## Facts

- Lorraine Allen worked for Avon Products (Avon).
- Avon fired Allen on January 28, 1972.
- On August 29, 1972—215 days after the termination—Allen filed a sex-discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
- Because New York is a deferral state with its own fair-employment agency, the EEOC forwarded Allen’s charge to the New York State Division of Human Rights (SDHR).
- The SDHR acknowledged receipt of the materials on August 31, 1972.
- On July 1, 1981, the EEOC issued Allen a right-to-sue letter.
- On September 29, 1981, Allen filed a federal action alleging that Avon violated Title VII by discharging her because of sex.
- Avon moved for summary judgment, arguing the Title VII claim was barred based on the timing of Allen’s administrative charge.

## Issues

1. Whether Allen’s Title VII claim was barred because her EEOC charge was filed 215 days after discharge in a deferral state, exceeding Title VII’s applicable administrative filing deadline.
2. Whether the EEOC’s later issuance of a right-to-sue letter, and Allen’s filing suit after receiving it, could cure an untimely administrative charge.

## Decision

- The court granted Avon’s motion for summary judgment.
- The court dismissed Allen’s Title VII claim as time-barred for failure to satisfy Title VII’s charge-filing prerequisites applicable to the termination date at issue.
- The court held that the EEOC’s issuance of a right-to-sue letter did not excuse or remedy an untimely administrative filing.

## Legal Principles

- A Title VII plaintiff must satisfy statutory administrative prerequisites, including timely filing of a discrimination charge, before maintaining a civil action.
- In a deferral state, the applicable Title VII filing deadline turns on the statutory scheme governing the relationship between state-agency proceedings and EEOC filing.
- The timeliness of a Title VII charge is determined by the governing limitations rules tied to the date of the alleged unlawful employment practice.
- A right-to-sue letter authorizes a civil action after administrative processing, but it does not waive, extend, or retroactively fix a failure to file a timely charge.

## Conclusion

Allen’s Title VII suit against Avon was dismissed on summary judgment because her administrative charge was not filed within the applicable deferral-state time limits, and the EEOC’s later right-to-sue notice could not revive a claim barred by an untimely charge.


Allen v. Avon Products, 55 FEP Cases 1662 (1988)