Love v. Pullman Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that when a claimant files first with the EEOC, the EEOC may effect filing with the state on the claimant’s behalf
• stating that “technicalities are particularly inappropriate in a statutory scheme [such as Title VII] in which laymen, unassisted by trained lawyers, initiate the process”
• warning that procedural technicalities are particularly inappropriate in a statutory scheme in which laymen, unassisted by trained lawyers, initiate the process
• holding that despite the literal terms of § 2000e-5(e)(l), which suggest that the “person aggrieved” must institute the proceedings with a state agency in order to trigger the 300-day deadline, the EEOC'can institute such proceedings on behalf of an employment-discrimination plaintiff
• warning that procedural technicalities are particularly inappropriate in a statutory scheme in which laymen, unassisted by trained lawyers, initiate the process
• holding that a plaintiff’s failure to wait 60 days after filing a claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission before commencing a lawsuit in court does not deprive the court of jurisdiction over Title VII discrimination case

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).