Case Name: Joyce L. CAMERON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES TRUST COMPANY OF NEW YORK, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1985-02-01
Citations: 754 F.2d 109
Docket Number: No. 675, Docket 84-7515
Parties: Joyce L. CAMERON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES TRUST COMPANY OF NEW YORK, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 754
Pages: 109–109

Head Matter:
Joyce L. CAMERON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES TRUST COMPANY OF NEW YORK, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 675, Docket 84-7515.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Argued Jan. 31, 1985.
Decided Feb. 1, 1985.
Joyce L. Cameron, pro se.
Jeffrey L. Liddle, New York City (David D. Howe, Liddle & O’Connor, New York City, on brief), for defendant-appellee.
Before NEWMAN, KEARSE and PRATT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The sole issue on this appeal from a judgment of the District Court for the Southern District of New York (Abraham D. Sofaer, Judge), dismissing as time-barred a complaint under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (1982), is whether a cause of action for wrongful discharge accrues on the date of the discharge or the date when post-employment severance payments ceased.
We agree with all of the other circuits that have considered the question that the cause of action accrues on the date of discharge. Shah v. Halliburton Co., 627 F.2d 1055, 1056-57 (10th Cir.1980); Krzyzewski v. Metropolitan Government, 584 F.2d 802, 804-06 (6th Cir.1978); Greene v. Carter Carburetor Co., 532 F.2d 125, 126 (8th Cir.1976); cf. Bonham v. Dresser Industries, Inc., 569 F.2d 187, 191 (3d Cir.) (cause of action for wrongful discharge under Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. (1982)), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 821, 99 S.Ct. 87, 58 L.Ed.2d 113 (1978). Appellant's administrative complaint was not filed within the pertinent 300-day period specified in 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e).
The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.