Karolyn Handke v. McBride, Lock & Associates, et al, No. 10-3249 (8th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Civil case - Employment discrimination. Plaintiff's lawsuit was filed more than 90 days after she received a right-to-sue letter, and the district court did not err in dismissing the suit.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 10-3249 ___________ Karolyn A. Handke, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Western District of Missouri. McBride, Lock & Associates; Charles * H. McBride; Robert J. Lock, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellees. * ___________ Submitted: February 4, 2011 Filed: June 17, 2011 ___________ Before MELLOY, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Karolyn Handke appeals the district court s1 dismissal for failure to exhaust her discrimination complaint against her former employer. After careful de novo review, see Coons v. Mineta, 410 F.3d 1036, 1039 (8th Cir. 2005), we affirm. We agree with the district court that Handke s lawsuit was untimely filed more than 90 days after she received a right-to-sue letter on her June 2009 charge, which alleged her discharge was motivated by discrimination. Handke could not cure her untimeliness by filing 1 The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. a second charge based on the same adverse employment action. See Spears v. Mo. Dep t of Corr. & Human Res., 210 F.3d 850, 853 & n.2 (8th Cir. 2000); Williams v. Little Rock Mun. Water Works, 21 F.3d 218, 222 (8th Cir. 1994). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ -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.
