the time permitted by law subjects a plaintiff to a statute of limitations defense. Interposing a statute of limitations generally is an affirmative defense, which can be waived if not asserted promptly, or can be vitiated by equitable tolling. See Solomon v. United States, 467 F.3d 928, 932 (6th Cir.2006); Scott v. Collins, 286 F.3d 923 (6th Cir.2002). The failure to abide by a statute of limitations does not affect the court’s power to adjudicate a matter. However, in some cases, time limits are jurisdictional, and the failure of a claimant to present his papers to a court in a timely manner deprives the court of the power to proceed. See, e.g., Marshall v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 444 F.3d 837, 842 n. 3 (6th Cir.2006) (citing Buck v. Sec’y of HHS, 923 F.2d 1200, 1202 (6th Cir.1991)) (<HOLDING>); Wikol ex rel. Wikol v. Birmingham Public
holding that equitable claims are exempt from the filing requirements and time limits imposed by the  immunity act holding that the time limits in the equal access to justice act are jurisdictional holding that time limits in title vii are not jurisdictional but are instead like statutes of limitations holding that counterclaim is within jurisdictional limits of  1367a holding that to establish a prima facie equal pay act claim the plaintiff must show that the jobs being compared are substantially equal