W.D. Tennessee· 11/5/2009
Ray v. FEDIX CORPORATE SERVICES, INC.
Citations
- 668 F. Supp. 2d 1063
- 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126110
- 2009 WL 3711997
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that for the same language at issue in this case that \[i]t does not appear that the filing of a charge with the EEOC constitutes 'legal action' as that terms appears in the 'Employment Agreement' in this case.\
- statutes of limitations are procedural, and nothing in the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act applies to preclude procedural contractual modifications to the limitations period
- “Rule 8 does not create a distinction between a statute of limitations defense and a defendant’s assertion that a plaintiff's complaint is contractually time-barred.”
- six-month limitation period upheld with respect to the plaintiff's federal age discrimination claim
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Jon Phipps McCalla
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
6 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Dekarske v. Federal Express Corp.E.D. Michigan· 2013-09-09· cited 42×
- Pfeifer v. Federal Express Corp.Supreme Court of Kansas· 2013-06-07· cited 35×
- Mazurkiewicz v. Clayton Homes, Inc.S.D. Texas· 2013-08-02· cited 14×
- Sergio Rodriguez v. Raymours Furniture Company, Inc.New Jersey Superior Court App Division· 2014-06-19· cited 7×
- Boaz v. Federal Express Corp.W.D. Tennessee· 2010-09-24· cited 4×
- Barfield v. Fed. Express Corp.S.D. Texas· 2019-01-03· cited 2×
Cites
26 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court· 1986-06-25· cited 135,235×
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court· 1986-06-25· cited 119,442×
- Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court· 1986-03-26· cited 58,760×
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. GreenSupreme Court· 1973-05-14· cited 38,518×
- William Butler Smith v. Leman HudsonSixth Circuit· 1979-06-21· cited 746×
- Campbell v. HoltSupreme Court· 1885-12-07· cited 499×
- Planters Gin Co. v. Federal Compress & Warehouse Co.Tennessee Supreme Court· 2002-07-09· cited 388×
- Douglas Emmons v. Robert McLaughlin Donald Ratliff, Gary Dewalt, City of Norwalk, Reese WinemanSixth Circuit· 1989-06-30· cited 347×
- Susan M. ROSENBERG, Plaintiff, Appellee, v. MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH, INC. and John Wyllys, Defendants, AppellantsFirst Circuit· 1999-02-24· cited 231×
- Kochins v. Linden-Alimak, Inc.Sixth Circuit· 1986-09-02· cited 227×
- Gail E. ABEITA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TRANSAMERICA MAILINGS, INC., Et Al., Defendants-AppelleesSixth Circuit· 1998-12-23· cited 209×
- Order of United Commercial Travelers of America v. WolfeSupreme Court· 1947-06-09· cited 206×
- Robert L. Bense v. Interstate Battery System of America, Inc.Second Circuit· 1982-07-06· cited 166×
- Arthur H. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CIGNA FINANCIAL ADVISORS, INC., Et Al., Defendants-AppellantsFifth Circuit· 1995-06-19· cited 136×
- Donald P. Davis and Maxine Elaine Davis v. Sun Oil CompanySixth Circuit· 1998-06-24· cited 63×
- Helton v. ACS GROUPE.D. Tennessee· 1997-03-27· cited 45×
- Keweenaw Bay Indian Community v. MichiganW.D. Michigan· 1992-11-23· cited 25×
- Kathy Stupak-Thrall v. Daniel GlickmanSixth Circuit· 2003-10-03· cited 22×
- Lewis v. KeppleW.D. Pennsylvania· 1960-07-28· cited 14×
- Lopardo v. Lehman Bros., Inc.N.D. Ohio· 2008-03-06· cited 13×
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.