Will Tinner v. United Insurance Company of America

How courts have described this case

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

• continuing violation doctrine may apply “where discrete acts of discrimination are part of an ongoing pattern and at least one of the discrete acts occurred within the relevant limitations period”
• in evaluating whether discrete acts constitute a continuing violation, one factor courts consider is “whether the acts involve the same subject matter”
• same, where there was a “six-year, three-year and two-year gap, respectively, between each discrete act” of discrimination
• the court must consider “the degree of permanence of the alleged acts of [retaliation] that should trigger an employee’s awareness and duty to assert his rights”
• “In the case at bar, [the plaintiff] does not urge this Court to adopt either of those equitable doctrines. Therefore, we will not consider the application of such remedies to this case.”
• “a plaintiff who feels discriminated against by a discrete act, but fails to timely file charges on that act, cannot later reach back to those events when the statute of limitations expires in order to form a continuing violation claim”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).