Velazquez-Rivera v. Danzig

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “administrative remedies had not been exhausted, since there had been no contact with an [EEO] counselor within 45 days”
• finding that “[b]y not bringing his age discrimination claim to the attention of the EEOC, [plaintiff] foreclosed the administrative investigation and ameliorative action contemplated by the exhaustion requirement,” and district court’s dismissal of claim was, therefore, appropriate
• claim of harassment barred because plaintiff “fail[ed] to contact an EEOC counselor within the limitations period”
• “[A] federal employee's failure to contact an EEOC counselor within the limitations period causes him to lose his right to pursue a later de novo action in court.” (citing Román–Martínez v. Runyon, 100 F.3d 213, 216–18 (1st Cir.1996))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).