Crites v. Bob Cowan & United Parcel Serv.
| Decision Date | 05 January 2011 |
| Docket Number | No. CA10-717,CA10-717 |
| Parties | JOHN CRITES APPELLANT v. BOB COWAN & UNITED PARCEL SERVICE APPELLEES |
| Court | Arkansas Court of Appeals |
APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, THIRTEENTH DIVISION [CV-2009-5966]
AFFIRMED
Appellant, John Crites, was discharged from his employment with appellee United Parcel Service in November 2004. He filed his complaint almost five years later, on August 31, 2009, alleging that the appellees retaliated against him in violation of Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-123-108(a) and (b) of the Arkansas Civil Rights Act. The trial court dismissed this case based upon its determination that the claim was time-barred; it rejected appellant's contention that a five-year statute of limitations should be applied, concluding instead that "the most appropriate statute of limitations under this section is, at most, three (3) years." (Emphasis added.) As his sole point of appeal, appellant contends that the trial court misapplied the statute of limitations governing employment-discrimination claims to appellant's civil-rights retaliation claim. We affirm.
Appellant's basic argument is that a retaliation claim under section 16-123-108 is "completely separate from a claim for employment discrimination which is governed by section 16-123-107(c)(1)—(3)." He argues that because there is a one-year statute of limitations in section 16-123-107, but no limitations period in section 16-123-108, the trial court should have applied the "catch-all" five-year period of limitations contained in section 16-56-115. Alternatively, appellant contends that the five-year statute of limitations for breach of a written contract should apply. Appellees' basic contention, on the other hand, is that the one-year limitations period contained in section 16-123-107 should apply to actions brought under section 16-123-108 because the two statutes are part of the same act and have similar purposes. Alternatively, appellees argue that the three-year period of limitations contained in section 16-56-105 for claims based on liability created by statute should apply, but they contend in no case is there support for the application of a five-year period of limitations under either the "catch-all" provision of section 16-56-115 or the breach-of-a-written-contract provision under section 16-56-111.
In reaching its decision, the trial court did not specify which limitations period should be applied in this case. Under the facts presented, it rejected both five-year periods of limitation and concluded that the longest possible applicable limitations period was three years, thereby making appellant's complaint untimely. Consequently, in deciding this case on appeal, it is not necessary for us to further specify which limitations period applies than did the trial court; it is only necessary for us to determine whether the trial court erred inconcluding that the longest possible period of limitations was three years, thereby rejecting the only period of limitations (five years) that would allow the timely filing of the complaint. We find no error.
Our supreme court has offered the following guidance in determining which period of limitations applies:
When making a determination about what statute of limitations applies in a case, the court must look to the facts alleged in the complaint itself to ascertain the area of law in which they sound. If two or more statutes of limitations apply to a cause of action, generally the statute with the longest limitation will be applied. However, we look to the gist of the action to determine which statute of limitations to apply.
Kassees v. Satterfield, 2009 Ark. 91, at 5, 303 S.W.3d 42, 44—45 (citations omitted and emphasis added).
In his complaint, appellant asserts one count, which alleges employment retaliation in violation of section 16-123-108 of the Arkansas Civil Rights Act. There are no assertions of breach of contract contained in the complaint.
We first address appellant's alternative "breach-of-contract" basis for the application of a five-year statute of limitations and find no error in ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Douglas v. First Student, Inc.
...to enforcement of statutory liability); Zimmerman v. W. & S. Fire Ins. Co., 121 Ark. 408, 181 S.W. 283 (1915) (same); Crites v. Cowan, 2011 Ark. App. 11, 2011 WL 51464 (rejecting § 16–56–115's catch-all provision and noting that § 16–56–105 has consistently applied to liabilities that exist......
-
Shibeshi v. Philander Smith Coll.
...applies and is equally or better qualified for the job." § 1182(n)(1)(A)(i)(I), (n)(1)(E)(i), (n)(1)(G)(i)(II). 3.See Crites v. Cowan, 2011 Ark. App. 11 (Ark. App. 2011). ...
-
Douglas v. First Student, Inc.
...to enforcement of statutory liability); Zimmerman v. W. & S. Fire Ins. Co., 121 Ark. 408, 181 S.W. 283 (1915) (same); Crites v. Cowan, 2011 Ark. App. 11 (rejecting § 16-56-115's catch-all provision and noting that § 1656-105 has consistently applied to liabilities that exist only by statute......
-
Smith v. Conagra Foods, Inc.
...in section 16–123–108. Although we have not decided this issue, the Arkansas Court of Appeals faced a similar issue in Crites v. Cowan, 2011 Ark. App. 11, 2011 WL 51464, as the federal court recognized in its certification order. There, appellant's section 16–123–108 retaliation claim would......