powers should be used sparingly. Id. For example, in Mack v. Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Co., Inc., 871 F.2d 179, 185 (1st Cir.1989), the court warned, “we hew to a narrow view of equitable exceptions to Title VII limitations periods; an exception for concealment is appropriate only where the employer actively misled the employee .... This approach, we believe, mirrors the weight of authority.” Using these standards, the Court must now determine whether Plaintiff has made the necessary showing that Defendant’s inequitable conduct effectively prevented her from filing a charge of discrimination in a timely fashion. In the case before the Court, Plaintiff makes the following argument to justify the equitable modification of the statute of limitations for bri d 584 (5th Cir.1981) (<HOLDING>); Rhodes v. Guiberson Oil Tools Div., 927 F.2d
holding that the limitations period should be tolled until the plaintiff became aware of the facts necessary to support a charge of discrimination holding that the limitations period should be tolled because defendant misrepresented its intention to reinstate plaintiff and plaintiffs reasonable reliance on the misrepresentation caused him to miss the filing deadline holding that reliance on an attorneys erroneous belief as to the date of an estate tax filing deadline is insufficient to constitute reasonable cause holding that the limitations period should be tolled because plaintiff was told in his severance report that he might be reinstated holding that in this context the filing deadline is tantamount to a statute of limitations