Skip to main content

Herbert Hayes v. Michael P.W. Stone, Secretary, Department of the Army, and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

4th CircuitSeptember 28, 1992No. 92-1097
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Unpublished
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Outcome

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's complaint against the Department of the Army for failure to serve the United States Attorney within 120 days under Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(j).

What This Ruling Means

**Hayes v. Department of the Army - Court Dismisses Case Over Filing Error** Herbert Hayes, an employee of the Department of the Army, filed an employment law complaint against his employer and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The specific details of his workplace dispute are not provided in the available information. However, Hayes never got his day in court. The case was dismissed because he failed to follow a crucial procedural rule. When suing a federal government agency, workers must serve legal papers on the U.S. Attorney within 120 days of filing their lawsuit. Hayes missed this deadline, and both the trial court and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed his case entirely because of this error. **What This Means for Workers:** This case highlights how strict procedural rules can derail even valid employment claims. When filing lawsuits against federal employers, workers must carefully follow all filing deadlines and service requirements - missing these technical steps can result in losing the right to pursue their case entirely, regardless of how strong their underlying claims might be. Workers considering legal action against federal agencies should work with experienced attorneys who understand these complex procedural requirements to avoid similar dismissals.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.