Morgan v. Potter, 06-30419.
Decision Date | 06 June 2007 |
Docket Number | No. 06-30419.,06-30419. |
Citation | 489 F.3d 195 |
Parties | Reva MORGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John E. POTTER, Postmaster General, Defendant-Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Reva Morgan, Houston, TX, pro se.
Glenn Kenneth Schreiber, Stephen A. Higginson, Asst. U.S. Attys., New Orleans, LA, for Potter.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.
Before SMITH, BENAVIDES and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff-Appellant Reva Morgan ("Morgan"), a postal employee, filed a formal Equal Employment Opportunity ("EEO") complaint against her employer in August of 2003. She alleged discrimination based on her race, sex, and age. Morgan's complaint then proceeded through a series of administrative steps before the Office of Federal Operations ("OFO") issued its final decision denying her claim in a letter mailed on March 3, 2005 ("the OFO letter"). That letter notified Morgan of her right to file a civil action to contest the decision. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(c), Morgan had ninety days from receipt of the OFO letter to file suit. The OFO letter itself stated as much. It also stated: "For timeliness purposes, the Commission will presume that this decision was received within five (5) calendar days after it was mailed." It then reiterated, in large print, that the letter was mailed to the plaintiff on March 3, 2005.
Morgan filed suit in Louisiana state court on June 8, 2005, ninety-seven days after the OFO letter was mailed. Postmaster General, John E. Potter, the defendant in the lawsuit, removed the case to federal court and then moved for dismissal on the ground that it was untimely. The federal district court for the Eastern District of Louisiana granted that motion, relying on the statement in the OFO letter that the OFO would presume Morgan had received that letter in five days. By the court's count, the suit was filed two days late. Morgan appeals, but she presents no evidence of when she actually received the letter. Therefore, the sole question before us is how to treat the presumption of receipt contained in the OFO letter.
We have confronted this question before. In Taylor v. Books A Million, Inc., 296 F.3d 376 (5th Cir.2002), we found that a presumption of receipt was appropriate when the actual date of receipt was unknown. Id. at 379-80. We noted that other courts had concluded similarly, but disagreed on the exact number of days. Id. at 379. Presumptions in place at the time ranged from three to seven days. Id. Noting this fact, we did not find it necessary to select a specific number of days in Taylor because the plaintiff had waited ninety-eight days to file suit, so even under the most lenient presumption supported by precedent his suit would have been untimely. Id. at 380.
Since Taylor, we have repeatedly handled cases like this one without selecting a fixed number of days. See Martin v. Alamo Comm. Coll. Dist., 353 F.3d 409, 411 (5th Cir.2003) ( ); Bowers v. Potter, 113 Fed. Appx. 610, 612-13 (5th Cir.2004) (unpublished opinion) ( ). The exact number of days is thus an open question in this Circuit, but we have expressed satisfaction with a range between three and seven days. Bowers, 113 Fed.Appx. at 612.
In this case, the plot thickens. Morgan's suit would be timely under a seven day presumption, but untimely under any more...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Jenkins v. City of San Antonio Fire Dep't, Civil No. 5:12–CV–787–DAE.
...in this Circuit, but we have expressed satisfaction with a range between three and seven days. Bowers, 113 Fed.Appx. at 612.489 F.3d 195, 196 (5th Cir.2007) (emphasis added). There, an OFO letter stated that it presumed the plaintiff received the letter five days after it was mailed. Id. No......
-
Lopez-Baca v. Geren
...the Fifth Circuit has "expressed satisfaction with a [presumption-of-receipt] range between three and seven days." Morgan v. Potter, 489 F.3d 195, 196 (5th Cir.2007). However, "[i]f a particular plaintiff can offer some evidence to demonstrate that he or she did not receive the letter withi......
-
Spears v. Jefferson Parish Sch. Bd.
...see Jenkins v. City of San Antonio, No. 5:12-CV-787-DAE, 2014 WL 1492756, at *7-8 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 17, 2014) (citing Morgan v. Potter, 489 F.3d 195, 196 (5th Cir. 2007)) (additional citations omitted) (Because the FifthCircuit in Morgan recognized that it has never firmly decided the exact n......
-
Saldana-Fountain v. United States
...Cir. 1986) (affirming dismissal of suit filed ninety-two days after the EEOC decision was delivered to attorney); Morgan v. Potter, 489 F.3d 195, 196-97 (5th Cir. 2007) (affirming dismissal of suit filed ninety-seven days after the EEOC decision was mailed, presuming plaintiff's receipt of ......