Opinion ID: 2648664
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Timeframe for Filing an EEOC Charge

Text: “In states with a state agency that has authority over employment discrimination claims, including [Colorado3], employees have up to 300 days to file an EEOC charge if they first file a charge with the state agency. A claim not filed within these statutory limits is time barred.” Daniels v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 701 F.3d 620, 628 (10th Cir. 2012) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1) (Title VII) and 29 U.S.C. §626(d) (ADEA)) (citation omitted). Compliance with the 300-day filing requirement “is a condition precedent to suit that functions like a statute of limitations and is subject to waiver, estoppel, and equitable tolling.” Tademy v. Union Pac. Corp., 614 F.3d 1132, 1150 (10th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation mark omitted); see also Haynes v. Level 3 Commc’ns, LLC, 456 F.3d 1215, 1226 n.13 (10th Cir. 2006) (noting equitable tolling and estoppel may apply to deadlines applicable to ADEA claims), overruled on other grounds by Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006). 2. Grounds for Applying Equitable Tolling and Equitable Estoppel Equitable tolling “is appropriate only where the circumstances of the case rise to the level of active deception . . . where a plaintiff is lulled into inaction by [his] past employer, state or federal agencies, or the courts.” Hulsey v. Kmart, Inc., 43 F.3d 555, 557 (10th Cir. 1994) (internal quotation marks omitted). Equitable 3 See 29 C.F.R. § 1601.80 (identifying the Colorado Civil Rights Division as such a state agency). - 13 - tolling will not apply “unless an employee’s failure to timely file results from either a deliberate design by the employer or actions that the employer should unmistakably have understood would cause the employee to delay filing his charge.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Similarly, “it is generally accepted that when an employer misleads an employee regarding a cause of action, equitable estoppel may be invoked.” Donovan v. Hahner, Foreman & Harness, Inc., 736 F.2d 1421, 1427 (10th Cir. 1984). “Courts may evaluate whether it would be proper to apply such doctrines, although they are to be applied sparingly.” Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 113 (2002). 3. The District Court’s Determinations Regarding Accrual of Mr. Benton’s Claims and Application of Equitable Tolling and Estoppel The magistrate judge concluded that Mr. Benton’s Title VII and ADEA claims all accrued no later than the date of his resignation from South Fork on September 23, 2009; therefore, his discrimination charge filed on July 18, 2011, was untimely. The magistrate judge further found that Mr. Benton had not established any grounds supporting equitable tolling or estoppel. In his objections to the R&R, Mr. Benton contended that equitable tolling applied because defendants had withheld his South Fork personnel file, making it difficult for him to find the documents necessary to bring his claim. He argued that equitable estoppel also applied because defendants misled him to believe that his personnel file would not be tarnished. - 14 - The district court rejected these contentions and also denied Mr. Benton’s request for an evidentiary hearing on the issues of equitable tolling and estoppel. We agree with the district court that, to the extent Mr. Benton’s Title VII and ADEA claims had accrued as of his date of resignation, he has not alleged any active deception by defendants that delayed the filing of his discrimination charge, nor does he claim that defendants misled him regarding these causes of action. His allegations show that he was fully aware of the bases for his race- and age-discrimination claims (and his claims of supervisory harassment and constructive discharge) at the time he resigned his employment. And he has not demonstrated that, by withholding the contents of his personnel file, defendants in any way lulled him into inaction, or that defendants’ promise of an untarnished personnel file misled him in any way regarding those claims. 