Skip to main content
· 4/30/1992

Aurelia SCHOLAR, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. PACIFIC BELL, a Pacific Telesis Company, a Corporation, Defendant/Appellee

Citations

  • 963 F.2d 264
  • 92 Daily Journal DAR 5910
  • 92 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3673
  • 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 8517
  • 58 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 41,440
  • 58 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1248
  • 1992 WL 85130

How courts have described this case

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

  • explaining that the ninety-day period runs “from the ‘giving of such notice’ rather than from the date claimant actually ‘receives’ notice in hand”
  • explaining that we ordinarily affirm on alternative grounds only if the issue is briefed by the parties
  • holding that equitable tolling is applicable only in “extreme cases”
  • holding that 13 equitable tolling is applicable in “extreme cases”
  • holding failure by Title VII plaintiff “to file within 90–day period” means “the 15 action is barred”
  • holding that equitable tolling is 27 1 12, 2019

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Tang, Trott, Burns

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.