Marquez v. Mineta
| Decision Date | 12 September 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. 04-2421.,04-2421. |
| Citation | 424 F.3d 539 |
| Parties | Raymond Rivera MARQUEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Norman Y. MINETA, Secretary of Transportation, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Lloyd J. Brooks (argued), Dolton, IL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Jack Donatelli (argued), Office of the United States Attorney, Chicago, IL, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before COFFEY, MANION, and ROVNER, Circuit Judges.
Raymond Marquez, a 62-year-old man from Puerto Rico, was terminated because of poor performance after only seven months as an Aviation Safety Inspector for the Federal Aviation Administration. He sued the Department of Transportation ("DOT") for age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 633a(c), and for race and national origin discrimination under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. The district court granted the DOT's motion for summary judgment. Marquez filed a notice of appeal one day late, but successfully moved the district court to extend the time to appeal on grounds that he committed "excusable neglect" by miscalculating the filing deadline. The district court, however, abused its discretion in granting an extension, and we therefore dismiss the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction.
Marquez was recruited and hired by Gerardo Martinez, a supervisor also of Puerto Rican heritage at the O'Hare Flight Standards District Office. Marquez's primary trainer was Donald Rigg, but after only two months of training he had become frustrated with Marquez's performance and asked that someone else evaluate him. Rigg testified in an affidavit that Marquez lacked both skill and integrity; was computer illiterate; could not follow written instructions or even fill out his time card; was disorganized; and could not retain information whatsoever. Rigg became so frustrated that he concluded he could never certify Marquez as a qualified inspector. Rigg's assessment was seconded by senior inspector Sam Latorre, who opined that Marquez's training would take two years beyond the normal time to train an inspector. Latorre added that Marquez was the weakest trainee he had seen in his 11 years as senior inspector, and that Marquez should never have been hired. Three other inspectors whom Martinez assigned to train Marquez all found him to be very slow at learning and retaining information.
Martinez discussed Marquez's poor job performance with him, and when Marquez responded with a poorly written letter, Martinez had Marquez enrolled in an "effective writing" course. In May and June 2001, Marquez attended training courses at the Aeronautical Center in Oklahoma City, and returned the following month for more courses. Marquez achieved barely passing scores, and Martinez learned later from course instructors and co-workers that Marquez had difficulty understanding instructions and embarrassed himself by asking off-topic questions. By September 2001 Martinez believed that Marquez had been provided adequate time for evaluation, and terminated him. Marquez then filed this discrimination suit.
On April 2, 2004, the district court granted summary judgment for the DOT. For purposes of the indirect burden-shifting method, the court determined that Marquez could not show that he was satisfactorily performing his job; during his training period he failed to achieve final certification on any task and had difficulty retaining information and understanding computers. And even if Marquez could establish a prima facie case, the court added, he could not show that Martinez did not honestly believe he should be terminated for poor performance.
Marquez filed a notice of appeal on June 2, 2004, 61 days after the district court's entry of judgment — one day too late under FED. R. APP. P. 4(a)(1)(B). We suspended briefing and ordered Marquez to explain why his appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Marquez then filed a motion with the district court, seeking a one-day extension of time to file his notice of appeal on grounds of excusable neglect — his own miscalculation of the filing deadline. The district court granted the extension without explanation. On July 2, 2004, we directed Marquez to explain why the appeal should not be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- U.S. v. Elson
-
Lewis v. School Dist. # 70
...however, that "a simple case of miscalculation" of a deadline generally is "not a sufficient reason to extend time." Marquez v. Mineta, 424 F.3d 539, 541 (7th Cir.2005) (quotation marks omitted); but see Crue v. Aiken, 370 F.3d 668, 681 (7th Cir.2004) (upholding a district court's grant of ......
-
LEE v. PRICE
...deadline for filing a notice of appeal upon finding excusable neglect or good cause. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(A)(ii); Marquez v. Mineta, 424 F.3d 539, 541 (7th Cir. 2005). Here the court reasoned that Lee had good cause for missing the deadline because his disagreement with former counsel ha......
-
Kutrubis v. Bowman (In re Kutrubis)
...Pioneer Inv. Servs. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P'ship, 507 U.S. 380, 395, 113 S.Ct. 1489, 123 L.Ed.2d 74 (1993); Marquez v. Mineta, 424 F.3d 539, 541 (7th Cir.2005)). Here, the bankruptcy court expressly noted that the adversary proceedings had begun in 2011, nearly a year prior to the entry......
-
Table of Cases
...F.2d 976, 978 (8th Cir. 1992), § 312.2 Maroney v. Apfel, 57 F. Supp.2d 1250, 1257 (N.D. Ala. 1999), §§ 509.3, 604.11 Marquez v. Mineta, 424 F.3d 539, 541 (7th Cir. 2005), 7th-08 Marrero v. Apfel , 87 F. Supp.2d 340, 346, 347 (S.D.N.Y. 2000), § 203.1 Marre v. United States , 117 F.3d 297, 30......
-
Jurisdictional Deadlines in the Wake of Kontrick and Eberhart: Harmonizing 160 Years of Precedent
...in nature" and dismissing appeal when notice filed by facsimile contrary to local rules). 185. See, e.g., Marquez v. Mineta, 424 F.3d 539, 541 (7th Cir. 2005) (raising sua sponte whether late appeal should be dismissed for "lack of jurisdiction"); Jackson v. Crosby, 375 F.3d 1291, 1297 (11t......
-
Table of cases
...F.2d 976, 978 (8th Cir. 1992), § 312.2 Maroney v. Apfel, 57 F. Supp.2d 1250, 1257 (N.D. Ala. 1999), §§ 509.3, 604.11 Marquez v. Mineta, 424 F.3d 539, 541 (7th Cir. 2005), 7th-08 Marrero v. Apfel , 87 F. Supp.2d 340, 346, 347 (S.D.N.Y. 2000), § 203.1 Marre v. United States , 117 F.3d 297, 30......