Former Emp. of Quality Fabr. v. U.S. Sec, of Labor

• Decision Date: 14 March 2003
• Docket Number: SLIP OP. 03-27. No. 02-00522.
• Citation: 259 F.Supp.2d 1282
• Parties: FORMER EMPLOYEES OF QUALITY FABRICATING, INC., Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF LABOR, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. Court of International Trade

Page 1282

259 F.Supp.2d 1282

FORMER EMPLOYEES OF QUALITY FABRICATING, INC., Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF LABOR, Defendant.

SLIP OP. 03-27. No. 02-00522.

United States Court of International Trade.

March 14, 2003.

Collier Shannon Scott, Washington, DC (John Brew and Iva Smith) for Plaintiffs.

Robert D. McCallum, Jr., Assistant Attorney General; David M. Cohen, Director; Lucius B. Lau, Assistant Director, Victoria L. Strohmeyer, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, for Defendant.

Before: WALLACH, Judge.

OPINION

WALLACH, J.

Defendant, United States Department of Labor ("DOL"), filed a Motion to Dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2636(d) (1994), because Plaintiffs brought their suit beyond the sixty-day statutory time period for commencing an action.¹ Plaintiffs, certain former employees of Quality Fabricating, Inc. ("Quality"), contest the decision of the Secretary of Labor denying North American Free Trade Agreement Transitional Adjustment Assistance ("NAFTA TAA") and seek equitable tolling of the statutory time limit. For the reasons discussed below, the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is denied under the equitable tolling doctrine.

I. Background

The facts are uncontroverted. On June 28, 2001, Plaintiffs mailed their petition for NAFTA TAA to the DOL. Defendant registered the petition on July 5, 2001, and designated it Petition # 5051. Margaret Miller, a former employee of Quality, continuously checked the DOL website starting August 1, 2001.²

On October 9, 2001, Ms. Miller e-mailed the DOL regional office in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, the e-mail address of which was provided on the website, to inquire about the petition. Ms. Miller explained that she was checking the website every day for the determination. She received a return e-mail on October 11, 2001, saying that "these things take time," but she was not advised that she should check or contact any other source. After receiving this e-mail, Ms. Miller contacted two Representatives from Congress, but received no response.

On November 7, 2001, Ms. Miller contacted the State of Pennsylvania Department of Labor Trade Adjustment Representative at the Pennsylvania CareerLink offices. She stated she had been checking the DOL website without result. The state employee assured her that she was doing everything she should and advised her to continue checking the DOL website for the determination. He said the DOL had not yet requested the information from Quality needed to send notifications regarding the determination, and it was therefore unlikely that she would receive notice anytime soon. He also said the DOL would send her a letter when it made the determination.

Ms. Miller then contacted a state legislator and requested help obtaining an answer from her U.S. Senator, and her Representative in the House. On November 21, 2001 she received a letter from the office of her Congresswoman, Melissa Hart, stating that the Quality Fabricating petition was still pending. On December 10, 2001, Ms. Miller again e-mailed the DOL regional office and was told that "these things take time."

On December 18, 2001, Ms. Miller visited the State of Pennsylvania's Department of Labor Trade Adjustment Representative, who checked the web site in her presence and told her that no determination had been made regarding eligibility. He told her again that the DOL had not yet requested the information necessary to send notifications regarding the determination.

Ms. Miller asked what more she could do to expedite a determination, and the representative gave her two pamphlets addressing benefits under NAFTA TAA.³ Additionally, he gave her a telephone number for the DOL NAFTA TAA office in Washington D.C., and permitted her to call NAFTA TAA from his office. She left a message. No one returned her call.

From January through May 2002, Ms. Miller e-mailed the general Internet address for the DOL regional office in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania once a month to inquire about the petition. She received no response. On May 9, 2002, the DOL issued a negative eligibility determination for employees of Quality. It was published in the Federal Register Notice of Determination Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and NAFTA Transitional Adjustment Assistance, 67 Fed.Reg. 35,140, 35,142 (May 17, 2002) ("Determination").

Ms. Miller first learned of the denial on July 15, 2002, when it appeared on the DOL website, back-dated to May 9, 2002. The notice also contained a hyperlink to a site which discussed appeal rights from a negative determination. That evening, she drafted a letter to the Clerk of Court of the United States Court of International Trade. On July 16, 2002, Ms. Miller, on behalf of Quality employees, sent the letter, via regular mail, requesting an appeal from the DOL's Determination. The Court received Ms. Miller's letter on July 22, 2002, and deemed it filed on that day.⁴ Thus, Ms. Miller's letter was filed sixty-six days after the publication of the negative determination in the Federal Register.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

The plaintiff has the burden of pleading and proving the requisite jurisdictional facts to establish this court's jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. See McNutt v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 189, 56 S.Ct. 780, 80 L.Ed. 1135 (1936); Elkem Metals Co. v. United States, 44 F.Supp.2d 288, 292 (CIT 1999).

