to rely on the equitable modification to make her claim timely. Equitable Modification The li tion: Where a defendant has engaged in inequitable conduct, effectively preventing a plaintiff from filing a charge of discrimination, that defendant should not be permitted to escape liability because of his or her own misdeeds.” Id. citing Kale v. Combined Ins. Co. of America, 861 F.2d 746, 752 (1st Cir.1988). The First Circuit Court of Appeals has recognized that the broad purpose underlying anti-discrimination laws favors allowing courts in equity to modify a filing period where appropriate. Ruffino, 908 F.Supp. at 1040 n. 39 (citing Kale 861 F.2d at 752). However, the court has also suggested that in discrimination cases when considering statutes of limitations the eq 6 (5th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>) For the reasons that follow, we hold that
holding that an employee might be entitled to overtime where he was told that he would not be paid overtime but was not told to limit his hours 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 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 plaintiff was told in his severance report that he might be reinstated holding that the limitations period is not tolled while a federal habeas petition is pending