4. Timeliness of Mr. Benton’s Title VII and ADEA Retaliation Claims The district court erred in applying the same analysis to Mr. Benton’s retaliation claims. First, the court construed those claims too narrowly. The magistrate judge concluded that he only alleged retaliation by defendants related to Mr. Benton being named as a defendant in the Zelenok case. But Mr. Benton objected to that characterization of his claims, arguing that the R&R ignored his allegations of protected activity based on his complaints to Chief Herrera’s supervisor about discrimination. “Title VII makes it an unlawful employment practice for an employer ‘to discriminate against any of [its] employees . . . because - 15 - [the employee] has opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice by this subchapter.’” Medina v. Income Support Div., 413 F.3d 1131, 1135 (10th Cir. 2005) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a)); see also 29 U.S.C. § 623(d) (providing for anti-retaliation claim under ADEA). And such “protected opposition to discrimination” includes “complaining informally to supervisors.” Medina, 413 F.3d at 1135-36. As to defendants’ alleged retaliation, Mr. Benson claims that Chief Herrera and Officer Chavez put false write-ups in his personnel file. In his EEOC charge, which he attached to his amended complaint, Mr. Benton claimed that defendants provided false information to prospective employers. He stated, “It is my belief that I was discriminated against in retaliation for engaging in protected activity.” R., Vol. 1 at 72. Despite Mr. Benton’s objection and the allegations of protected activity and retaliation in his amended complaint, the district court did not alter the magistrate judge’s narrow construction of his retaliation claims. The district court also erred in adopting the magistrate judge’s determination that all of Mr. Benton’s Title VII and ADEA claims accrued on or before his date of resignation “because, thereafter, the Town of South Fork was no longer [his] employer.” R., Vol. 1 at 950. Contrary to the district court’s reasoning, “Title VII permits former employees to bring . . . retaliation actions against their former employers.” Berry v. Stevinson Chevrolet, 74 F.3d 980, 985 (10th Cir. 1996); see also Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., 519 U.S. 337, 339-40, 346 (1997) (holding former employee could bring claim under § 2000e-3(a) alleging that former employer gave - 16 - out a negative employment reference in retaliation for his having filed an EEOC charge); Passer v. Am. Chem. Soc’y, 935 F.2d 322, 330-31 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (permitting former employees to bring claims under anti-retaliation provision in ADEA “as long as the alleged discrimination is related to or arises out of the employment relationship” (internal quotation mark omitted)). Mr. Benton’s amended complaint alleges that the retaliation occurred after his resignation from South Fork. Therefore, not all of his Title VII and ADEA claims had accrued at that time.
“[E]ach retaliatory adverse employment decision constitutes a separate actionable unlawful employment practice [and Mr. Benton] can only file a charge to cover discrete acts that occurred within [300 days of his filing].” Morgan, 536 U.S. at 114 (internal quotation marks omitted). In the employment context, a claim accrues when the disputed employment practice . . . is first announced to the plaintiff. Sometimes, of course, an adverse employment decision isn’t announced and the employee doesn’t learn of it until much later—and in those circumstances courts revert to asking when the plaintiff did or a reasonable employee would have known of the employer’s decision. But in all events, and consistent with the general federal rule, an employee who discovers, or should have discovered, the injury (the adverse employment decision) need not be aware of the unlawful discriminatory intent behind that act for the limitations clock to start ticking. Almond v. Unified Sch. Dist. No. 501, 665 F.3d 1174, 1177 (10th Cir. 2011) (citations omitted). Here, defendants did not “announce” their decision to put false write-ups in Mr. Benton’s South Fork personnel file and provide that false information to prospective employers. He asserts that he had no knowledge of defendants’ - 17 - retaliation until he reviewed his personnel file on January 14, 2011. But his allegations show that he discovered or should have discovered his injury before that date. Mr. Benton’s allegations indicate that, before he took steps to review his South Fork personnel file on January 14, 2011, he had deduced that Chief Herrera was ruining his name and preventing him from obtaining employment. R., Vol. 1 at 62. He does not specify when he reached that conclusion. But he alleges that he applied for a job with the Town of Delta in the fall of 2009 and passed the testing for that position. He knew that Delta’s next step was a background check and that Delta had reviewed his South Fork personnel file. He learned in January 2010 that Delta would not hire him, and he specifically alleges a connection between his failure to get that job and Delta’s review of his personnel file. Arguably, Delta’s rejection letter should have alerted Mr. Benton to a