Webster v. Liberty Cash Grocers, Inc.

409 F. Supp. 1002, 1975 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11748, 12 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 255
CourtDistrict Court, W.D. Tennessee
DecidedJune 24, 1975
DocketCiv. A. No. C-74-609
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 409 F. Supp. 1002 (Webster v. Liberty Cash Grocers, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Tennessee primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Webster v. Liberty Cash Grocers, Inc., 409 F. Supp. 1002, 1975 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11748, 12 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 255 (W.D. Tenn. 1975).

Opinion

ORDER ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

McRAE, District Judge.

This is an employment discrimination action brought by George Webster and Willie Mitchell, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated against Liberty Cash Grocers pursuant to 42 U. S.C. § 2000e-5(f) and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1982, 1983, 1985 and 1986. Now before this Court is the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative for Summary Judgment based on the (90) ninety day limitation period contained in the title VII statute, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1)-

Because the title VII statute requires that a civil action be brought within 90 days of the time an aggrieved party receives notice that conciliation efforts have failed and because the record in this case contains letters to the Plain[1003]*1003tiffs, Webster and Mitchell, notifying them of the failure of conciliation efforts more than 90 days from the time of the filing of this action, this Court grants the Defendant’s Motion for Summary judgment relying for its reasoning on the case of Mungen v. Choctaw, Inc., 402 F.Supp. 1349, 1975 (W.D.Tenn., J. McRae), which is incorporated herein. The Court further holds that the Plaintiffs’ claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1982, 1983, 1985 and 1986 arose more than one year prior to the filing of this complaint and are therefore barred by the applicable statute of limitations, T.C.A. § 28-304.

It is therefore ordered that the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment be granted and that this action be dismissed in accordance with that order.

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

Related

Crook v. Penn Central Transportation Co.
427 F. Supp. 956 (N.D. Illinois, 1977)
York v. Celanese Fibers Co.
416 F. Supp. 441 (D. Maryland, 1976)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
409 F. Supp. 1002, 1975 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11748, 12 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 255, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/webster-v-liberty-cash-grocers-inc-tnwd-1975.