X hits on this document

24 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

8 / 8

9 OCAHO no. 1111

respect to the untimeliness of Complainant’s Complaint, and Respondent is entitled to decision as a matter of law on this ground as well. See Aguirre supra, at 640, *7 (internal citations omitted).

IV. CONCLUSION

Because Complainant was not a “protected individual” under 8 U.S.C. § 1324b(a)(1)(B) at the time the alleged discriminatory acts occurred, Complainant was ineligible for the disputed position under 8 U.S.C. § 1324b(a)(2)(C), and Complainant’s Complaint is barred by the statute of limitations at 8 U.S.C. § 1324b(d)(2), Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.

___________________________________ ROBERT L. BARTON, JR. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE

Notice Concerning Appeal This Order constitutes a final agency decision. As provided by statute, no later than 60 days after entry of this final Order, a person aggrieved by such Order may seek a review of the Order in the United States Court of Appeals for the circuit in which the violation is alleged to have occurred or in which the employer resides or transacts business. See 8 U.S.C. § 1324b(i); 28 C.F.R. § 68.57 (2004).

8

Document info
Document views24
Page views24
Page last viewedSun Dec 04 19:15:53 UTC 2016
Pages8
Paragraphs98
Words3595

Comments