Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Legal Commentary Blogs -> Out of the Box Lawyering

Legal Commentary

: Out of the Box Lawyering

How to save your case or your defense by "exception finding" — Here's how two plaintiffs saved their case by using an exception and how you could have found the same exception even if you didn't know it existed

By ajlevy

One of the ways that both plaintiffs and defendants can save their cases is by finding exceptions to whatever rule is against them. (And when I say a “rule” that's against you, I include a statute, a code, an ordinance, and a state or federal regulation.) For example, take Mercado v. The Ritz-Carlton, No. 04-1630, 2005 WL 1273940 (1st Cir. May 31, 2005). There, the plaintiffs filed Title VII charges against a hotel less than 33 days after the 300-day time limit for filing had run. (“Because Puerto Rico is a so-called 'deferral jurisdiction,' the 300-day period, rather than a shorter 180-day filing period, is applicable." Id. at n. 2. Isn't it interesting that there is a “deferral jurisdiction” exception that increases the 180-day time limit to 300 days in certain jurisdictions? Would you as the plaintiff's attorney have even known about that exception?) As to the case, what was part of the hotel's defense to the charge? Obviously that the filing was too late. What was part of the plaintiffs' defense to the late filing? That the hotel could not assert that defense because the hotel had not complied with EEOC regulations that require employers to post notices advising...

Full post as published by Out of the Box Lawyering on June 25, 2005 (boomark / email).