Ray F. ALBANO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SCHERING-PLOUGH CORPORATION; Plough, Inc.; Plough Sales Corporation, Defendants-Appellees

Good Law
912 F.2d 384·1990 WL 124681·53 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1340·54 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 40,188·1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 15231
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 30, 199089-35768California2,586 words

Opinion

Opinion

Hug, J.

Ray Albano appeals the district court’s entry of summary judgment on his age discrimination claim against his former employer, Schering-Plough Corp., Plough, Inc. and Plough Sales Corporation (“Plough”).

This case involves the requirement that before filing an action for age discrimination a charge must first be brought before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). The specific claims involved in the court action ordinarily must also have been brought in the EEOC charge. Albano filed a charge with the EEOC alleging age discrimination in promotion and sought to amend it to allege age discrimination resulting in his constructive discharge. The EEOC did not allow him to amend. In this case, we hold that the requirement that the specific claim be presented in the EEOC charge does not preclude establishing the claim in federal court when the failure to amend the charge to reflect a new claim is due to the fault of the EEOC. A second issue raised in this appeal is the interpretation of the Age Discrimination Claims Assistance Act of 1988, which extends the statute of limitations for filing age discrimination claims when the EEOC has caused the delay in filing. We hold…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.