Sanchez

Sanchez v. Pacific Powder Co.

Good Law
147 F.3d 1097·73 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 45,413·77 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 654·1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 13849·98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5109
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 29, 1998Nos. 97-35050, 97-35215 and 97-35225California2,239 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Graber, J.

Plaintiffs James Sanchez and Gary Chambers filed this action, claiming that they had been discriminated against because of their age in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 et seq., and a similar state statute, Wash. Rev.Code §§ 49.60 and 49.44.090. A jury returned verdicts in favor of both plaintiffs. Defendants have appealed, raising two main issues of federal law: (1)'whether the district court erred in refusing to dismiss the ADEA claim because of plaintiffs’ alleged failure to file a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) on time, and (2) whether the district court lacked jurisdiction over Alaska Pacific Powder Co. when plaintiffs’ EEOC charges did not name it. We hold that (1) plaintiffs filed their EEOC charges in a timely manner, and (2) the failure to name Alaska Pacific Powder in the EEOC charges was not a jui’isdictional defect. We therefore affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Because plaintiffs prevailed before the jury, we view the record in‘ the light most favorable to them. See Gillette v. Delmore, 979 F.2d 1342, 1346 (9th Cir.1992) (when considering post-trial motions challenging jury…

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.