Skip to main content

Sexual Harassment Claim Time Barred For Failure to File Claim Within 90 Days of Being Notified of Right to Sue By EEOC


King v. Ford Motor Company - Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals


Facts:  LaWanda King ("King") worked for Ford Motor Company ("Ford") as an assembler at one of its vehicle assembly plants.  After transferring to one of Ford's Chicago plants in 2010, King alleged she was sexually harassed by a supervisor and began to be reassigned to less desirable tasks, missed out on overtime, and received unwarranted discipline.  On March 20, 2012, King filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") and alleged she had been sexually harassed and retaliated against.  The EEOC issued a right to sue letter on August 31, 2012, but King moved without advising the EEOC and therefore did not receive the letter.  King was ultimately terminated on April 2, 2013 after missing several weeks of work for medical reasons that Ford alleged she did not properly document.

King subsequently filed two more charges of discrimination with the EEOC and the EEOC issued right to sue letters in August 203.  King proceeded to file suit against Ford and asserted claims for sexual harassment and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, interference with her rights under the Family Medical Leave Act ("FMLA") and retaliation for taking FMLA leave, and a violation of the Illinois Whistleblower's Act.  Ford moved for summary judgment and the District Court granted it.  King's motion for reconsideration was denied and she subsequently appealed.

Holding:  (Note, this brief only addresses the timeliness issue as to the sexual harassment portion of King's claim.)

As has been codified, plaintiffs are required to file suit within 90 days of being notified of their right to sue by the EEOC.   Other circuits that have considered the issue have held that if a plaintiff fails to file suit within the proscribed 90 day window, the lapsed claims are not revived by being included in a subsequent EEOC charge.  As a result, the claim "expires" and cannot be resuscitated by additional EEOC charges.  In this case, King first asserted a Title VII claim based on sexual harassment by her supervisor when she filed a charge with the EEOC in March 2012.  When the EEOC issued a right to sue letter on August 31, 2012, the 90 day window would have begun to start running.  However, King did not file suit until November 6, 2013.  King's argument that since she moved she had not been aware of the right to sue letter having been mailed on August 31, 2012, did not sway the District Court.  When a plaintiff is at fault for a delay in receiving a right to sue letter, the constructive receipt doctrine applies and the 90 day clock starts running once delivery is attempted at the last known address.

However, King did not rely upon her moving and not receiving the August 31, 2012 right to sue letter as a basis for her appeal but instead argued her claim should be allowed to proceed because she reincorporated the allegations from the first, time barred charge into her subsequent charges.  As noted above by rulings from other circuits, the Court held her suit was not timely as King could not revive her time barred claims by attempting to incorporate them into a later filed EEOC charges.

Judgment:  The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment in favor of the employer on the grounds that the sexual harassment charges were time barred as the employee failed to file suit within 90 days of being notified of her right to sue by the EEOC and also could not be revived and incorporated into subsequent EEOC charges in an attempt to revive the original claim.

The Takeaway:  The big lesson here?  Make sure to update any change in your address...especially when it comes to a possible EEOC right to sue letter that could be mailed to an old address.  The Court had a succinct analysis of the matter, as caselaw from other circuits guided the Court of Appeals on this portion of the appeal.  While King made a novel argument (in regard to her subsequent EEOC charges and right to sue letters incorporating the time barred claim), this was a matter of the law not being on her side.  Perhaps Congress could seek to pass a bill to allow these sort of "resuscitation" defenses to allow time barred claims to proceed.  But for this case (and for the time being), the failure to file suit within 90 days of being notified of the right to sue by the EEOC will result in those claims being time barred.

Majority Opinion Judge:  Judge DeGuilio

Date:  October 2, 2017

Opinion:  http://hr.cch.com/eld/KingFord100217.pdf

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum,...
Post a Comment
Read more

San Diego Rolls Back Vaccine Mandate For City Workers

Last Tuesday, the San Diego City Council voted to do away with the vaccine mandate for city employees. The city’s vaccine mandate that was in place required city workers to get the coronavirus vaccine or risk termination.  Perhaps to this surprise of no one, the city’s policy came under fire with 14 employees being terminated and over 100 other employees resigning.  With the coronavirus subsiding, including in Southern California, the San Diego City Council took action. Now, bear in mind, the repeal of the vaccine mandate does not take place immediately. With that being said, the mandate will be repealed March 8th.  I suppose the question now is, what other cities or regions follow San Diego’s lead? For additional information:   https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2023-01-24/san-diego-repeals-controversial-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-citing-drop-in-cases-hospitalizations
Post a Comment
Read more

NLRB: Former Employee Cannot Be Barred From Work Premises After Filing Wage Suit

MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC - NLRB Facts :  MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC d/b/a Grand Sierra Resort & Casino ("GSR") operated a facility that included a hotel, casino, restaurant, clubs, bars, and a pool which were all open to the general public.  Tiffany Sargent ("Sargent") was briefly employed by GSR as a "beverage supervisor" in December of 2012.  After her employment ended, Sargent continued to socialize at one of the clubs.  GSR had a long standing practice of allowing former employees to patronize its facility and did not prohibit Sargent from doing so.  In June of 2013, Sargent and another employee filed a class and collective action against GSR for alleged unpaid wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada law.  In July of 2014, GSR denied Sargent access to an event at one of the clubs.  GSR followed up with a letter and stated that with the on-going litigation (from the wage suit), it decided to bar Sargent from the premises. ...
1 comment
Read more