Connecticut Office of Protection & Advocacy for Persons With Disabilities v. Kirk

How courts have described this case

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

• concerning motion to dismiss complaint under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to correct allegedly unlawful employment practices on the basis of national origin and race
• \The 300-day limitations period is applicable in [Hawai'i] because Title VII extends the 180-day period to 300 days if filed in a 'worksharing' jurisdiction.\
• under the ADA, “failure to file an EEOC charge within the prescribed 300–day period ... is treated as a violation of a statute of limitations”
• “The 300-day limitations period is applicable in this case because Title VII extends the 180-day period to 300 days if filed in a ‘worksharing’ jurisdiction . . . Hawaii and California are both ‘worksharing’ states . . .”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).