Christine Kerr v. McDonald's Corporation

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that the complainants had “nearly two months during which they could have filed and avoided the entire limitations issue” after belatedly receiving notice
• holding plaintiffs who failed to call and inquire about late or missing letters did not “assume the minimal responsibility” to pursue their claims
• finding that summary judgment would be improper based upon a factual dispute that evoked the mailbox rule presumption, but affirming the grant of summary judgment for a different reason
• adding that the events causing delay must be “in no way [a complainant’s] fault”
• discussing receipt of Right-to-Sue Notice for purposes of an ADEA claim, which is also subject to a 90-day filing requirement
• affirming a grant of summary rule, a correctly addressed letter placed into the mailing system is presumed to arrive at its delivery point in the usual time. See, e.g., Phila Marine Trade Ass’n, 523 F.3d at 147. Because Plaintiff has demonstrated (1

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).