Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00008/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00008-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Therese Swenson
Plaintiff
United States of America
Defendant

Document Text:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THERESE SWENSON, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-0008 MCE CMK 

vs.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Defendant. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is proceeding without counsel in this Title VII case against defendant

United States of America. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 72-

302(c)(21). Defendant has filed a motion for summary Judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P 56 (c). 

Plaintiff filed a response on March 26, 2007. 

Plaintiff’s complaint filed January 3, 2007, argues that defendant’s failure to hire

her as the postmaster in Gazelle constituted discrimination; however, plaintiff does not specify in

her complaint the basis for the alleged discrimination. 

Defendant argues that plaintiff’s Title VII claim was filed more than 90 days after

her EEOC right-to sue letter was issued, and, therefore, is barred by the statute of limitations.

When the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) dismisses a

claim, it is required to notify the claimant and to inform the claimant that she has 90 days from

Case 2:07-cv-00008-MCE -CMK Document 12 Filed 04/20/07 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

the receipt of the decision to bring a civil action. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.203, 1614.405, &

1614.407; Scholar v. Pacific Bell, 963 F.2d 264, 266 (9th Cir. 1992). The requirement for filing

a Title VII civil rights action within 90 days of the date the claimant is notified that the EEOC

dismissed her claim constitutes a statute of limitations. See id. at 266-67. If a claimant fails to

file within the 90-day period, the action is barred. 

The court finds that the following facts, relevant to the defendant’s statute of

limitations defense, are undisputed. On June 2, 2005, plaintiff filed a formal complaint of

discrimination with the EEOC, alleging that the postal service had discriminated against her. 

(Doc. 7, Ex. B.) The postal service conducted an EEO investigation and prepared an EEO

Investigation Report dated August 24, 2005. (Doc. 7, Ex. C.) Plaintiff requested a hearing

before an EEOC administrative judge on September 25, 2005. (Doc. 7, Ex. D.) On March 6,

2006, the EEOC administrative judge issued a decision granting summary judgment in favor of

the postal service. (Doc. 7, Ex. E.) The postal service sent plaintiff a notice of final action

agreeing with the EEOC’s decision on March 16, 2006. (Doc. 7, Ex. F.) On April 5, 2006,

plaintiff sent the EEOC Office of Federal Operations an appeal notice. (Doc. 7, Ex. G.) On

September 8, 2006, the EEOC Office of Federal Operations mailed plaintiff its decision denying

her appeal. (Doc. 7, Ex. H.) 

The denial of appeal notice advised plaintiff that she had the right to file a civil

action in district court within 90 days from the date she received the decision denying her appeal. 

(Id.) The notice stated that for timeliness purposes, “the Commission will presume that this

decision was received within five (5) calendar days after it was mailed.” (Id.)

Plaintiff filed her Title VII action in this court on January 3, 2007. Attached to

her complaint was an EEOC right-to-sue letter dated September 22, 2006, from EEOC Appeal

No. 01A61477 and Agency Case No. 4F-956-0151-05. A footnote in the September 22, 2006,

///

///

Case 2:07-cv-00008-MCE -CMK Document 12 Filed 04/20/07 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

3

 right-to-sue letter noted that the EEOC had also issued a decision on appeal from another final

agency decision—Swenson v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01A62994

(September 8, 2006). 

Based on the facts above, it is undisputed that plaintiff did not file her Title VII

claims within the applicable 90-day limitations period. Plaintiff attached an EEOC right to sue

letter dated September 22, 2006 to her complaint. It is undisputed, however, that the right to sue

letter regarding the allegations in plaintiff’s Title VII case before the court—that she was

discriminated against when she was not hired for the position of Gazelle postmaster, was dated

September 8, 2006. The 90-day limitations period for plaintiff to file a suit in district court

regarding the postmaster position in the Gazelle post office began to run on September 13, 2006

(September 8, 2006, plus five days). The 90-day period expired on December 13, 2006 to file

her complaint in district court. Plaintiff did not file this action until January 3, 2007. 

Plaintiff has not advanced any grounds which would entitle her to equitable

tolling on the 90-day limitations period. See Scholar, 963 F.2d at 266-67(holding that Title VII’s

90-day limitations period is subject to equitable tolling). Plaintiff’s only response to defendant’s

motion is that the allegations in her complaint were made by “affidavit, under oath...thereby

waiving any right of the defendant to object on technical grounds.” (Doc. 8 at 1:21-24.) 

Accordingly, the court finds that plaintiff’s Title VII action is barred by the 90-day limitations

period and recommends that defendant’s motion for summary judgment be granted

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 2:07-cv-00008-MCE -CMK Document 12 Filed 04/20/07 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

4

Based on the foregoing, IT IS RECOMMENDED that:

1. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment be granted.

2. Plaintiff’s complaint should be dismissed with prejudice.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within

twenty days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file

written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be

captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the

objections shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties

are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal

the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: April 20, 2007.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:07-cv-00008-MCE -CMK Document 12 Filed 04/20/07 Page 4 of 4