top of page

Filoptohos of Agia Marina Church

Public·27 friends
Ezra Harris
Ezra Harris


If you plan to file a lawsuit under federal law alleging discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, gender identity, and sexual orientation), national origin, age (40 or older), disability, genetic information, or retaliation, you first have to file a charge with the EEOC (except for lawsuits under the Equal Pay Act, see below).


We will give you a Notice of Right to Sue at the time the EEOC closes its investigation. You may also request a Notice of Right to Sue from the EEOC office investigating your charge if you wish to file a lawsuit in court before the investigation is completed (see below). This notice gives you permission to file a lawsuit in federal or state court.

Once you receive a Notice of Right to Sue, you must file your lawsuit within 90 days. This deadline is set by law. If you don't file in time, you may be prevented from going forward with your lawsuit.

If you plan to file an age discrimination lawsuit, you must have filed a charge but you don't need a Notice of Right to Sue to file a lawsuit in court. You can file a lawsuit in court any time after 60 days have passed from the day you filed your charge (but no later than 90 days after you receive notice that our investigation is concluded).

If you plan to file a lawsuit under the Equal Pay Act, you don't have to file a charge or obtain a Notice of Right to Sue before filing. Rather, you can go directly to court, provided you file your suit within two years from the day the pay discrimination took place (3 years if the discrimination was willful).

Title VII also makes it illegal to discriminate based on sex in the payment of wages and benefits. If you have an Equal Pay Act claim, there may be advantages to also filing under Title VII. To file a Title VII lawsuit in court, you must have filed a charge with EEOC and received a Notice of Right to Sue.

In most cases, the EEOC can file a lawsuit to enforce the law only after it investigates and makes a finding that there is reasonable cause to believe that discrimination has occurred, and is unable to resolve the matter through a process called "conciliation." The EEOC has discretion which charges to litigate if conciliation efforts are unsuccessful, and ultimately litigates a small percentage of all charges filed. When deciding whether to file a lawsuit, the EEOC considers factors such as the strength of the evidence, the issues in the case, and the wider impact the lawsuit could have on the EEOC's efforts to combat workplace discrimination. Congress also gave individuals the right to file a lawsuit in court.

The purpose of this lawsuit is to ensure that these companies pay their fair share of the climate impacts for which they are responsible. This is a question for the courts, not the federal government. The communities have not asked the court to stop or regulate the future production of fossil fuels in Colorado. The federal government also has a responsibility to prevent and mitigate climate change, of course, and these communities support efforts to ensure that the federal government appropriately uses its authority to address the climate crisis. For example, Boulder-based youth group Earth Guardians is a plaintiff in a different lawsuit against the federal government.[14] The new lawsuit complements, but does not replace, other efforts to address climate change.

This is a complex lawsuit and could take years to resolve. For this reason, the communities are not waiting to respond to climate change. The lawsuit is only one part of a larger strategy. But as the climate continues to change, local taxpayers are fronting the bill. The communities hope this lawsuit will shift some of the costs back onto Exxon and Suncor.

The local governments prioritize spending taxpayer dollars in a cost-conscious manner. There will only be nominal costs associated with the lawsuit. Most of the legal work will come from attorneys associated with nonprofit organizations like EarthRights International who are working on a pro bono basis. These attorneys will be assisted by private law firms who will need to put in a substantial amount of work in order to win the case. The private firms have agreed to be paid only if they win the case, in which case they would receive up to 20 percent of the award. The local communities have devoted salaried staff time to work on the lawsuit, but will not be paying for outside counsel.

BALTIMORE, MD. (Friday, November 4, 2022) - The City of Baltimore today announced the filing of a lawsuit against over 20 manufacturers of aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) and certain "forever chemicals" used in those products. In solidarity with the City of Philadelphia, which also filed a similar lawsuit today, Baltimore seeks to hold DuPont, Chemours, 3M, and others accountable for knowingly allowing the City's waterways and water systems to come into contact with these substances.

