Court Opinion

ID: 9403014
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-20 00:00:53.585779+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:03.851816
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-50955         Document: 00516791582             Page: 1      Date Filed: 06/19/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________                              United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit

                                        No. 22-50955
                                                                                       FILED
                                                                                   June 19, 2023
                                      ____________
                                                                                  Lyle W. Cayce
   Nancy Santana,                                                                      Clerk

                                                                     Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                             versus

   Christine Wormuth, Secretary U.S. Department of the Army,

                                                Defendant—Appellee.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                           for the Western District of Texas
                                USDC No. 5:21-CV-745
                      ______________________________

   Before Wiener, Elrod, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          This employment dispute between Plaintiff-Appellant Nancy Santana
   and the U.S. Army, her former employer, was first brought before the Equal
   Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Santana now challenges the
   district court’s holding that her appeal from the ruling of an Administrative
   Judge (AJ) is untimely. Santana had 30 days from a “final [agency] action or
   decision” to appeal. 29 C.F.R. §1614.402(a). An AJ’s decision becomes final

         _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-50955      Document: 00516791582           Page: 2    Date Filed: 06/19/2023

                                     No. 22-50955

   agency action if the agency fails to act within “40 days of receipt” of that
   decision. 29 C.F.R. §1614.110.
          The parties dispute when the clock began to run under 29 C.F.R.
   §1614.110. The AJ’s decision was issued on January 8, 2020 and was available
   to all parties through an online portal that day. The Army takes the position
   that the EEOC received that decision on January 8, 2020, and thus had 40
   days from then to act before the AJ’s decision became final agency action.
   Santana notes, however, that she did not receive access to that online portal
   until January 13, 2020. She thus contends that the clock for the AJ’s decision
   to become a final agency action did not start to run until that date.
          Reviewing this matter de novo, we affirm the district court. Walker v.
   Beaumont Indep. Sch. Dist., 938 F.3d 724, 734 (5th Cir. 2019). The provision
   in question, 29 C.F.R. §1614.110, pertains to when an AJ’s decision becomes
   final agency action. That process specifically hinges on the agency’s failure to
   act. The provision’s text as a whole—when read in context and with common
   sense—dictates that “receipt of the administrative judge’s decision” refers
   to the agency’s receipt. See Reed v. Taylor, 923 F.3d 411, 415 (5th Cir. 2019).
   The EEOC’s ability to act on the AJ’s decision is not impacted by when
   Santana received that decision. The AJ’s decision became a final agency
   action on February 18, 2020. By not filing her appeal to the district court until
   March 25, 2020—36 days later—Santana missed her deadline. See 29 C.F.R.
   §1614.402(a).
          Santana argues for estoppel on the basis of good faith, diligence, and
   the COVID-19 pandemic. It is true that Santana discussed her good faith
   cooperation and diligence at the district court, but she did not discuss the
   impact of the pandemic in her briefing there. Santana’s argument regarding
   her ability to file during the pandemic is plausible given the relevant time
   frame, but the record provides no specific indication of how Santana was

                                              2
Case: 22-50955      Document: 00516791582           Page: 3    Date Filed: 06/19/2023

                                     No. 22-50955

   affected. We therefore decline to address it in the first instance as waived. See
   Est. of Duncan v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 890 F.3d 192, 202 (5th Cir.
   2018).
            The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

                                              3