context: To the contrary, they simply served as predicates for the subject litigation. Notably, in respect to the ADA claim, defendant's counsel should have known the basic principle of law that as a precondition to initiating a federal discrimination lawsuit, plaintiff was required to exhaust her administrative remedies, and that failure to do so would be fatal to her case.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 235 F.3d 763, 768
citation_a.parenthetical: "[E]xhaustion of administrative remedies through the EEOC stands as an essential element of Title VII's statutory scheme, and one with which defendants are entitled to insist that plaintiffs comply."
citation_a.sentence: See Francis v. City of New York, 235 F.3d 763, 768 (2d Cir.2000) (“[E]xhaustion of administrative remedies through the EEOC stands as an essential element of Title VII’s statutory scheme, and one with which defendants are entitled to insist that plaintiffs comply.”); see also Joseph v. America Works, Inc., 2002 WL 1033833, at * 5 (S.D.N.Y. May 21, 2002) (claimant must exhaust administrative remedies before bringing ADA claim in federal court).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 2002 WL 1033833, at * 5
citation_b.parenthetical: claimant must exhaust administrative remedies before bringing ADA claim in federal court
citation_b.sentence: See Francis v. City of New York, 235 F.3d 763, 768 (2d Cir.2000) (“[E]xhaustion of administrative remedies through the EEOC stands as an essential element of Title VII’s statutory scheme, and one with which defendants are entitled to insist that plaintiffs comply.”); see also Joseph v. America Works, Inc., 2002 WL 1033833, at * 5 (S.D.N.Y. May 21, 2002) (claimant must exhaust administrative remedies before bringing ADA claim in federal court).