FERNANDEZ v. ROSE TRUCKING et al

Filing 9

LETTER OPINION. Signed by Judge William J. Martini on 7/28/10. (gh, )

-MF FERNANDEZ v. ROSE TRUCKING et al

Doc. 9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
M A R T I N LU T H E R KIN G JR . FED E R A L BLD G . & U . S . C O U R T H O U S E 5 0 W A L N U T STR E E T , P.O . BO X 419 N E W A R K , N J 07101-0419

[phone]

WILLIAM J. MARTINI JUDGE

LETTER OPINION

July 27, 2010

E d w a rd J. Fernandez, pro se 1 0 1 Manor Avenue H a rris o n , NJ 07029 862-755-4911

RE:

F e r n a n d e z v. Rose Trucking & White Rose Foods C iv il Action No. 2:09-4915

D e a r Mr. Fernandez: Y o u filed this civil rights action on September 23, 2009. You assert employment d is c rim in a tio n based on disability. However, you also allege that the events which gave rise to your case arose on or about September 21, 2008. In order to maintain a suit for an unlawful employment practice under TitleVII, a p la in tif f is required to file a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission w ith in one hundred and eighty days after the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred. S e e 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1); Burgh v. Borough City Council of Montrose, 251 F.3d 465, 4 7 0 (3d Cir. 2001) (explaining that this pre-suit requirement is not jurisdictional, but rather f u n c tio n s akin to a statute of limitations). After a plaintiff files a charge with the EEOC , the E E O C then issues a would-be plaintiff a right-to-sue letter. You acknowledge that you have no right-to-sue-letter. You also acknowledge that you h a v e not filed a charge with either the EEOC or the N.J. Civil Rights Division. It is now too

Dockets.Justia.com

late for you to do so. Even if you had filed a charge with the appropriate body during S e p te m b e r 2009 (at the time you initially brought this suit), such a filing would not have been t i m e l y. Because defendants' affirmative defense is plain on the face of your proposed a m e n d e d complaint, this Court dismisses this suit. Where as here, grounds for dismissal a p p e a r on the face of a pleading or proposed pleading, a further proposed amendment should b e rejected as futile. Cf. Ray v. Kertes, 285 F.3d 287 (3d Cir. 2002) (Sloviter, J.) (permitting s u a sponte dismissal where defect is plain on the face of the complaint).

s/ William J. Martini William J. Martini, U.S.D.J.

2