Stamatina Stallcop v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals the Permanente Medical Group, Inc. Hospital & Institutional Workers Union, Local 250

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 district court correctly held that there was no 13 factual basis for applying equitable modification to the limitations period in this case” 14 where “Stallcop admitted that she consulted three lawyers within the six-month statutory 15 period”
• applying this principle to “hybrid” claim under § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act
• refusing to hold that statements made by a plaintiff to an agency investigator could expand the charge where the charge filed did not include such allegations
• refusing to consider claim raised for the first time in summary judgment briefing
• affirming district court’s 22 determination that employee failed to exhaust her administrative remedies as to sex and age 23 discrimination because her administrative charge only alleged discrimination on the basis of 24 national origin
• affirming district court’s 11 finding that plaintiff had not exhausted remedies as to age discrimination where the plaintiff’s 12 DFEH charge did not mention “age” or “include any allegations of . . . age discrimination.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).