Wood v. Management

Court of Appeals for the First Circuit·Decided December 8, 1993·No. 93-1437·Published

Opinion

USCA1 Opinion


December 8, 1993
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________

No. 93-1437

JESSICA D. WOOD,

Plaintiff, Appellee,

v.

MANAGEMENT SEARCH CORPORATION,

Defendant, Appellee.

____________________

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[Hon. Frank H. Freedman, U.S. District Judge]
___________________

____________________

Before

Cyr, Boudin and Stahl,
Circuit Judges.
______________

____________________

Jessica D. Wood on brief pro se.
_______________
Debra I. Lerner and Long, Racicot & Bourgeois on brief for
_________________ ___________________________
appellee.

____________________

____________________

Per Curiam. Plaintiff Jessica D. Wood appeals the
___________

dismissal of her Title VII claim as not timely filed. We

find no error and affirm essentially for the reasons stated

in the district court's memorandum and order dated March 17,

1993. Wood admittedly received the Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission's determination and 90-day right-to-

sue notice on September 21, 1990. This complaint was filed

91 days later, on December 21, 1990. Compliance with the

Title VII time for filing a federal suit, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-

5(f)(1), is a statutory prerequisite: a complaint must be

filed within 90 days of receipt of the EEOC right-to-sue
_______

letter. "In the absence of a recognized equitable

consideration, the court cannot extend the limitation period

by even one day." Rice v. New England College, 676 F.2d 9,
____ ___________________

11 (1st Cir. 1982); see also Peete v. American Standard
___ ____ _____ _________________

Graphic, 885 F.2d 331, 331-32 (6th Cir. 1989); Harvey v. New
_______ ______ ___

Bern Police Dep't., 813 F.2d 652, 653 (4th Cir. 1987); Mosel
__________________ _____

v. Hills Dep't. Store, Inc., 789 F.2d 251, 252 (3d Cir.
_________________________

1986). As Wood does not claim that she had insufficient time

within which to act, and no equitable reasons are presented

to warrant disregarding the 90-day rule, the district court

correctly dismissed the complaint as untimely.

Affirmed.
________

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

Wood v. Management, (1st Cir. 1993).

Wood v. Management (Wood v. Management) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related