Court Opinion

ID: 9398157
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-30 15:01:17.016147+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:31.277691
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-12032    Document: 32-1      Date Filed: 05/30/2023   Page: 1 of 4

                                                   [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                         For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-12032
                           Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       JENNIFER BOATWRIGHT,
                                                      Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
       versus
       FLORIDA CREDIT UNION,
       A Federally Insured State-Chartered
       Credit Union,

                                                    Defendant-Appellee.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Northern District of Florida
USCA11 Case: 22-12032      Document: 32-1      Date Filed: 05/30/2023     Page: 2 of 4

       2                      Opinion of the Court                  22-12032

                    D.C. Docket No. 1:21-cv-00067-MW-GRJ
                          ____________________

       Before WILSON, LUCK, and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Jennifer Boatwright appeals from the District Court’s grant
       of Florida Credit Union’s motion to dismiss. She argues that, alt-
       hough her charge of discrimination was untimely filed with the
       Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the “EEOC”), she
       was entitled to equitable tolling because extraordinary circum-
       stances, specifically COVID-19, prevented her from timely filing
       the EEOC charge.
              We review the grant of a motion to dismiss under Rule
       12(b)(6) de novo, accepting the allegations in the complaint as true
       while construing them in the light most favorable to the non-mo-
       vant. Bourff v. Rubin Lublin, LLC, 674 F.3d 1238, 1240 (11th Cir.
       2012) We review de novo whether equitable tolling applies, but we
       review for clear error a district court’s factual findings on equitable
       tolling. Cabello v. Fernandez-Larios, 402 F.3d 1148, 1153 (11th Cir.
       2005).
              Before filing an ADEA action, a plaintiff in a deferral state
       such as Florida must first file a charge of discrimination with the
       EEOC within 300 days of the alleged unlawful employment prac-
       tice. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1); EEOC v. Joe’s Stone Crabs, Inc., 296
       F.3d 1265, 1271 (11th Cir. 2002). Only alleged discriminatory acts
       arising within 300 days prior to the filing of the charge are
USCA11 Case: 22-12032      Document: 32-1       Date Filed: 05/30/2023     Page: 3 of 4

       22-12032                Opinion of the Court                          3

       actionable. Joe’s Stone Crabs, Inc., 296 F.3d at 1271. The plaintiff has
       the burden of establishing that he filed a timely charge of discrimi-
       nation. See Jackson v. Seaboard Coast Line R. Co., 678 F.2d 992, 1010
       (11th Cir. 1982).
              Timely filing a charge of discrimination is not a jurisdictional
       prerequisite, but a requirement that, like a statute of limitations, is
       subject to waiver, estoppel, and equitable tolling. Zipes v. Trans
       World Airlines, Inc., 455 U.S. 385, 393, 102 S. Ct. 1127, 1132 (1982).
       Nevertheless, we have held that traditional equitable tolling princi-
       ples require a claimant to justify her untimely filing by a showing
       of extraordinary circumstances. Jackson v. Astrue, 506 F.3d 1349,
       1353 (11th Cir. 2007).
               The plaintiff must establish that tolling is warranted because
       equitable tolling is an extraordinary remedy which should be ex-
       tended only sparingly. Bost v. Fed. Express Corp., 372 F.3d 1233, 1242
       (11th Cir.2004). In addition to a showing of extraordinary circum-
       stances, a plaintiff must show that the delay in filing was unavoid-
       able, even if the plaintiff acted with diligence. See Sandvik v. United
       States, 177 F.3d 1269, 1271 (11th Cir. 1999) (citing Irwin v. Dep’t of
       Veterans Affairs, 498 U.S. 89, 96, 111 S. Ct. 453, 458 (1990) (“[w]e
       have generally been much less forgiving in receiving late filings
       where the claimant failed to exercise due diligence in preserving
       [her] legal rights”)).
             Here, the District Court did not err in granting Florida
       Credit Union’s motion to dismiss because Boatwright admitted
       that her EEOC charge was untimely filed. Further, the District
USCA11 Case: 22-12032      Document: 32-1     Date Filed: 05/30/2023     Page: 4 of 4

       4                      Opinion of the Court                 22-12032

       Court did not err in determining that Boatwright was not entitled
       to equitable tolling because she failed to show that the delay in fil-
       ing was unavoidable had she acted diligently. Boatwright was ter-
       minated in January 2022, but did not attempt to file a charge with
       the EEOC until November 2022—over ten months later. Boat-
       wright understood that there was a deadline for filing her charge of
       discrimination with the EEOC, and she stated that there was no
       reason she waited to sign the charge until November 8, 2020, de-
       spite meeting with her attorney as early as the week she was termi-
       nated. Nor was Boatwright’s attorney diligent. When he at-
       tempted to file Boatwright’s charge with the EEOC, he attempted
       to do so using a method inconsistent with the EEOC’s filing in-
       structions. Namely, as opposed to using the EEOC portal to sched-
       ule an intake interview, as the EEOC website clearly instructed,
       Boatwright’s attorney sent her charge via FedEx, though the web-
       site stated that its physical officers were closed.
             Accordingly, we affirm the District Court’s grant of Florida
       Credit Union’s motion to dismiss.
             AFFIRMED.