relied on state agency’s repeated representations that it had filed an EEOC complaint); Stutz v. Depository Trust Co., 497 F.Supp. 654 (S.D.N.Y.1980) (tolling limitations period where it appeared credible that state agency erroneously informed plaintiff it was unnecessary to check a required box on her retaliation claim when she had already checked that box on her initial complaint); Abbott v. Moore Business Forms, Inc., 439 F.Supp. 643, 649 (D.N.H.1977) (finding that “the Department of Labor’s communication with plaintiff was such as might mislead a layperson into the course of action taken by plaintiff with the consequent failure to file [a] notice within the statutory period”); Ramos v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, No. 76 Civ. 312, 1976 WL 581 (S.D.N.Y. June 23, 1976) (<HOLDING>). If the pro se plaintiff believes that he can
holding that equitable tolling was appropriate where a pro se plaintiff had relied on the representations of the court clerk holding that tolling the statute of limitations was appropriate when the eeoc acknowledged that it had advocated the mistaken interpretation relied upon by the plaintiff holding that the timely filing of a discrimination charge with the eeoc is not a jurisdictional prerequisite but a requirement that like a statute of limitations is subject to waiver estoppel and equitable tolling holding that when the department of insurance acknowledged that it had received an accident report of a claim within the statute of limitations  it was thereafter estopped after the expiration of the statute of limitations to deny receipt of the claim holding that failure of eeoc to transmit charge to phrc within limitations period was subject to equitable tolling where plaintiff requested crossfiling in the cover letter attached to the eeoc charge on the first page of the charge itself and on an official form used by the eeoc for requests for dualfiling