Farris v. Shinseki

• Decision Date: 10 November 2011
• Docket Number: No. 11–1080.,11–1080.
• Citation: 25 A.D. Cases 955,660 F.3d 557
• Parties: Donna Marie FARRIS, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. Eric K. SHINSEKI, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, Defendant, Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit

25 A.D. Cases 955

660 F.3d 557

Donna Marie FARRIS, Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.Eric K. SHINSEKI, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, Defendant, Appellee.

No. 11–1080.

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.

Heard July 29, 2011.Decided Nov. 10, 2011.

Jeffrey Neil Young, with whom Benjamin K. Grant and Carol J. Garvan were on brief, for appellant.

Evan J. Roth, Assistant United States Attorney, with whom Thomas E. Delahanty II, United States Attorney, was on brief, for appellee.

Before TORRUELLA and THOMPSON, Circuit Judges, and SARIS,^* District Judge.THOMPSON, Circuit Judge.

Plaintiff Donna Marie Farris (“Farris”) challenges the district court's order granting summary judgment for her former employer, the Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”). Finding no valid reason to apply an equitable exception, the district court dismissed Farris's disability discrimination complaint due to her concession that she failed to timely file a formal complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). We find that the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to toll the limitations period and therefore affirm.

I. Background

We recount the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmovant, Farris. See Franceschi v. U.S. Dept. of Veterans Affairs, 514 F.3d 81, 83 (1st Cir.2008).

Farris was hired by the VA as a Primary Care and Emergency Department Clinical Social Worker and POW Coordinator at its medical center in Togus, Maine on November 13, 2007.¹ Within eight months, the VA formally recognized Farris for her excellent job performance—once for an “Above and Beyond Attitude and Excellence in Customer Service” and once for providing extra assistance during a staffing shortage.

On September 22, 2008, Farris suffered a work-related injury to her neck and right shoulder that resulted in a one-month absence from work. During her absence, Farris was ordered by her supervisor, James Hammond (“Hammond”), and Togus Human Resources Manager, Terry Gagne (“Gagne”), to see Bonnie Ayotte (“Ayotte”), an occupational nurse for the VA. While examining Farris, Ayotte inquired about her medical history. In addition to a pre-existing back injury, Farris informed Ayotte that she suffered from myasthenia gravis—a potentially life threatening autoimmune disorder—and scleroderma—a chronic connective tissue disease. Periodically, the latter two afflictions caused Farris to suffer from “difficulty eating, swallowing, chewing, gagging, choking, spitting up blood, and weight loss; numbness and burning in [her] feet and calves ... tearing in [her] left eye ... and blood in [her] stomach.” Nonetheless, these symptoms did not prevent Farris from performing her job satisfactorily.

Less than a month after the injury, around October 6, 2008, Farris contacted Gagne about returning to work. During this conversation, Farris informed Gagne that she was feeling better, yet he began to inquire about Farris's myasthenia gravis. Before their conversation was over, Gagne had requested the results of a Magnetic Resonance Imaging test that had been performed on Farris's throat in relation to the disorder.

Approximately two weeks after their phone conversation, Gagne requested that Farris come to the VA to fill out paperwork related to a mileage reimbursement. Farris reported to work that day and, to her surprise, was directed to attend a meeting with Gagne and Jeff Saren (“Saren”), a private investigator, among others. At the meeting, Saren confronted Farris with a surveillance video showing Farris, who alleged she suffered a work-related neck and shoulder injury, lifting her son's hockey bag. Saren immediately accused Farris of committing fraud. At Hammond's urging and with her physician's permission, Farris returned to work on October 22, 2008—two days later.

On October 31, 2008, approximately one week after Farris returned to work, the VA placed her on administrative leave and notified her that her employment would terminate on November 12, 2008. According to the VA, the reason for the termination was that the “circumstances surrounding [Farris's] recent absence from work” caused the VA “to lose confidence in [her] ability to satisfactorily perform the duties of [her] position,” because she had been “less than candid concerning [her] medical condition.”

Soon thereafter, Farris filed an informal complaint of disability discrimination with the VA's Equal Employment Opportunity (“EEO”) counselor. She also sought redress through various other agencies.² Subsequently, Farris and the VA agreed to participate in mediation, but this effort proved unsuccessful. By a letter dated December 17, 2008, the VA's Office of Resolution Management (“ORM”) notified Farris that it was unable to resolve her complaint and explicitly advised her that she had fifteen days from the letter's receipt to file a formal complaint with the EEOC.³ Farris received the letter on December 18, 2008, making the fifteen-day deadline January 2, 2009. She immediately forwarded the letter to her attorney, Stephanie Mills (“Attorney Mills”), who received it on December 19, 2008. Farris also made a phone call to Attorney Mills and received an e-mail response assuring her that the complaint would be timely filed. Farris followed up with Attorney Mills on December 26, 2008 and according to Farris, was assured by a legal secretary that “Ms. Mills was aware of the need to timely file the formal complaint and was working on it.”