problem with his personnel file. But additional allegations show that by April 30, 2010, Mr. Benton knew or should have known of his injury. On that date he learned that Officer Chavez had prepared a false write-up regarding the Elgin traffic stop. He alleges being surprised that this write-up existed because he had been threatened with false write-ups in September 2009, yet he had never seen this false write-up. R., Vol. 1 at 59-60. Based on these allegations, we conclude that Mr. Benton’s retaliation claims accrued no later than April 30, 2010. Therefore, he was required to file his EEOC charge within the next 300 days, by no later than February 24, 2011. Of course, if the false information was provided to - 18 - another potential employer at a future date, this would “constitut[e] a separate actionable unlawful employment practice,” see Morgan, 536 U.S. at 114, and the period for filing a claim would begin to run anew from the time the employee knew or should have known of it. b. Application of Equitable Tolling and Estoppel to Mr. Benton’s Retaliation Claims Because the district court did not address Mr. Benton’s Title VII and ADEA retaliation claims, it did not consider whether they were timely or whether to exercise its discretion to apply equitable tolling or estoppel to extend his deadline for filing his EEOC charge. As an appellate court, we are limited in our “authority to fashion [our] own rationale for a decision entrusted in the first instance to the discretion of the district court.” Ashby v. McKenna, 331 F.3d 1148, 1152 (10th Cir. 2003). Thus, we would ordinarily remand to allow the district court to make a determination on equitable tolling and estoppel in the first instance. See Beaird v. Seagate Tech., Inc., 145 F.3d 1159, 1174-75 (10th Cir. 1998). But we need not do so here because we can say, as a matter of law, that the district court would have abused its discretion by applying either equitable doctrine in this case. See Ashby, 331 F.3d at 1151. Mr. Benton argues that equitable tolling and estoppel apply because he had no knowledge of the false write-ups until he reviewed his South Fork personnel file.4 4 Mr. Benton now disclaims the assertion he made in his objections to the R&R (through his former counsel) that defendants delayed the filing of his EEOC charge by withholding his personnel file and releasing it only in scattered versions. He (continued) - 19 - He also maintains that in September 2009 defendants falsely led him to believe that his personnel file would not contain any false write-ups if he agreed to resign from his position with the Town. But for this promise, he claims that he would have filed his discrimination charge sooner than July 18, 2011. Mr. Benton’s allegations do not establish grounds for tolling the 300-day time period for filing his EEOC charge. After he learned of the false write-up prepared by Officer Chavez on April 30, 2010, he waited eight months to obtain a copy of his personnel file. He then delayed an additional six months to file his EEOC charge. He does not allege any acts by defendants during this time period that caused his delay, that lulled him into inaction, or that misled him about his claims. He says only that he did not realize how legally important the false write-ups were. R., Vol. 1 at 63. Mr. Benton’s allegations fail to demonstrate grounds for applying equitable tolling or equitable estoppel to extend the 300-day deadline for filing his EEOC charge on his retaliation claims. 5. District Court’s Denial of an Evidentiary Hearing on Equitable Tolling and Estoppel Issues We also reject Mr. Benton’s contention that the district was required to conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine whether equitable tolling or estoppel apply in this case. In his objections to the R&R, Mr. Benton cited Beaird, 145 F.3d at 1174-75, for this proposition. We decline to read Beaird as requiring a district acknowledges that, upon his initial request, he obtained a complete copy of that file on January 14, 2011. - 20 - court to hold an evidentiary hearing in every case where equitable tolling or estoppel is asserted. In this case those issues arose in the context of motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). Accordingly, the district court made its determination based solely on the allegations in Mr. Benton’s amended complaint, as do we. He does not explain how an evidentiary hearing could alter the conclusion that he failed to allege any grounds for applying equitable tolling or estoppel. He simply has not “alleged enough facts to warrant . . . an evidentiary hearing to determine whether he is entitled to [that relief].” Fleming v. Evans, 481 F.3d 1249, 1256-57 (10th Cir. 2007).