Opinion ID: 780275
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Doctrines of Equitable Tolling and Equitable Estoppel

Text: 15 The district court correctly held that the doctrines of equitable tolling and equitable estoppel may apply to the requirement that a claim of discrimination be filed with the agency within the applicable limitations period. Zipes, 455 U.S. at 393, 102 S.Ct. 1127; accord Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 122 S.Ct. 2061, 2072, 153 L.Ed.2d 106 (2002); Santa Maria, 202 F.3d at 1176. 16 The doctrine of equitable tolling has been consistently applied to excuse a claimant's failure to comply with the time limitations where she had neither actual nor constructive notice of the filing period. Leorna, 105 F.3d at 551. It focuses on whether there was excusable delay by the plaintiff: If a reasonable plaintiff would not have known of the existence of a possible claim within the limitations period, then equitable tolling will serve to extend the statute of limitations for filing suit until the plaintiff can gather what information he needs. Santa Maria, 202 F.3d at 1178 (citations omitted); see also Boyd v. United States Postal Serv., 752 F.2d 410, 414 (9th Cir.1985) (The time period for filing a complaint of discrimination begins to run when the facts that would support a charge of discrimination would have been apparent to a similarly situated person with a reasonably prudent regard for his rights.) (citation omitted). However, once a claimant retains counsel, tolling ceases because she has gained the means of knowledge of her rights and can be charged with constructive knowledge of the law's requirements. Leorna, 105 F.3d at 551 (citing Stallcop v. Kaiser Found. Hosps., 820 F.2d 1044, 1050 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 986, 108 S.Ct. 504, 98 L.Ed.2d 502 (1987)) (internal quotation marks omitted). 17 Equitable estoppel, on the other hand, focuses primarily on the actions taken by the defendant in preventing a plaintiff from filing suit. Santa Maria, 202 F.3d at 1176 (emphasis added). As the Santa Maria court explained: 18 A finding of equitable estoppel rests on the consideration of a non-exhaustive list of factors, including: (1) the plaintiff's actual and reasonable reliance on the defendant's conduct or representations, (2) evidence of improper purpose on the part of the defendant, or of the defendant's actual or constructive knowledge of the deceptive nature of its conduct, and (3) the extent to which the purposes of the limitations period have been satisfied. 19 Santa Maria, 202 F.3d at 1176 (citing Naton v. Bank of Cal., 649 F.2d 691, 696 (9th Cir.1981)). Equitable estoppel, then, may come into play if the defendant takes active steps to prevent the plaintiff from suing in time — a situation that the Seventh Circuit terms fraudulent concealment. Id. at 1176-77 (citing Cada v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 920 F.2d 446, 450-51 (7th Cir.1990)). Fraudulent concealment necessarily requires active conduct by a defendant, above and beyond the wrongdoing upon which the plaintiff's claim is filed, to prevent the plaintiff from suing in time. Id. at 1177; accord Boyd, 752 F.2d at 414 (holding that equitable estoppel did not apply because Boyd was not affirmatively misled by a Postal Service official). 20