Hogans v. Dell Magazines/Penny Press

Second Circuit

Hogans v. Dell Magazines/Penny Press

372 F. App'x 148

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedApril 19, 2010

Docket08-2090-cv

StatusUnpublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 372 F. App'x 148 (Hogans v. Dell Magazines/Penny Press) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hogans v. Dell Magazines/Penny Press, 372 F. App'x 148 (2d Cir. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

*149 SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-Appellant Debra Denise Hogans, pro se, appeals from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Cote, J.), dismissing her discrimination claims, pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VH”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.; the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq.; and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and procedural history.

We review de novo a district court’s decision to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim, taking as true all plausible allegations of fact in the complaint and construing all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 71-72 (2d Cir.2009).

Before bringing suit in federal court under Title VII, ADEA, and ADA, a private plaintiff must file timely administrative charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). See 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-5(e)(1), (f)(1) (Title VII); 29 U.S.C. §§ 626(d), 633(b) (explaining the statutory limitations of ADEA claims); 42 U.S.C. § 12117(a) (applying § 2000e-5(e) to ADA claims). In New York, a charge must be filed with the EEOC within 300 days of the alleged discrimination. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e); 29 U.S.C. § 626(d); Van Zant v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, 80 F.3d 708, 712 (2d Cir.1996). Hogans filed her charge with the EEOC on April 9, 2007. We conclude, for substantially the same reasons stated by the district court, that the conduct about which Hogans complained took place on or before her August 4, 2004 termination from employment, and that, therefore, her claims were time-barred.

We have considered all of Hogan’s contentions on this appeal and have found them to be without merit.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

*149 SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-Appellant Debra Denise Hogans, pro se, appeals from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Cote, J.), dismissing her discrimination claims, pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VH”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.; the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq.; and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and procedural history.

We review de novo a district court’s decision to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim, taking as true all plausible allegations of fact in the complaint and construing all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 71-72 (2d Cir.2009).

Before bringing suit in federal court under Title VII, ADEA, and ADA, a private plaintiff must file timely administrative charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). See 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-5(e)(1), (f)(1) (Title VII); 29 U.S.C. §§ 626(d), 633(b) (explaining the statutory limitations of ADEA claims); 42 U.S.C. § 12117(a) (applying § 2000e-5(e) to ADA claims). In New York, a charge must be filed with the EEOC within 300 days of the alleged discrimination. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e); 29 U.S.C. § 626(d); Van Zant v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, 80 F.3d 708, 712 (2d Cir.1996). Hogans filed her charge with the EEOC on April 9, 2007. We conclude, for substantially the same reasons stated by the district court, that the conduct about which Hogans complained took place on or before her August 4, 2004 termination from employment, and that, therefore, her claims were time-barred.

We have considered all of Hogan’s contentions on this appeal and have found them to be without merit.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

372 F. App'x 148, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hogans-v-dell-magazinespenny-press-ca2-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack