Second Circuit· 6/19/2015
Fowlkes v. Ironworkers Local 40
Citations
- 790 F.3d 378
- 203 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3312
- 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 10339
- 99 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 45,342
- 2015 WL 3796386
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that the failure to exhaust administrative remedies does not raise a jurisdictional bar
- explaining that, although an administrative complaint is a “precondition to suit”, it does not operate as a jurisdictional bar
- noting that pro se complaints must allege “‘enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face’” (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570)
- determining that a reviewing court can consider the complaint, documents attached to the complaint, documents incorporated by reference in the complaint, and public records when considering a motion to dismiss
- noting that even a pro se complaint must meet Twombly’s standard
- finding error where district court did not consider possibility that Title VII plaintiff had “equitable defense” to exhaustion argument based on futility
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Carney, Chin, Leval
Read full opinion on CourtListenerOther cases named Fowlkes v. Ironworkers Local 40
1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.
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.