Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02264/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02264-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John Does
Not Party
Domtar Industries
Appellee
Steven Hawthorne
Not Party
Bryan Mangus
Not Party
John Christopher Stewart
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Harry F. Barnes, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-2264

___________

John Christopher Stewart, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Arkansas.

Domtar Industries, Inc., *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

*

__________________ *

*

Steven Hawthorne; Bryan Mangus; *

John Does, 1–10, *

*

Defendants. *

___________

Submitted: March 16, 2007

Filed: March 23, 2007

___________

Before RILEY, BOWMAN, and ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

John Christopher Stewart (Stewart) appeals the district court’s1

 entry of

summary judgment in favor of Domtar Industries, Inc. (Domtar) on Stewart’s claim

Appellate Case: 06-2264 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/23/2007 Entry ID: 3291260
-2-

under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), 42 U.S.C.

§§ 12101–12213. We affirm. 

On April 7, 2004, Domtar fired Stewart. On January 10, 2005, Stewart filed a

charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

(EEOC), alleging Domtar fired Stewart because of Stewart’s HIV-status and

alcoholism. The EEOC dismissed Stewart’s charge of discrimination as untimely

because more than 180 days had passed since Domtar fired Stewart. On April 22,

2005, Stewart filed an action in district court against Domtar alleging discrimination

in violation of the ADA. The district court granted Domtar’s motion for summary

judgment, finding Stewart’s EEOC charge was untimely and equitable tolling was not

appropriate. The district court dismissed Stewart’s case with prejudice.

We review de novo the district court’s grant of a motion for summary judgment.

Rodgers v. City of Des Moines, 435 F.3d 904, 907 (8th Cir. 2006). “Summary

judgment is appropriate if the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the

nonmoving party, shows there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving

party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Id. at 907-08.

As a prerequisite to filing a claim under the ADA, a plaintiff must file with the

EEOC a charge of discrimination within 180 days of the alleged discriminatory act.

42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-5(e)(1), 12117(a); Douglas v. Cal. Dep’t of Youth Auth., 271

F.3d 812, 823 n.12 (9th Cir. 2001). Stewart concedes he did not timely file a charge

of discrimination with the EEOC, but argues his ignorance of the law and pro se status

justify equitable tolling. Such factors, however, fail to justify equitable tolling

because Stewart was aware of his own termination and could have timely filed a

charge of discrimination, and he does not allege otherwise. Stewart also does not

contend any misconduct by Domtar prevented him from filing his ADA charge. See

Coons v. Mineta, 410 F.3d 1036, 1040 (8th Cir. 2005) (noting equitable tolling

“should be ‘reserved for circumstances that are truly beyond the control of the

plaintiff,’” such as when the plaintiff was unaware of the discriminatory act (quoting

Appellate Case: 06-2264 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/23/2007 Entry ID: 3291260
2

Domtar filed a motion seeking damages and costs pursuant to Federal Rule of

Appellate Procedure 38, arguing Stewart’s appeal is frivolous. Because Stewart’s

appeal result is not necessarily obvious or wholly without merit, we exercise our

discretion to deny Domtar’s motion. See Misischia v. St. John’s Mercy Health Sys.,

457 F.3d 800, 806 (8th Cir. 2006), cert. denied, __ S. Ct. __, 2007 WL 506829 (U.S.

Feb. 20, 2007).

-3-

Shempert v. Harwick Chem. Corp., 151 F.3d 793, 798 (8th Cir. 1998))); DeBrunner

v. Midway Equip. Co., 803 F.2d 950, 952 (8th Cir. 1986) (stating “ignorance of

specific legal rights or failure to seek legal advice should not toll the 180-day

notification period” (quoting McClinton v. Ala. By-Products Corp., 743 F.2d 1483,

1486 (11th Cir. 1984))).

Thus, we affirm, and we deny Domtar’s motion for damages and costs.2

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-2264 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/23/2007 Entry ID: 3291260