AFFF products have been used nationwide for decades. As a result of their widespread use and disposal, the products have introduced per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) into the environment. State and federal law do not yet impose requirements on municipal water providers to test for and limit the amount of PFAS in drinking water or in water supplies, but the City anticipates such requirements and is taking proactive measures to ensure its compliance and protect its residents and the environment, such as the filing of this lawsuit.

The City joins thousands of other plaintiffs in AFFF-related litigation. Over 100 public entities have commenced similar actions against the AFFF and PFAS manufacturers named in the City's case. In addition to Philadelphia, earlier this year, Prince George's County, Maryland filed a similar AFFF lawsuit. Other major municipalities, such as the City of San Diego, California, have filed similar actions. Baltimore joins these plaintiffs in seeking to hold the AFFF and PFAS manufacturers accountable for all damages resulting from their misconduct, including the costs of complying with anticipated water quality regulations.

The lawsuit names Texas Governor Greg Abbott, DFPS Commissioner Jaime Masters, and DFPS as defendants. The lawsuit claims that these directives were issued without proper authority, in violation of the Texas Administrative Procedure Act, the separation-of-powers requirements of the Texas Constitution, and the constitutional rights of transgender youth and their parents.

The Eliezer Williams, et al., vs. State of California, et al. (Williams) case was filed as a class action in 2000 in San Francisco County Superior Court. The plaintiffs include nearly 100 San Francisco County students, who filed suit against the State of California and state education agencies, including the California Department of Education (CDE). The basis of the lawsuit was that the agencies failed to provide public school students with equal access to instructional materials, safe and decent school facilities, and qualified teachers. The case was settled in 2004, resulting in the state allocating $138 million in additional funding for standards-aligned instructional materials for schools in the first and second ranks (known as deciles) determined through the 2003 Academic Performance Index (API) Base. The settlement includes another $50 million for implementation costs and other oversight-related activities for schools in deciles one through three (2003 API Base). These two amounts were included in the state budget signed in July 2004 by Governor Schwarzenegger. Another $800 million will be provided for critical repair of facilities in future years for schools in deciles one through three (2003 API Base). The settlement will be implemented through legislation adopted in August 2004: Senate Bill (SB) 6, SB 550, Assembly Bill (AB) 1550, AB 2727, AB 3001. Up to 2.3 million California public school students may benefit from funding from the Williams case settlement. As a result of the Williams case, the CDE has proposed changes to the School Accountability Report Card (SARC) template that all schools must update and publish annually. The proposed changes will help all schools report the overall condition of their facilities, the number of teacher misassignments and vacant teacher positions, and the availability of textbooks or instructional materials. The proposed changes were submitted to the State Board of Education, which approved the changes at its meeting on November 9, 2004. The new Williams-related reporting elements are being amended into the 2003-04 SARC template, which is expected to be released by December 15, 2004. More information is available at the SARC Web page. Here are the legal documents and legislation passed to fulfill the Williams requirements:

Concord, NH - Today, Governor Chris Sununu, Attorney General Gordon MacDonald, and DES Commissioner Bob Scott announced historic action to protect New Hampshire's natural resources by filing two lawsuits against companies for the manufacturing and dissemination of PFAS in New Hampshire. The lawsuits seek damages for contamination of the State's natural resources with four different PFAS substances: PFOA, PFOS, PFNA, and PFHxS. Through these lawsuits, the State will seek to recover all costs to investigate, clean up, restore, treat, monitor, and otherwise respond to contamination of the State's groundwater, surface water, fish, wildlife, marine resources, and other natural resources.

"The action we are taking today is intended to ensure that those responsible for the PFAS contamination to our state's drinking water supplies and other natural resources are held accountable," said Attorney General MacDonald. "As alleged in the lawsuits we are filing today, the defendants possessed unique knowledge of the dangers of PFAS chemicals but continued to make and sell them without warning the public of their health risks. We are committed to taking all legal action necessary to ensure that those responsible account for the damage to the State and its resources caused by PFAS." 041b061a72


Welcome to the group! The Filoptohos is a group whose main a...


Group Page: Groups_SingleGroup
bottom of page