Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-24-11058/USCOURTS-ca11-24-11058-0/pdf.json

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

---

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 24-11058

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

JACQUELINE R. EVERSON, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

THE COCA-COLA COMPANY, 

LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, 

Defendants-Appellees.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

D.C. Docket No. 1:23-cv-02947-MLB

USCA11 Case: 24-11058 Document: 26-1 Date Filed: 12/16/2024 Page: 1 of 6
2 Opinion of the Court 24-11058

____________________

Before JILL PRYOR, BRASHER, and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Jacqueline Everson, appearing pro se, appeals the District 

Court’s dismissal of her claims against The Coca-Cola Company 

and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company for discrimination under 

federal and state law and fraud under Georgia law. Her claims stem 

from the termination of her long-term disability benefits in 2005 

and her 2023 discovery of a document she argues exposes misconduct. While Everson asserts that her recent discovery revives her 

claims, the statutes of limitations governing her causes of action 

bar her suit. We affirm the District Court’s dismissal.

I.

Jacqueline Everson, a former senior financial analyst at 

Coca-Cola, began receiving long-term disability benefits in 2003. In 

March 2005, Liberty Mutual, acting as Coca-Cola’s administrator, 

reevaluated her case and determined that she no longer met the 

criteria for disability under Coca-Cola’s long-term disability plan. 

Her employment was terminated under a corporate restructuring, 

and her benefits ended.

Everson filed two previous lawsuits to challenge these decisions. First, in Everson v. Coca-Cola Co., No. 1:05-cv-2301, 2006 WL 

8432745 (N.D. Ga. Oct. 17, 2006), she accused Coca-Cola of terminating her employment in retaliation for bringing an unsuccessful 

employment discrimination suit. The District Court granted 

USCA11 Case: 24-11058 Document: 26-1 Date Filed: 12/16/2024 Page: 2 of 6
24-11058 Opinion of the Court 3

summary judgment to Coca-Cola, and we affirmed. See Everson v. 

Coca-Cola Co., 241 F. App’x 652 (11th Cir. 2007).

Second, in Everson v. Liberty Mutual Assurance Co., No. 1:05-

cv-2459, 2009 WL 73140 (N.D. Ga. Jan. 2, 2009), Everson alleged 

that Liberty Mutual wrongfully terminated her benefits in violation 

of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and 

state law. Following a bench trial, the District Court ruled for Liberty Mutual, finding its denial of benefits neither arbitrary nor capricious. We dismissed Everson’s appeal as untimely, and the 

United States Supreme Court denied certiorari. Everson v. Liberty 

Mut. Assurance Co., 558 U.S. 946 (2009). 

Nearly two decades later, in 2023, Everson initiated this lawsuit claiming she had discovered Coca-Cola’s Long Term Disability 

Summary Plan Description. She asserted that this document 

proved Coca-Cola and Liberty Mutual violated their own policy by 

terminating her benefits prematurely. Everson alleged ongoing discrimination under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act 

(ADA), employment discrimination under O.C.G.A. § 34-6A-4, and 

fraud under Georgia law.

The District Court dismissed Everson’s claims on multiple 

grounds.1 It found her claims barred by the applicable statutes of 

limitations and concluded that she failed to demonstrate any basis 

for equitable tolling. The Court also determined that her claims 

1 The Magistrate Judge issued a Report & Recommendation, which the District Court adopted in full. 

USCA11 Case: 24-11058 Document: 26-1 Date Filed: 12/16/2024 Page: 3 of 6
4 Opinion of the Court 24-11058

were precluded by res judicata, that Liberty Mutual was not a 

proper defendant, and that ERISA preempted her state-law claims. 

Everson appeals.

II.

We review de novo the District Court’s dismissal for failure 

to state a claim and its application of statutes of limitations. Taylor 

v. Polhill, 964 F.3d 975, 979 (11th Cir. 2020); Harrison v. Digital Health 

Plan, 183 F.3d 1235, 1238 (11th Cir. 1999).

