Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_05-cv-00687/USCOURTS-azd-4_05-cv-00687-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 05:7703 Discrimination - Review of Agency Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Yvonne Montano, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Vicorp Restaurants, Inc., dba Village Inn,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 05-687-TUC-CKJ

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's case which alleges

violations of Title VII, the Equal Pay Act, and Title IX. Defendant argues that the case must

be dismissed as it was filed after the statute of limitations expired. Specifically, Defendant

argues that Plaintiff's claims were submitted to the Arizona Civil Rights Division which

issued a Notice of Right to Sue letter on October 9, 2004; the letter specified that any suit

must be filed within one year of the date of receiving the letter. As Plaintiff did not file suit

until November 17, 2005, Defendant argues that the suit must be dismissed. See A.R.S. §41-

1481(D); 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5(f). 

In response, however, Plaintiff attached a letter from the United States Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). Pursuant to that letter, Plaintiff's suit is timely. The

Notice of Rights letter from the EEOC is dated August 24, 2005 and directs that any suit

based on Title VII must be filed within 90 days of receipt of the Notice; it also states that any

claims based on the Equal Pay Act must be filed within 2 years (3 years for willful

Case 4:05-cv-00687-CKJ Document 14 Filed 04/25/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

violations). As Plaintiff filed her suit on November 17, 2005, her suit is timely pursuant to

the EEOC Notice of Rights letter. Defendant has not filed a reply brief or otherwise disputed

the timeliness of the suit in light of the additional information provided by Plaintiff.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #10)

is denied. 

DATED this 24th day of April, 2006.

Case 4:05-cv-00687-CKJ Document 14 Filed 04/25/06 Page 2 of 2