Attorney Mills was well aware of the fifteen-day timeline; nevertheless, she failed to file Farris's formal EEOC complaint until January 13, 2009—eleven days late. Accompanying the complaint was a letter from Attorney Mills acknowledging the tardiness of the complaint and offering an explanation. She expressed her mistaken belief that she had in fact filed the formal complaint on January 2, 2009, stated that her office had been closed for the holidays for eight days during the fifteen-day filing period, and admitted that the complaint must have been “overlooked” in the midst of the “holiday rush.”

On February 18, 2009, the EEOC advised Farris that it had denied the complaint as untimely. Attorney Mills received the denial letter on February 23, 2009 and appealed it the same day. On June 22, 2009, an EEO Regional Officer rejected the appeal. Farris sought reconsideration on July 20, 2009, but was again denied.

Thereafter, Farris filed a complaint in district court alleging disability discrimination. Her complaint alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., and the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq. The VA ⁴ moved to dismiss the complaint or, in the alternative, for summary judgment because Farris had failed to timely file her EEOC formal complaint. Farris opposed the motion, arguing that her belated filing should be equitably excused. The district court granted the VA's motion for summary judgment on January 11, 2011. This appeal followed.

II. DISCUSSIONA. Standard of Review

As a general matter, we review an order granting summary judgment de novo. See Franceschi, 514 F.3d at 84. However, on appeal from summary judgment, as in other circumstances, we review the district court's ruling rejecting the application of equitable doctrines such as tolling for abuse of discretion, “always mindful of the ‘highly deferential’ nature of our oversight.” Abraham v. Woods Hole Oceanographic Inst., 553 F.3d 114, 119–20 (1st Cir.2009) (quoting Mr. I. v. Me. Sch. Admin. Dist. No. 55, 480 F.3d 1, 23 (1st Cir.2007)) (reviewing the district court's refusal to equitably toll the statute of limitations in a Title VII case for abuse of discretion); see also Vera v. McHugh, 622 F.3d 17, 30 (1st Cir.2010).

B. The Legal Principle of Exhaustion

The ADA prohibits discrimination against an otherwise qualified individual based on disability. 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a); Calero–Cerezo v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 355 F.3d 6, 19 (1st Cir.2004). Claims of employment discrimination arising under the ADA are subject to the same remedies and procedures as those under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (“Title VII”); 42 U.S.C. § 12117(a) ( “ADA”). Under Title VII, a federal employee must exhaust her administrative remedies before initiating a complaint of discrimination in federal court. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–16(c). The same is true for claims under the ADA. ⁵ See Roman–Martinez v. Runyon, 100 F.3d 213, 216 (1st Cir.1996).

Because administrative exhaustion “is a condition to the waiver of sovereign immunity,” it “must be strictly construed.” Irwin v. Dept. of Veterans Affairs, 498 U.S. 89, 94, 111 S.Ct. 453, 112 L.Ed.2d 435 (1990). Consequently, failure to comply with an agency's applicable time limit may expose the plaintiff's federal law suit to dismissal, Cano v. United States Postal Serv., 755 F.2d 221, 223 (1st Cir.1985) (per curiam), subject to narrowly applied equitable doctrines such as tolling or estoppel. See Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 113, 122 S.Ct. 2061, 153 L.Ed.2d 106 (2002); Irwin, 498 U.S. at 93–96, 111 S.Ct. 453; Vera, 622 F.3d at 29–30. Only in “exceptional circumstances” will these equitable principles extend the statute of limitations. Vistamar, Inc. v. Fagundo–Fagundo, 430 F.3d 66, 71 (1st Cir.2005) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Furthermore, the heavy burden to prove entitlement to equitable relief lies with the complainant. See Rivera–Gomez v. de Castro, 900 F.2d 1, 3 (1st Cir.1990).

C. Equitable Tolling

Before delving too far, we note that both Farris and the VA make much to do, unnecessarily, over the distinction between the equitable doctrines of estoppel and tolling. Our review of the record makes clear that Farris's argument on appeal is one of tolling. Similarly, though the district court may have mistakenly referred to “estoppel” on a few occasions within its order, it is more than obvious that the court was...