The employee alleged that during her time with the employer, male coworkers harassed, discriminated against, and retaliated against her. The employee filed charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), and the employee and her attorney received a letter stating that she had a right to sue. When the employee received the right to sue letter, she was seven months pregnant and on doctor-ordered bedrest for preeclampsia. The employee attempted to meet with her attorney to discuss her claim on three occasions; however, each meeting was cut short due to symptoms of the employee’s preeclampsia. After giving birth, the employee filed with her employer for maternity leave, but the documentation contained no mention of the employee’s preeclampsia or symptoms. The employee then filed her gender discrimination claim one day after the limitation period ended. The district court dismissed the claim, refusing to employ equitable tolling.
In Strunk v. Methanex USA, L.L.C., No. 23-30685, 2024 WL 366173, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 2163 (5th Cir. Jan. 31, 2024) (unpublished opinion), the Fifth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court. First, the court held that the employee met her first burden for filing a discrimination claim because she received a right to sue letter. However, the undisputed facts demonstrated that the employee’s claim was untimely. Second, the court articulated that equitable tolling only applies in “rare and exceptional circumstances.” The court stated that to apply equitable tolling the employee must establish (1) that the employee “continually and diligently pursued her rights,” and (2) that an extraordinary circumstance prevented a timely filing. The court found that because the employee and her attorney received the right to sue letter, despite the employee being sick, the employee and her attorney should have been able to gather enough information to file a timely complaint, especially considering the complaint could later be amended. The court found that the employee’s short-term disability benefit form, which held no mention of the employee’s condition, provided ample evidence that the employee could not work. However, the short-term benefit form was not enough evidence that the employee could not communicate with her attorney to provide enough information to file a claim. The court affirmed the district court's order and dismissed the employee’s gender discrimination claim.
By Cole Palmer [email protected]
Edited By Kristin Meurer [email protected]
Edited By Melissa Hightower [email protected]