Task: Text Completion
Input (English): (quoting Ringgold v. National Maintenance Corp., 796 F.2d 769, 770 (5th Cir.1986)). 17 . See Zambuto v. American Telephone and Telegraph Co., 544 F.2d 1333, 1335 (5th Cir.1977); Tatum v. Community Bank, 866 F.Supp. 988, 994 (E.D.Tex.1994). 18 . Dft.'s Mot. to Dismiss at 2. 19 . See generally Pit's Aff., Affidavit of Carla Nowell set forth in Plt.’s Resp., and Cloutman Aff. 20 . See Cloutman Aff. at Ex. A & Ex. C(3). 21 . See Eason v. Thaler, 73 F.3d 1322, 1325 (5th Cir.1996). 22 . Franks v. Bowman Transportation, 495 F.2d 398, 405 (5th Cir.1974) (addressing limitations period under predecessor statute to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5), rev'd on other grounds, 424 U.S. 747, 96 S.Ct. 1251, 47 L.Ed.2d 444 (1976); see also Espinoza v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., 754 F.2d 1247, 1250 (5th Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>). 23 . See Zambuto, 544 F.2d at 1335; Tatum, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that although it was not clear why plaintiff apparently filed the complaint in this action prior to his receipt of the righttosue notice since issuance of a righttosue notice is not a jurisdictional requirement however the eeocs subsequent issuance of the notice satisfies the statutory requirements in this case (B) holding that notice to supervisor is notice to city (C) holding that mailing of eeoc righttosue notice to address designated by claimant suffices to start 90day period for bringing title vii action unless claimant through no fault of his own failed to receive the notice or for some other equitable reason statute should be tolled until he actually receives notice (D) holding that the state was estopped to argue that the 90day notice period  expired on a date prior to the expiration date it cited to the claimant (E) holding that the delivery of an eeoc decision to the former attorney of a claimant did not constitute notice to the claimant
Output (English): (C)