-MF FERNANDEZ v. ROSE TRUCKING et al, No. 2:2009cv04915 - Document 9 (D.N.J. 2010)
Court Description: LETTER OPINION. Signed by Judge William J. Martini on 7/28/10. (gh, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
-MF FERNANDEZ v. ROSE TRUCKING et al Doc. 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY M AR TIN LU THER KIN G JR . FED ER AL BLD G . & U .S. C O U R THO U SE 50 W ALN U T STR EET, P.O . BO X 419 N EW AR K, N J 07101-0419 (973) 645-6340 WILLIAM J. MARTINI JUDGE LETTER OPINION July 27, 2010 Edward J. Fernandez, pro se 101 Manor Avenue Harrison, NJ 07029 862-755-4911 RE: Fernandez v. Rose Trucking & White Rose Foods Civil Action No. 2:09-4915 Dear Mr. Fernandez: You filed this civil rights action on September 23, 2009. You assert employment discrimination based on disability. However, you also allege that the events which gave rise to your case arose on or about September 21, 2008. In order to maintain a suit for an unlawful employment practice under TitleVII, a plaintiff is required to file a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission within one hundred and eighty days after the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred. See 42 U.S.C. ยง 2000e-5(e)(1); Burgh v. Borough City Council of Montrose, 251 F.3d 465, 470 (3d Cir. 2001) (explaining that this pre-suit requirement is not jurisdictional, but rather functions akin to a statute of limitations). After a plaintiff files a charge with the EEOC , the EEOC then issues a would-be plaintiff a right-to-sue letter. You acknowledge that you have no right-to-sue-letter. You also acknowledge that you have not filed a charge with either the EEOC or the N.J. Civil Rights Division. It is now too Dockets.Justia.com late for you to do so. Even if you had filed a charge with the appropriate body during September 2009 (at the time you initially brought this suit), such a filing would not have been timely. Because defendants affirmative defense is plain on the face of your proposed amended complaint, this Court dismisses this suit. Where as here, grounds for dismissal appear on the face of a pleading or proposed pleading, a further proposed amendment should be rejected as futile. Cf. Ray v. Kertes, 285 F.3d 287 (3d Cir. 2002) (Sloviter, J.) (permitting sua sponte dismissal where defect is plain on the face of the complaint). s/ William J. Martini William J. Martini, U.S.D.J. 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
