From our private database of 33,800+ case briefs...
Armstrong v. Martin Marietta Corp.
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
138 F.3d 1374 (1998)
Former employees (employees) (plaintiffs) sought class-action certification in an already pending class action against their former employer, Martin Marietta Corporation (Martin) (defendant), for alleged age discrimination. Some of the employees sought to join the pending class action as named plaintiffs; the remaining employees simply sought to opt in to the pending class action. The employees had lost their jobs at Martin between 1992 and 1993. Following termination, most of the former employees filed timely age-discrimination charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). At various times thereafter, the employees received notice from the EEOC that their charges were dismissed, and that under the Age Discrimination Employment Act (ADEA), the employees had 90 days to file a civil action for age discrimination in court. However, that 90-day limitation period tolled when the employees became putative class members in the pending class action. The district court found that the employees were not similarly situated to the other class members and certified a class that did not include the employees. The court then dismissed the named employees’ claims and denied the requests of the remaining employees to opt in to the pending class action. More than 90 days after the district court’s partial denial of class certification, the employees again filed suit, this time asserting their individual claims. Martin sought and was granted summary judgment against all the employees’ claims on the grounds that the employees had failed to file their individual claims within dismissal of their class-action attempts. The employees appealed and argued that the limitations period should have remained tolled after the partial dismissal of their class action because that order was interlocutory and could be reversed at any time before final judgment in that case, or by the court of appeals after final judgment. The employees also argued that the interlocutory decision was unappealable under the final-judgment rule in 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Tjoflat, J.)
Dissent (Hatchett, C.J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 607,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 607,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 33,800 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.