# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 7- 17 37

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Po rfi rio Ro dr ig ue z

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

v.

W al -Ma rt S to res , Inc

.
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll ee

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s - F ay et te vi ll e

__ __ __ __ __ __ Su bm it te d: Feb ru ary 13 , 20 18 Fil ed : J un e 1 1, 2 01 8

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re LOKEN, BENTO N, and ERICKSON, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ LOKEN, Ci rcu it Ju dg e.

On Nov em

be r 12 , 20 13 , W al -Ma rt St or es , In c. (Walm art ), te rm in at ed Po rfi rio Ro dr ig ue z fro m hi s po si ti on as Sen io r Mar ke ti ng Man ag er in Ben to nv il le , Ark an sa s. On Ju ne 30 , 20 14 , Ro dr ig ue z fil ed a ch arg e wit h th e Equ al Em pl oym en t Opp or tu ni ty Co m m is si on (EEOC) al le gi ng th at W al m art vi ol at ed th e Am eri can s wit h Dis ab il it ie s A c t ( A D A ), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12 10 1, et

. se q. , by di sc riminat in g an d ret al ia ti ng ag ai ns t hi m du e to hi s di sa bi li ty an d refu si ng to reas on ab ly acco m m od at e hi s di sa bi li ty. Afte rrece iv in g a rig ht to su e le tt er fro m th e EEOC, Ro dr ig ue z co m m en ced th is ADA act io n i n O c t o b e r 20 16

. The di st ric t co ur t gr an te d W al m art su m m ary jud gm en t be cau s e 1 Ro dr ig ue z fai le d to fil e a ch arg e o f d i s c r i m in at io n wit h th e EEOC wi th in 18 0 da y s

o f t h e a ll eg ed ADA vi ol at io n, as th e st at ut e req ui res

. 42 U.S.C. §§ 20 00 e-5 (e)( 1 ) , 12 11 7( a). Ro dr ig ue z ap pe al s. He co nc ed es hi s di sc riminat io n ch arg e was un ti m el y bu t arg ue s th e di st ric t co ur t er r e d i n no t co nc lu di ng th at W al m art is eq ui ta bl y

es to pp ed to as se rt th is st at ut e of li m it at io ns de fen se be cau se it s pr e-d ead li ne

se tt le m en t di sc us si on s lu ll ed Ro dr ig ue z in to no t fil in g a ti m el y ch arg e. Rev ie win g th e g ran t o f su m

m ary jud gm en t de no vo , we affi rm

. 2

The go ve rn in g l eg al pri nc ip le s ar e wel l est ab li sh ed an d un di sp ut ed

. As ea ch

wro ng fu l act al le ge d in Ro dr ig ue z’s co m pl ai nt oc cu rred on or be fo re Nov em be r 12 , 20 13 , whe n he was te rm in at ed , th e 18 0- da y pe rio d in whi ch to fil e a ch arg e wit h th e EEOC end ed on May 12, 20 14 . See 4 2 U.S.C. § 20 00 e-5 (e)( 1) ; Hen de rs on v. Fo rd Mo to r Co ., 40 3 F.3 d 10 26 , 10 32 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ). Thu s, hi s ch arg e, fil ed on Ju ne 30 , 20 14 , was un ti m el y

. Howev er, th e st at ut or y req ui rem en t to fil e a ti m el y EEOC

c h a r g e is no t juri sd ic ti on al ; it is su bjec t to eq ui ta bl e to ll in g an d eq ui ta bl e es to pp e l

. Zip es v. Tran s W or ld Airl in es , In c., 45 5 U.S. 38 5, 39 3 (1 98 2)

. Thi s ap pe al co nc ern s eq ui ta bl e es to pp el , whi ch ap pl ie s if “ th e em pl oyee’s fai lu re to fil e in ti m el y fas hi on is th e co ns eq ue nc e of ei th er a de li be rat e de si gn by th e em pl oyer or of act io ns th at th e

em pl oyer sh ou ld un m is ta ka bl y ha ve un de rs to od wou ld cau se th e em pl oyee to de la y

The Hon or ab le Tim ot hy L. Bro o k s , U n it ed St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e 1 W es te rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s.
It se em s to be wid el y un de rs to od th at eq ui ta bl e e s t o p p e l is an is su e fo r th e 2

co ur t, no t th e jury. The st an da rd of ap pe ll at e rev ie w is se ld om di sc us se d, an d th e few ci rcu it de ci si on s th at ad dr e s s th e is su e are in co ns is te nt

. Co m pa re O’ Don ne ll v. Ven co r, In c., 46 6 F.3 d 11 04 , 11 09 (9 th Ci r. 20 06 ) (ab us e of di sc ret io n) , wit h Ram ire z v. Cit y of San Ant on io , 31 2 F.3d 17 8, 1 83 (5t h Cir. 20 02 ) ( de no vo ). Our co ur t has ap pa ren tl y no t ad dr es se d th e qu es ti on

. As i t h a s no t be en br ie fed an d arg ue d an d

wou ld no t af

fect ou r de ci si on , we lea ve it for an ot he r da y

. -2

-fil in g hi s ch arg e.” Drin g v. McDo nn el l Dou gl as Co rp ., 58 F.3 d 13 23 , 13 29 (8 th Ci r.

19 95 ), qu ot in g Krie ge sm an n v. Barr y -We h mi l le r Co ., 73 9 F.2 d 35 7, 35 8- 59 (8 th Ci r.), cert

. de ni ed , 46 9 U.S. 10 36 (1 98 4)

. Equ it ab le rel ie f fro m a st at ut e of li m it at io ns

“ is an ex cep ti on to th e ru le , a n d s h o u l d th eref or e be us ed on ly in ex cep ti on al ci rcu m st an ces .” Id . at 1 33 0.

