Sizova v. National Institute of Standards & Technology

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that posters did not establish constructive notice where employee argued, among other things, that she had reason to believe that she was not the type of employee covered by the 17 notice
• holding that a court may convert a motion to dismiss to a motion for summary judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 only when the jurisdictional question is intertwined with the case’s merits
• finding that permissive verbiage (i.e. “may”) failing to state the requirement of meeting the 45-day deadline is insufficient notice, thereby qualifying for equitable tolling
• finding that EEO posters at National Institute of Standards and Technology directed to persons “on the job” were not reasonably geared to notify plaintiff, a university fellow who believed herself to be an employee of the university, not the Institute
• observing that while a district court has wide discretion in the way it resolves a challenge to subject matter jurisdiction, refusal to grant discovery constitutes an abuse of discretion if it prejudices a litigant
• noting that “a failure to timely file an administrative charge . . . is not jurisdictional, [but that] a failure to file an administrative charge at all . . . is a jurisdictional bar”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).