Federal Circuits, 7th Cir. (October 19, 1977)
Docket number: 76-1877
Permanent Link:
http://vlex.com/vid/cas-teague-caterpillar-tractor-auto-36870044
Id. vLex: VLEX-36870044
Click here to download this article in graphic format (Acrobat Reader)

U.S. Supreme Court - Runyon v. McCrary, 427 U.S. 160 (1976)
U.S. Supreme Court - Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, Inc., 421 U.S. 454 (1975)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Cir. - Eloise Beard, as Administratrix for the Estate of Jeff Beard, the Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Stanley B. Robinson, Roy Martin Mitchell, and Certain Officers of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Whose True Identities Are Unknown To the Plaintiff, Defendants-Appellees., 563 F.2d 331 (7th Cir. 1977) as Administratrix for the Estate of Jeff Beard, the Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Stanley B. Robinson, Roy Martin Mitchell, and Certain Officers of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Whose True Identities Are Unknown To the Plaintiff, Defendants-Appellees.
Aldus S. Mitchell, Jr., Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff-appellant.
Harold A. Katz, Michael F. Rosenblum, Chicago, Ill., Thomas G. Harvel, Peoria, Ill., for defendants-appellees.Before CUMMINGS and TONE, Circuit Judges, and JAMESON, Senior District Judge.*PER CURIAM.Plaintiff appeals from a summary judgment that his claims of employment-related racial harassment were barred by the applicable statutes of limitations. We reverse that judgment with respect to claims based on 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and affirm it with respect to claims based on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. Only the § 1981 claims are dealt with in this opinion. The remaining issues are disposed of by an unpublished order (see table --- F.2d ---).Plaintiff has been employed in various positions with the defendant Caterpillar Tractor Company since 1949. In October 1975 he brought this action against Caterpillar and his union, defendant United Auto Workers Local 974. In his amended complaint he alleges racial discrimination generally and several specific incidents of discrimination. After plaintiff's deposition had been taken, both defendants moved for summary judgment. Plaintiff filed an affidavit in opposition. Defendants submitted no affidavits in response, but relied solely on plaintiff's deposition and affidavit in asserting their statutes of limitations defenses.When the District Court ruled on the timeliness of plaintiff's § 1981 claims, the law of the circuit was that such claims were subject to the state statute of limitations which would govern the most analogous state cause of action. See Jones v. Jones, 410 F.2d 365, 366-367 (7th Cir. 1969), cert. denied,Try vLex for FREE for 3 days
Access legal information from United States including:
Try vLex without any commitment for 3 days and see why you need it.
3
days of Free Access