Abraham v. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• “[E]quitable tolling is sparsely applied and cannot be used to rescue a plaintiff from his or her lack of diligence.”
• district court did not abuse its discretion in not allowing amendment “because said amendment would be futile since the claim would be time barred”
• “The law is well settled that a civil action under 151B must be filed within three years of the alleged unlawful act.”
• “Dr. Abraham’s lack of diligence in filing a change of address with the EEOC as required by 29 C.F.R. § 1601.7(b) is sufficient to reject his equitable tolling claim.”
• where employee’s MCAD complaint was forwarded to EEOC pursuant to work sharing agreement between .the agencies, employee could bring Title VII claim only after receiving right-to-sue letter from EEOC
• “[I]f the proposed amendment would be futile because, as thus amended, the complaint still fails to state a claim, the district court acts within its discretion in denying the motion to amend.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).