Ro dr ig ue z arg ue s th at W al m art sh ou ld be eq ui ta bl y es to pp ed to as se rt th at hi s ch arg e was un ti mel y b e c a us e it lu red hi m in to m is si ng th e de ad li ne th ro ug h th e

se tt le m en t ne go ti at io ns

. In res po ns e to W al m art ’s m ot io n to di sm is s, Ro dr i g u e z

su bm it te d le tt ers an d em ai ls refl ect in g th e se tt le m en t ne go ti at io n s at is su e. The di st ric t co ur t co nv ert ed th e m ot io n to di sm is s to a m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t, an d th e pa rti es st ip ul at ed th at th e le tt ers an d em ai ls were th e on ly ev id en ce of th e i r

ne go t i a t i o n s

. Thu s, th ere are no is su es of di sp ut ed fact on ap pe al

. The is su e is whe th er t he se do cu m en ts sat is fy th e st ric t re qu ire m en ts of e qu it ab le est op pe l.

By la te Mar ch 20 14 , co un se l fo r R o d r i g ue z ha d no ti fie d W al m art th at it ha d vi ol at ed th e ADA th ro ug h act io ns cu lm in at in g in Ro dr ig ue z’s te rm in at io n; W al m art ha d di sp u t e d t he al le ga ti on s bu t ex pr es se d a wil li ng ne ss “ to de te rm in e whe th er we

can res ol ve th is di sp ut e am ic ab ly.” T he pa rti es di sc us se d t he m at te r by p ho ne

. On May 2, co un se l fo r Ro dr ig ue z m ad e a se tt le m en t de m an d, st at in g he in te nd ed to fil e

a ch arg e wit h th e EEOC an d th en su e if th e m at te r co ul d no t be se tt le d. W al m art di d

no t res po nd

. Co un se l fo r Ro dr ig ue z se nt an ot he r le tt er on May 30 , no t i n g t ha t W al m art ha d st at ed in a May 23 ph on e cal l it wou ld res po nd by May 30 , an d st at in g th at Ro dr ig ue z wou ld “ m ov e fo rwar d w i t h fil in g [th e] ch arg e” if W al m art di d no t

res po nd by Ju ne 4. On Ju ne 4, W al m art reject ed Ro dr ig ue z’s se tt le m en t de m an d an d

m ad e a co un te ro ffer

. On Ju ne 30 , Ro dr ig ue z fil ed a ch arg e wit h th e EEOC. On Ju ly 2, Ro dr ig ue z reject ed W al m art ’s co un te ro ffer , m ad e a co un te ro ffer , an d ad vi se d th at th e EEOC ch arg e ha d be en fil ed

. On Ju ly 16 , W al m art res po nd ed th at it ha d rece iv ed th e EEOC ch arg e an d wo ul d p rep are t o d efen d a ga in st Ro dr ig ue z’s cl ai m s.

-3

-Afte r su m m ari zi ng th es e ne go ti at io ns in ev en gr eat er det ai l, the di st ric t co ur t gr an te d Walm art su m

m ary jud gm en t o n t he eq ui ta bl e es to pp el is su e:

Non e of th e le tt ers in t h e reco rd crea te a ge nu in e, m at eri al qu es ti on of fact a s t o t h e is su e of eq ui ta bl e es to pp el

. The le tt ers
m an ife st on ly a ge ne r a l , g oo d fai th in te nt by W al m art to en ga ge in

se tt le m en t neg ot ia ti on s. Mr. Rod rig ue z’s co un se l sen t a de m an d let te r te n da y s be fo re th e EEOC fil in g de ad li ne an d di d no t rece iv e a res po ns e
un ti l aft er th e de ad li ne ha d pa ss ed

. Und er th es e fact s, W al m art ’s si le nc e
can no t be co ns tru ed as an y th in g bu t si le nc e. W al m art m ad e no pr om is e to se tt le , no r di d it en co ur ag e th at se tt le m en t was im m in en t th ro ug h it s si le nc e.

W e ag ree wit h th e di st ric t c o u r t ’s a n al y si s. Ro dr ig ue z’s fai lu re to fil e hi s EEOC cl ai m wit hi n 18 0 days was no t th e res ul t of any m is co nd uc t by W al m art

. As Ro dr ig ue z’s co un se l ad m it te d du rin g th e di st ric t cou rt h eari ng , “ no th in g [Walm art ]

sa id pe r se ” cau se d Ro dr ig ue z to m is s th e de ad li ne

. Ro dr ig ue z arg ue s th e pa tt ern of

“ de la y in res po nd in g to an y se tt le m en t de m an d th at we m ad e” was de cep ti ve

. B ut fai li ng to res po nd to a se tt le m en t de m an d m ad e te n da y s be fo re th e st at ut or y de ad li ne , an d acco m

pa ni ed by a st at em en t th at th e em pl oyee wou l d f

i le a ch arg e wit h th e EEOC if th e m at te r co ul d no t be se tt le d, is no t co nd uc t th at th e em pl oyer “ sh ou ld

un m is ta ka bl y ha ve un de rs to od ” wou ld cau se th e em pl oyee to m is s the fil in g de ad li ne

. Drin g, 58 F.3 d at 13 29

. Th u s , e q u i t a bl e es to pp el do es no t ap pl y , an d su m m ary jud gm en t was pro pe rly gran te d.

The ord er o f th e d is tri ct co ur t i s af fir m ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-4

-