A. ADA Claims

Everson’s ADA claims arise from the 2005 termination of 

her long-term disability benefits. Under the ADA, a plaintiff must 

file a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) within 180 days of the alleged discriminatory act. 42 

U.S.C. §§ 12117(a), 2000e-5(e)(1). Discrete acts, such as a benefits 

termination, occur on the day they happen, and the statute of limitations begins to run at that time. Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 110, 122 S. Ct. 2061, 2070 (2002). Everson’s benefits were terminated in March 2005, and her 180-day window to 

file an EEOC charge closed shortly thereafter.

Everson contends that her 2023 discovery of Coca-Cola’s 

Long Term Disability Summary Plan Description constitutes new 

evidence of ongoing discrimination. But her argument misunderstands the nature of a discrete act under the ADA. The termination 

of her benefits was a one-time event, not a continuing violation. 

The continuing violations doctrine does not apply to discrete acts 

like a termination, even if the effects of those acts persist over time. 

USCA11 Case: 24-11058 Document: 26-1 Date Filed: 12/16/2024 Page: 4 of 6
24-11058 Opinion of the Court 5

City of Hialeah v. Rojas, 311 F.3d 1096, 1101–02 (11th Cir. 2002). 

Everson’s benefits were terminated in 2005, and her attempt to revive this claim nearly twenty years later cannot succeed.

Everson’s reliance on equitable tolling fares no better. Tolling requires extraordinary circumstances and a showing that the 

plaintiff exercised reasonable diligence but was still prevented from 

filing on time. Justice v. United States, 6 F.3d 1474, 1479–80 (11th Cir. 

1993). Everson alleges that Coca-Cola and Liberty Mutual concealed the Summary Plan Description during her earlier lawsuits, 

but she does not show that this document was unavailable through 

reasonable diligence at the time. Waiting nearly two decades to investigate her claims reflects a lack of diligence, not circumstances 

beyond her control. See Sandvik v. United States, 177 F.3d 1269, 1271 

(11th Cir. 1999) (“Equitable tolling is appropriate when a movant 

untimely files because of extraordinary circumstances that are both 

beyond [her] control and unavoidable even with diligence.”). Equitable tolling cannot save her ADA claims, which are untimely by 

nearly two decades.

B. State-Law Claims

Everson’s state-law claims for fraud and employment discrimination are similarly time-barred. Georgia law imposes a fouryear statute of limitations for fraud, running from the time the 

plaintiff suffers harm due to reliance on a false statement. O.C.G.A. 

§ 9-3-31. Everson alleges that Coca-Cola and Liberty Mutual concealed the Summary Plan Description during her 2005 lawsuits, 

leading to the denial of her benefits. Even assuming her allegations 

USCA11 Case: 24-11058 Document: 26-1 Date Filed: 12/16/2024 Page: 5 of 6
6 Opinion of the Court 24-11058

are true, her claims would have accrued when she lost her prior 

cases: October 17, 2006, in Everson v. Coca-Cola Co., No. 1:05-cv2301, and January 2, 2009, in Everson v. Liberty Mutual Assurance Co., 

No. 1:05-cv-2459. The four-year statute of limitations expired long 

before she filed this lawsuit in 2023.

Similarly, Georgia law provides a 180-day limitations period 

for employment discrimination claims under O.C.G.A. § 34-6A-4. 

Everson’s claims, based on the 2005 termination of her benefits, are 

untimely under this standard as well.

Equitable tolling does not apply to these claims either. Everson alleges that Coca-Cola and Liberty Mutual concealed the Summary Plan Description, but she provides no evidence that she took 

any steps to investigate her claims for nearly twenty years. Her 

2023 discovery, long after her claims accrued, reflects inaction rather than diligence. Without evidence of reasonable efforts to discover her claims earlier, equitable tolling cannot excuse her delay. 

See Justice, 6 F.3d at 1479.

III.

Everson’s claims are time-barred under both federal and 

state law. Neither the continuing violations doctrine nor equitable 

tolling can revive them. And because all her claims are time barred,

we do not address the District Court’s other reasons for dismissal. 

We affirm.

AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 24-11058 Document: 26-1 Date Filed: 12/16/2024 Page: 6 of 6