Lulu R. Williams v. Army and Air Force Exchange Service

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that the “correct defendant” under § 2000e-16(c) was the “head of the Defense Department (Secretary of Defense)”
• concluding that the “correct defendant” under § 2000e- 16(c) was the “head of the Defense Department (Secretary of Defense)”
• “[T]he results of Schiavone are particularly unfortunate in this case which involves such a short statute of limitations (30 days) and an untutored litigant.”
• no relation back where plaintiff in Title VII action named an incorrect governmental defendant and where notice was not received until after the short, thirty-day limitations period had expired
• tolling available where plaintiff was “actively misled” by defendant
• “It is undisputed that the correct defendant in this action is not [the agency] but the head of the [Department or Agency] (citing 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–16(c) (1982) (“the head of the department, agency, or unit, as appropriate, shall be the defendant.”)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).