Lee v. Galbraith

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that plaintiff’s “visit to an EEOC office and his conversation with an EEOC employee are not a substitute for the statutorily required written charge and do not amount to exhaustion of his administrative remedies”
• \A plaintiff may file a Title VII action in federal court only after timely exhausting administrative remedies before the EEOC.\
• “A plaintiff may file a Title VII action in federal court only after timely exhausting administrative remedies before the EEOC.”
• “A plaintiff may file a Title VII action in federal court only after timely exhausting administrative remedies before the EEOC.”
• “A plaintiff may file a Title VII action in federal court only after timely exhausting administrative remedies before the EEOC.”
• “Whether a plaintiff in a Title VII case has timely exhausted administrative remedies is not a jurisdictional requirement, but is an affirmative defense that the defendant bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).