Skip to main content
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 CourtListener

Other 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.