Legal Opinion

George FORD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BERNARD FINESON DEVELOPMENT CENTER, Defendant-Appellee

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Decided April 10, 1996No. 397, Docket 95-7241PublishedCited by 86 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

JACOBS, Circuit Judge:

“Title VII[ ] is a remedial scheme in which laypersons, rather than lawyers, are expected to initiate the process.” EEOC v Commercial Office Prods. Co., 486 U.S. 107, 124, 108 S.Ct. 1666, 1676, 100 L.Ed.2d 96 (1988). Layperson George Ford initiated the process under Title VII and the ADEA, alleging illegal discrimination by his employer. Under the rules governing his ease, Ford had 300 days in which to file a charge with the EEOC. Ford filed his charge on day 281 with New York State’s antidiscrimination agency, which is authorized to act as the EEOC’s agent, and asked…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. Texas Department of Community Affairs v. BurdineSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
  3. Singleton v. WulffSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  4. Love v. Pullman Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1972
  5. Oscar Mayer & Co. v. EvansSupreme Court of the United States · 1979

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by86 opinions

  1. Harris v. City of New YorkCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1999
  2. Duplan v. City of New YorkCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2018
  3. McMenemy v. City of RochesterCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2001
  4. Morris v. Northrop Grumman Corp.District Court, E.D. New York · 1999
  5. John A. Francis v. City of MeridenCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1997

81 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API