Skip to main content
Please enter a legal issue and/or a location
Begin typing to search, use arrow keys to navigate, use enter to select

Find a Lawyer

More Options

Sandoval v. Am. Building Maint. Indus., Inc., No. 08-2271

By FindLaw Staff on August 26, 2009 | Last updated on March 21, 2019

In an employment sex discrimination case, district court rulings against plaintiffs are affirmed in part where: 1) plaintiffs' amended complaint was untimely under the equitable tolling doctrine as plaintiffs did not act with due diligence, or under the relation back doctrine as plaintiffs' failure to name the company's subsidiary was not the result of a mistake concerning the identity of the proper party; 2) district court's grant of summary judgment against timely plaintiffs on their sex discrimination, quid pro quo sexual harassment, retaliation, and a hostile workplace claim was proper.  A ruling finding that there was no genuine issue of material fact as to whether defendants-parent and subsidiary acted as an integrated enterprise is reversed and remanded given their interrelated operations. Dismissal of two plaintiffs' hostile workplace claims is remanded to determine whether evidence of widespread sexual harassment was sufficient to put the subsidiary on notice.     

Read Sandoval v. Am. Building Maint. Indus., Inc., No. 08-2271

Appellate Information

Submitted: February 11, 2009

Filed: August 26, 2009


Opinion by Bye, Circuit Judge

You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help

Meeting with a lawyer can help you understand your options and how to best protect your rights. Visit our attorney directory to find a lawyer near you who can help.

Or contact an attorney near you:
Copied to clipboard