Lateshia Patillo v. Sysco Foods of Arkansas LLC, No. 17-1110 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Shepherd, Murphy and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Employment discrimination. Order dismissing plaintiff's employment discrimination case for failure to exhaust administrative remedies reversed; on remand the district court should consider whether an intake questionnaire plaintiff filed with the EEOC constituted a valid administrative charge of discrimination in light of relevant Supreme Court precedents.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 17-1110 ___________________________ Lateshia Patillo lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Sysco Foods of Arkansas LLC lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee -----------------------------Equal Employment Opportunity Commission lllllllllllllllllllllAmicus on Behalf of Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock ____________ Submitted: November 16, 2017 Filed: December 6, 2017 [Unpublished] ____________ Before SHEPHERD, MURPHY, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Lateshia Patillo appeals the district court’s order dismissing her employment-discrimination action, for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Upon de novo review, see Blakley v. Schlumberger Tech. Corp., 648 F.3d 921, 931 (8th Cir. 2011), we vacate the dismissal order and remand the case to the district court. The court is instructed to reconsider the issues in this case, including whether an intake questionnaire Patillo filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission constituted a valid administrative charge of discrimination, in light of Supreme Court precedent including Fed. Express Corp. v. Holowecki, 552 U.S. 389 (2008), and Edelman v. Lynchburg Coll., 535 U.S. 106 (2002). ______________________________ -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.
