505 F. Supp. 2d 129 - SYMKO v. Potter’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district ·

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “was diligent throughout in pursuing her rights. She did not simply file late and then ask her untimeliness to be excused. Rather, she sent a letter on the date her formal .complaint was due specifically stating her intent to file a formal complaint and seeking a mere additional [ten] days to do so. She addressed the letter to her EEO Counselor at the same address she was given for filing her formal complaint. Neither her EEO Counselor nor anyone else representing the [agency] ever acknowledged receiving her letter nor formally responded to her request for additional time. [The plaintiff] proceeded to file her complaint within the additional [ten] days she had requested. Moreover, during that entire time she was proceeding pro se. “[C]ourts have excused parties, particularly those acting pro se, who make diligent but technically defective efforts to act within a limitations period.” Bowden, 106 F.3d at 438 . In light of the brevity of the time allotted — a mere [fifteen] days — the fact that "those [fifteen] days fell during the holiday season, and her pro se status at the time, the Court finds nothing-in [the plaintiffs] conduct that calls her diligence into question. ' Moreover, the [agency’s] ability to investigate the merits of [the plaintiffs] claim was surely not prejudiced by her [ten]day delay-in filing her complaint.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Rahimi v. Weinstein