Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-07-02210/USCOURTS-ca8-07-02210-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Laurence M. Smythe
Appellant
United States Postal Service
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Frederick R. Buckles, United States Magistrate Judge for the

Eastern District of Missouri, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by

consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-2210

___________

Laurence M. Smythe, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Eastern

* District of Missouri.

United States Postal Service, *

John E. Potter, Postmaster General, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: March 31, 2008

Filed: April 3, 2008

___________

Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Laurence M. Smythe appeals the district court’s1

 adverse grant of summary

judgment in his employment-discrimination action against the United States Postal

Service (USPS). As relevant to this appeal, the court determined that some of

Smythe’s claims were time-barred because he did not bring suit on them within 90

days of receiving the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s notice of his

Appellate Case: 07-2210 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/03/2008 Entry ID: 3419974
-2-

right to sue; that other allegations failed because he did not initiate the EEO process

within 45 days of the conclusion of the complained-of conduct; and that Smythe had

presented no argument or evidence demonstrating that waiver, estoppel, or equitable

tolling applied. Smythe’s sole argument is that the district court erred in failing sua

sponte to hold a hearing on whether his alleged mental incapacity should have

equitably tolled the limitations periods.

 

A plaintiff who seeks tolling for alleged mental incapacity must come forward

with evidence that his condition prevented him from understanding and managing his

affairs generally and from complying with the deadline that he seeks to toll. See

Jessie v. Potter, 516 F.3d 709, 715 (8th Cir. 2008). The record does not contain any

such evidence. Rather, during the relevant time periods, Smythe was represented by

counsel and filed a prior lawsuit, which he later dismissed without prejudice; he

attended a meeting with his counsel and the USPS regarding his mental condition; and

he successfully applied for disability retirement benefits. The opinions of Smythe’s

psychiatrist and psychologist that he was unable to return to work at USPS due to his

mental condition do not show that he was unable to understand and manage his affairs

generally, or that he was unable to file a timely discrimination lawsuit or a timely EEO

complaint. See id. (plaintiff’s evidence disproved notion that she could not manage

her business, since she filed exhibits showing that she pursued her workers’

compensation claim pro se and requested disability retirement from USPS). 

Thus, the district court did not err in failing to hold a hearing on equitable

tolling. See id. at 712, 715 (no error in entering summary judgment against plaintiff,

without evidentiary hearing, on ground that she failed timely to contact EEO

counselor, where there was lack of evidence of mental incapacitation, and evidence

showed she actively managed her own affairs).

Accordingly, we affirm. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 07-2210 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/03/2008 Entry ID: 3419974