ORDER – PAGE 1 

 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

 DALLAS DIVISION 

CECILIA WILLIAMS, § 

 § 

 Plaintiff, § 

 § 

v. § Civil Action No. 3:22-CV-1166-N 

 § 

APPLE HOMECARE MEDICAL § 

SUPPLY, INC., § 

 §

 Defendant. § 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

 This Order addresses Defendant Apple Homecare Medical Supply, Inc.’s (“Apple 

Homecare”) motion to dismiss the amended complaint [14]. Because Plaintiff Cecilia 

Williams has pleaded the date of actual notice, the Court will not presume earlier receipt 

and accordingly denies the motion to dismiss. 

I. ORIGINS OF THE EMPLOYMENT DISPUTE

 This case arises out of a dispute regarding Apple Homecare’s termination of 

Williams in January 2020. Williams worked for Apple Homecare as a patient care 

coordinator from July 2018 until January 2020. Pl.’s Am. Compl. ¶ 10 [11]. Williams 

alleges that her colleagues harassed her through jokes, horseplay, teasing, and offensive 

language based on her race, religion, and age. Id. ¶ 13. She was forced to take part in 

holiday celebrations in violation of her religion and participate in trainings that her younger 

coworkers and coworkers of other races were not required to attend. Id. ¶ 17. Williams 

reported this discriminatory treatment to her supervisor, who did nothing to remedy the 

Case 3:22-cv-01166-N Document 19 Filed 12/12/22 Page 1 of 5 PageID 100
ORDER – PAGE 2 

situation. Id. ¶ 12. Williams alleges that Apple Homecare retaliated against her by 

terminating her for a pretextual reason. Id. ¶ 19. 

 Williams filed a charge of employment discrimination with the Equal Opportunity 

Commission (“EEOC”) in February 2020. The EEOC issued a right to sue letter (“RTS 

letter”) on February 17, 2022. Williams attempted to view the RTS through the EEOC’s 

online portal on February 21, 2022 but could not access the file until February 26, 2022. 

She filed this suit on May 27, 2022, asserting claims of discrimination under Title VII of 

the Civil Rights Act of 19641

 and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967.2 

Apple Homecare now moves to dismiss based on Williams’ failure to file suit within the 

statutory 90-day period, which it argues expired on May 22, 2022. 

II. RULE 12(B)(6) LEGAL STANDARD 

 When deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a court must determine whether 

the plaintiff has asserted a legally sufficient claim for relief. Blackburn v. City of Marshall, 

42 F.3d 925, 931 (5th Cir. 1995). “When reviewing a motion to dismiss, a district court 

must consider the complaint in its entirety, as well as . . . documents incorporated into the 

complaint by reference, and matters of which a court may take judicial notice.” Funk v. 

Stryker Corp., 631 F.3d 777, 783 (5th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). A 

viable complaint must include “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on 

its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). To meet this “facial 

plausibility” standard, a plaintiff must “plead[] factual content that allows the court to draw 

1

 Codified at 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. 2

 Codified at 29 U.S.C. § 621, et seq. 

Case 3:22-cv-01166-N Document 19 Filed 12/12/22 Page 2 of 5 PageID 101
ORDER – PAGE 3 

the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft 

v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). A court generally accepts well-pleaded facts as true 

and construes the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Gines v. D.R. 

Horton, Inc., 699 F.3d 812, 816 (5th Cir. 2012). But a plaintiff must provide “more than 

labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will 

not do.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (internal citations omitted). “Factual allegations must 

be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level . . . on the assumption that 

all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact).” Id. (internal citations 

omitted). 

III. THE COURT DENIES THE MOTION TO DISMISS

Title VII prohibits employers from “discharg[ing] any individual or otherwise 

discriminat[ing] against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, 

or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or 

national origin.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–2(a). Aggrieved parties pursuing civil claims must 

first exhaust their administrative remedies by filing a charge of discrimination with the 

EEOC. Taylor v. Books A Million, Inc., 296 F.3d 376, 378–79 (5th Cir. 2002) (“Although 

filing of an EEOC charge is not a jurisdictional prerequisite, it ‘is a precondition to filing 

suit in district court.’”) (citation omitted). If the EEOC dismisses this charge, it must 

“notify the person aggrieved and within ninety days after the giving of such notice a civil 

action may be brought against the respondent named in the charge.” 42 U.S.C. § 

2000e-5(e)(1). A plaintiff has 90 days from receipt of the RTS letter to file a 

lawsuit. Duron v. Albertson's LLC, 560 F.3d 288, 290 (5th Cir. 2009) (per curiam). The 

Case 3:22-cv-01166-N Document 19 Filed 12/12/22 Page 3 of 5 PageID 102
ORDER – PAGE 4 

requirement that a plaintiff file a lawsuit within this 90-day period is “strictly 

construed.” Taylor, 296 F.3d at 379. Courts presume a letter’s receipt date only when the 

date of actual notice is either unknown or legitimately in dispute. See id. at 379–380. 

 Williams filed this suit within 90 days of receiving the RTS letter. Williams alleges 

that although the RTS was issued on February 17, 2022, she was unable to view the file 

due to a computer error until February 26, 2022. Pl.’s Am. Compl. ¶ 6. Apple Homecare 

argues that regardless of when Williams viewed the RTS through the EEOC portal, the 

Court should presume receipt on February 22, 2022, and dismiss the suit. Def.’s Mot. to 

Dismiss 4. The Court disagrees. The date of actual notice is not unknown or legitimately 

in dispute. See Taylor, 296 F.3d at 379–380. At this stage of litigation, the Court must 

accept the well-pleaded fact that Williams could not access the RTS on the EEOC portal 

due to computer error and construe the complaint in her favor. See Gines v. D.R. Horton, 

Inc., 699 F.3d 812, 816 (5th Cir. 2012). Therefore, the Court infers that Williams had 

actual notice of the RTS Letter no earlier than February 26, 2022, and Williams filed her 

suit on the final day of the 90-day period on May 27, 2022. See FED. R. CIV. P. 6(a)(1)(A) 

& (C). Accordingly, the Court denies the motion to dismiss. 

Case 3:22-cv-01166-N Document 19 Filed 12/12/22 Page 4 of 5 PageID 103
ORDER – PAGE 5 

CONCLUSION

 Because Williams filed her suit within 90 days of receiving actual notice of the RTS 

letter, the Court denies the motion to dismiss.3

 

 Signed December 12, 2022. 

 ___________________________ 

 David C. Godbey 

 Chief United States District Judge 

3

 Apple Homecare may renew its argument that the suit is untimely at the summary 

judgment stage if it discovers evidence that Williams received actual notice before 

February 26, 2022. 

Case 3:22-cv-01166-N Document 19 Filed 12/12/22 Page 5 of 5 PageID 104