Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-4_05-cv-04066/USCOURTS-arwd-4_05-cv-04066-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 445
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Employment
Cause of Action: 42:12117 Americans with Disabilities-Employment

---

AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

TEXARKANA DIVISION

SAMUEL SNOWDEN PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 05-4066

POULAN/WEEDEATER DEFENDANT

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Samuel Snowden, proceeding pro se, has filed a civil action under the Americans with

Disabilities Act (ADA) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, claiming that he was discriminated

against based on his disability and race. The court provisionally filed plaintiff's in forma

pauperis (IFP) application (Doc. 2) and complaint, subject to this later determination of whether

plaintiff should be granted pauper status and his complaint should be served on the defendants

(Doc. 3). To assist in this determination, the court ordered plaintiff to file an addendum to his

complaint. (Doc. 4.) On March 27, 2006, the plaintiff filed his addendum. (Doc. 5.) 

I. Background

In his complaint and addendum, the plaintiff alleges that his employer,

Poulan/Weedeater, discriminated against him when the defendant terminated Snowden's

employment on June 18, 1987; denied Snowden coverage under the health insurance policy; and,

denied him the ability to file a workers' compensation claim on June 8, 1987. (Docs. 1, 5 at ¶¶ 4,

7.) Snowden states that he was denied the right to file directly with the employer on June 8,

1987, but that he did file a claim with the Arkansas Workers Compensation Commission in

February 1989. (Doc. 5 at ¶ 8.) 

Plaintiff attached to his complaint the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Case 4:05-cv-04066-HFB Document 6 Filed 05/08/06 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-2-

(EEOC) Dismissal and Notice of Rights, which reflects that the EEOC closed the case because

plaintiff's claim was not timely filed with the EEOC. (Doc. 1. Attach.) 

In his addendum, the plaintiff indicated that the alleged dates of the alleged

discrimination were June 8, 1987, June 25, 1991, March 19, 2004, and December 13, 2005.

(Doc. 5 at ¶ 1.) While plaintiff contends that he has presented the EEOC charge to the court and

has attached a second copy of the charge to his addendum, what he has submitted is a letter from

the EEOC confirming a telephone conversation with the plaintiff on May 16, 2005. This letter

has a hand-written notation dated May 31, 2005, and stating that an EEOC charge has been

drafted and was being sent in a separate envelope. While the plaintiff fails to supply the actual

EEOC charge, a May 31, 2005 letter indicates that a charge was drafted on the basis of racial and

disability discrimination and delivered to the plaintiff for his signature. (Doc. 5 Attach.) 

When asked about the discriminatory actions taken after his termination in June 1987,

plaintiff stated 

On June 25, 1991, after denying my claim for four years at that point, Poulan

WeedEater and its Insurance Carrier [sic] resolved by claim by Extrinsic Fraud

[sic]. After I learned about the fraud, Poulan WeedEater have [sic] continued to

deny me my benefits knowing the Joint Petition Order of June 25, 1991 was

procurement of Extrinsic Fraud [sic].

(Doc. 5 at ¶ 9.) 

When asked to explain why he delayed his filing of the EEOC charge, the plaintiff stated

I seeked [sic] the assistance of an attorney for years, but because my claim was

resolved byExtrinsic [sic] fraud perpetrated by Poulan WeedEater's attorney and

Insurance [sic] carrier's attorney, I had trouble finding help. 

(Doc. 5 at ¶ 3.) 

Snowden apparently attempted to have the Arkansas Workers' Compensation

Case 4:05-cv-04066-HFB Document 6 Filed 05/08/06 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-3-

Commission (AWCC) set aside the joint petition settlement on the basis of fraud, and when the

AWCC refused on the basis of lack of jurisdiction, Snowden appealed this decision to the

Arkansas Court of Appeals, which affirmed the AWCC's refusal to reopen the case. The

Arkansas Court of Appeals noted that "[a] joint petition award finally concludes all rights of the

parties, foreclosing any right of appeal from the order approving the settlement, even where fraud

is alleged." Snowden v. Poulan/Weedeater, No. CA 04-1203, 2005 WL 2542948 (Ark. App. Oct.

12, 2005) (unpublished). 

II. Discussion

Under Title VII and the ADA, an EEOC charge must be filed within 180 days of the

alleged discriminatory conduct. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1) (180-day limit under Title VII);

42 U.S.C. § 12117(a) (180-day limit under ADA); Shempert v. Harwick Chem. Corp., 151 F.3d

793, 796 n.3 (8th Cir. 1998) (180-day filing limit in Arkansas). Under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B), preservice dismissal of the complaint is properif the untimeliness of the EEOC

charge was apparent. The timely filing of the EEOC charge is, similar to a statute of limitations,

subject to estoppel and equitable tolling. See Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 455 U.S. 385,

393, 102 S. Ct. 1127, 71 L. Ed. 2d. 234 (1982). 

Equitable tolling is appropriate when the plaintiff, despite due diligence, is unable to

obtain vital information bearing on the existence of a claim. See Dring v. McDonnell Douglas

Corp., 58 F.3d 1323, 1238 (8th Cir. 1995). Equitable estoppel applies where the employee's

failure to file the EEOC charge is a result of either deliberate design by the employer or of

actions that the employer should unmistakably have understood would cause the employee to

delay filing the EEOC charge. See Dring, 58 F.3d at 1329-30 & n. 3. Neither of these

Case 4:05-cv-04066-HFB Document 6 Filed 05/08/06 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-4-

exceptions apply here. Snowden does not allege that despite due diligence he was unable to

obtain information vital to his claim, rather the complaint and addendum show that the plaintiff

actively pursued his claim through the AWCC as far back as 1991. Second, while the plaintiff

claims that the defendant committed "extrinsic fraud," this fraud appears to be based upon the

joint petition settlement before the AWCC, and does not appear in any way related to plaintiff's

ability to file his EEOC charge. 

Clearly, there is nothing to justify plaintiff's more than fifteen year delay in filing his

EEOC charge. This claim is untimely and should be dismissed as so. 

III. Conclusion

Therefore, I recommend (1) granting plaintiff's in forma pauperis application (Doc. 2.)

and (2) dismissing plaintiff's complaint as untimely and thus frivolous. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii) (IFP action, or any portion thereof, may be dismissed on such grounds

at any time). 

Snowden has ten days from receipt of this report and recommendation in which to

file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The failure to file timely written

objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. Snowden is

reminded that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by the

district court. 

DATED this 8th day of May 2006.

/s/ Bobby E. Shepherd

_________________________________________

HON. BOBBY E. SHEPHERD 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 4:05-cv-04066-HFB Document 6 Filed 05/08/06 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>