (citing 42 U.S.C § 2000e–5(f)(1) ), as amended by 815 F.2d 570 (9th Cir. 1987). By fulfilling these exhaustion requirements, the Title VII plaintiff "afford[s] the agency an opportunity to investigate the charge."......
-
§9.4 Judicial Enforcement
...Airlines, 455 US 385, 393, 102 S Ct 1127, 71 L Ed2d 234 (1982); Valenzuela v. Kraft, Inc., 801 F2d 1170, 1174 (9th Cir 1986), amended, 815 F2d 570 (9th Cir 1987). The 90-day time period generally begins when the plaintiff or the plaintiff's lawyer receives the notice, whichever occurs first......