Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Vervitine Thompson v. Anthony M. Frank United States Postal Service, 43 F.3d 1468, 4th Cir. (1994)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    6 views2 pages
    This document summarizes a court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Vervitine Thompson filed an employment discrimination claim against the United States Postal Service under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The district court dismissed the claim as untimely. The appeals court affirmed the district court's ruling, finding that Thompson's appeal was without merit. The appeals court also noted that the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which extended the statute of limitations for Title VII claims, did not apply retroactively to Thompson's case.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1994-11-10 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Citations: 43 F.3d 1468 Docket: 92-1704

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document summarizes a court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Vervitine Thompson filed an employment discrimination claim against the United States Postal Service under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The district court dismissed the claim as untimely. The appeals court affirmed the district court's ruling, finding that Thompson's appeal was without merit. The appeals court also noted that the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which extended the statute of limitations for Title VII claims, did not apply retroactively to Thompson's case.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    6 views2 pages

    Vervitine Thompson v. Anthony M. Frank United States Postal Service, 43 F.3d 1468, 4th Cir. (1994)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Vervitine Thompson filed an employment discrimination claim against the United States Postal Service under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The district court dismissed the claim as untimely. The appeals court affirmed the district court's ruling, finding that Thompson's appeal was without merit. The appeals court also noted that the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which extended the statute of limitations for Title VII claims, did not apply retroactively to Thompson's case.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    43 F.

    3d 1468

    NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of


    unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing
    res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires
    service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth
    Circuit.
    Vervitine THOMPSON, Plaintiff Appellant,
    v.
    Anthony M. FRANK; United States Postal Service, Defendants
    Appellees.
    No. 92-1704.

    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.


    Submitted May 25, 1993.
    Decided Nov. 10, 1994.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South
    Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-90359-3-17)
    Vervitine Thompson, appellant Pro Se. Marvin Jennings Caughman, Asst.
    U.S. Atty., Columbia, SC; Joan Carol Goodrich, U.S. Postal Service,
    Washington, DC, for appellees.
    D.S.C.
    AFFIRMED.
    Before WILKINS and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and SPROUSE,
    Senior Circuit Judge.
    PER CURIAM:

    Vervitine Thompson appeals from the district court's order dismissing her
    employment discrimination claim as time barred under Title VII of the Civil
    Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e-16(c) (1988). Our review of the

    record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the
    magistrate judge discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we
    affirm on the reasoning of the district court.* Thompson v. Frank, No. CA-90359-3-17 (D.S.C. May 26, 1992). We dispense with oral argument because the
    facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
    court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
    2

    AFFIRMED.

    Thompson argues on appeal that the Civil Rights Act of 1991, Pub.L. No. 102166, Sec. 114, 105 Stat. 1071 (1991), with its longer limitations period for Title
    VII actions, should apply retroactively to render her filing timely. The Supreme
    Court recently held, however, that the Act does not apply retroactively to cases
    pending on the date of enactment. Rivers v. Roadway Express, Inc., 62
    U.S.L.W. 4271 (U.S.1994); Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 62 U.S.L.W. 4255
    (U.S.1994)

    You might also like