Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

JONES v. BASKIN

April 11, 1989

JOHN J. B. JONES, an individual, Plaintiff,
v.
BASKIN, FLAHERTY, ELLIOT and MANNINO, P.C.; PHILIP BASKIN, an individual; RAYMOND N. BAUM, an individual; JAMES B. BROWN, an individual; VICTOR R. DELLE DONNE, an individual; ROBERT E. FIORITO, an individual; JAMES J. FLAHERTY, an individual; LINDA L. GOLDSTON, an individual; KENNETH E. LEWIS, an individual; R. DARRYL PONTON, an individual; and CHARLES E. WITTLIN, an individual, Defendants


Glenn E. Mencer, United States District Judge.


The opinion of the court was delivered by: MENCER

GLENN E. MENCER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 This pro se action by the plaintiff, John J. B. Jones, alleges that his dismissal as an attorney from the law firm of Baskin Flaherty Elliot and Mannino, P.C. (BFEM) on March 31, 1985 violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). The defendants have filed a motion for summary judgment with respect to the ADEA count, the ADEA conspiracy count, and the ERISA count. The defendants' motion is presently before this court.

 Legal Analysis

 This court has already summarized the facts of this case in its opinion issued in September, 1987, 670 F. Supp. 597, and we will not repeat that summary here. We will begin our analysis by considering the defendants' claim that Jones's ADEA claim is time barred.

 ADEA Count

 In Count I, Jones asserts a cause of action under the ADEA. The defendants claim that Jones failed to satisfy the procedural prerequisite of the ADEA that the plaintiff file administrative charges within the proscribed time limits.

 Section 626(d) of Title 29 sets the time limits for filing an ADEA action in federal court:

 
No civil action may be commenced by an individual under this section until 60 days after a charge alleging unlawful discrimination has been filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Such charge shall be filed --
 
(1) within 180 days after the alleged unlawful practice occurred; or,
 
(2) in a case to which section 633(b) of this title applies, within 300 days after the alleged unlawful practice occurred, or within 30 days after receipt by the individual of notice of termination of proceedings under State law, whichever is earlier.

 29 U.S.C. ยง 626(d). Section 633(b) provides that:

 
In the case of an alleged unlawful practice occurring in a State which has a law prohibiting discrimination in employment because of age and establishing or authorizing a State authority to grant or seek relief from such discriminatory practice, no suit may be brought under section 626 of this title before the expiration of sixty days after proceedings ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.