Tweet
EEOC Lawsuit Texas
What are the statues of limitations for filing an EEOC lawsuit in Texas state court and not federal? Because I was told that I only have 90 days to file a lawsuit after my charge is closed with the EEOC. I am in need of an Employment Attorney in Texas that is willing to file my lawsuit against the employer if this matter can still be resolved.
-
-
First, what you were told is correct. You have 90 days from the issuance of the right to sue letter to file. If you miss that window, you are SOL.
Second, this site does not provide referrals, and reputable attorneys do not troll message boards looking for clients.The above answer, whatever it is, assumes that no legally binding and enforceable contract or CBA says otherwise. If it does, then the terms of the contract or CBA apply. -
Definition
What does SOL mean?
Thank You.Comment
-
(word beginning with S that the site software will not print) out of luck.The above answer, whatever it is, assumes that no legally binding and enforceable contract or CBA says otherwise. If it does, then the terms of the contract or CBA apply.Comment
-
Since, I missed my 90 day deadline with the EEOC, what are my options for filing a lawsuit against the employer? Can I file a lawsuit on my own terms regarding retaliation and purgory?Comment
-
Since you missed your 90 day window, you have no options.The above answer, whatever it is, assumes that no legally binding and enforceable contract or CBA says otherwise. If it does, then the terms of the contract or CBA apply.Comment
-
Can I still file a separate lawsuit against the employer regarding perjury and retaliation? Because they lied to the EEOC investigator and in the hearings with my worker's compensation attorney.Comment
-
Since you obviously don't believe me, please feel free to consult with an attorney.The above answer, whatever it is, assumes that no legally binding and enforceable contract or CBA says otherwise. If it does, then the terms of the contract or CBA apply.Comment
-
No, you can't as you were told. The 90 day window has elapsed for filing a lawsuit. However; as cbg noted, you are certainly free to talk to an attorney. We are telling the truth though.Originally posted by QueenInez19 View PostToo often we underestimate the power of a touch, a smile, a kind word, a listening ear, an honest compliment, or the smallest act of caring, all of which have the potential to turn a life around. Leo Buscaglia
Live in peace with animals. Animals bring love to our hearts and warmth to our souls.Comment
-
It is not that I don't believe you. I don't believe them. I was assuming that there are more options available besides just my worker's compensation case. I am not stupid either. I do feel that I have been spoken to by a numerous amount of attorneys like I am an idot. I just finished studying Business Law for an Associates in Business Administration. I do have some idea as to the types of issues that I can sue this employer for. Strict Liability is one of those issues. However, I am not an attorney that can map out the process and procedures to take to start these claims.Originally posted by cbg View PostComment
-
You might have been able to raise some of these issues if you had filed within the 90 days available to you. Since the issues you described, however, are linked to the discrimination claim, when the SOL (statute of limitations, in this case) ran out, then so did your issues.The above answer, whatever it is, assumes that no legally binding and enforceable contract or CBA says otherwise. If it does, then the terms of the contract or CBA apply.Comment
-
The problem is that Congress is not necessarily the employee's friend. Congress is the friend of the people who give them money, which is probably not the OP. When the EEOC law was written, it was very specifically written to restrict the number and size of the cases. For example, there was a famous case (whose name of course I do not remember) not too long ago where a woman worked for a company who was very actively discriminating against her and other women. The company was greatly embarrased when internal documents proving this leaked. The company was sued based on documents that everyone agreed not only were valid, but proved this. The company's defense was basically "so what, statue of limitations is up". The company won. Basically under the old law, it was funtionally legal to discriminate as long the person being targeted does not learn about it quickly. Might not be the stated intent of the law, but very much was the practical application. Congress went back and (slightly) altered the law on a go forward basis. Even put the name of the employee who lost the case in the name of the law. But if you take a really hard look at the new version of the law, it is better then the old law, but still is arguably a very pro-employer law as worded.
Staute of Limitiation rules (yet another SOL) are unfortunately very common in these sort of things. Worse, what exceptions that exist tend to be very technical. The OP to talk directly to a lawyer willing to put some time into this if they are serious about getting around SOL. And there be no "around" no matter how hard the lawyer looks. The people who wrote the law in the first place did not intend for people to get around SOL. What is happening to you is EXACTLY what the original intent of the law was. What Congress intended."Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away".
Philip K. **** (1928-1982)Comment
Comment