· 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 CourtListenerSourced 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.