III. ARGUMENTS

Defendant argues that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because Plaintiffs failed to seek judicial review within the sixty-day period prescribed by 19 U.S.C. § 2395(a) (1999)⁵ and 28 U.S.C. § 2636(d). The time period required for challenging a determination of ineligibility before this court under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(d)(1) (1994)⁶ is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 2636(d). See Former Employees of ITT v. Sec'y of Labor, 12 CIT 823, 824 (1988).

Plaintiffs' claim that because government officials misrepresented to Ms. Miller that the DOL website was the official source for the status of plaintiffs' petition and that a letter would be sent to her from the DOL, the court should deem the plaintiffs' action timely commenced under the doctrine of equitable tolling.

IV. ANALYSIS

The United States is immune from suit except as it consents to be sued. United States v. Mitchell, 445 U.S. 535, 538, 100 S.Ct. 1349, 63 L.Ed.2d 607 (1980); United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 586, 61 S.Ct. 767, 85 L.Ed. 1058, 312 U.S. 584 (1941). However, under 28 U.S.C. § 2636(d), private parties are granted the right to contest the DOL's determinations of worker eligibility for NAFTA TAA. The sixty-day period prescribed by 19 U.S.C. § 2395(a), and pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 90.19(a)(2002),⁷ begins to run when the negative determination is published in the Federal Register. In this case, the Determination was published on May 17, 2002, and while Ms. Miller's letter was sent on July 16, 2002, it was not deemed filed until July 22, 2002, sixty-six days after publication in the Federal Register.

The Supreme Court has held that statutes of limitations, in suits against the government, are presumptively subject to equitable tolling. See Irwin v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs, 498 U.S. 89, 95-96, 111 S.Ct. 453, 112 L.Ed.2d 435 (1990). The doctrine of equitable tolling permits a plaintiff to avoid the bar of a statute of limitations should, despite all due diligence and reasonable efforts, she be unable to obtain information necessary to maintain her claim. Coda v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 920 F.2d 446, 451 (7th Cir.1990). However, a mere "[m]istake, misunderstanding, or lack of knowledge is not sufficient grounds for tolling the statute of limitations" on a party's behalf. Bergstein v. Jordache Enters., 1995 WL 453358, *3, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10718 *9 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 1, 1995). Indeed, a statute of limitations may not be justifiably tolled if the plaintiff is merely unaware of facts or law. See Laundry Equip. Sales Corp. v. Borg-Warrier Corp., 334 F.2d 788, 792 (7th Cir. 1964).

Equitable tolling will apply when plaintiffs remained ignorant of necessary information or requirements through no fault of their own. Dodds v. Cigna Sec. Inc., 12 F.3d 346, 350 (2d Cir.1993). The Supreme Court in Irwin stated that equitable tolling was generally allowed where a complainant was "induced" by his adversary's misconduct into allowing the filing deadline to pass. 498 U.S. at 95-96, 111 S.Ct. 453. However, equitable tolling does not depend on the defendant's wrongful conduct; it focuses on whether there was an "excusable delay by the plaintiff in bringing a claim. Santa Maria v. Pacific Bell, 202 F.3d 1170, 1178 (9th Cir.2000).

This court held in Former Employees of Siemens Info. Communication Networks, Inc. v. Herman, 120 F.Supp.2d 1107, 1113-14 (CIT 2000), that the doctrine of equitable tolling is available in NAFTA TAA cases because "the remedial purpose of the trade adjustment assistance program ... supports the conclusion that equitable tolling is available" in an action challenging a final determination of the Secretary of Labor regarding worker eligibility for TAA. Id. The court in Siemens ultimately held that equitable tolling was not available to the plaintiffs in that case because they failed to act with due diligence in pursuing their claim.⁸ Id. In determining whether plaintiffs acted with due diligence, the court required "a fact-specific inquiry," and stated that it would be "guided by reference to the hypothetical reasonable person." Id.

The Uncontroverted Facts in this Case Demonstrate that Plaintiff Acted as a Reasonably Prudent Person in Relying on the Assertions of Government Officials and Filing Her Claim Challenging Labor's Negative Determination.

The question before this court then, is whether Ms. Miller acted with due diligence. The facts speak for themselves. Ms. Miller continuously e-mailed the DOL regional...