Phillips v. Leggett & Platt Inc.

• Decision Date: 21 September 2011
• Docket Number: No. 10–60585.,10–60585.
• Citation: 658 F.3d 452,94 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 44297,113 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 490
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
• Parties: Jean Frank PHILLIPS, Plaintiff–Appellee,v.LEGGETT & PLATT, INC., Defendant–Appellant.

658 F.3d 452

113 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 490

94 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 44,297

Jean Frank PHILLIPS, Plaintiff–Appellee,

v.LEGGETT & PLATT, INC., Defendant–Appellant.

No. 10–60585.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Sept. 21, 2011.

Richard Shane McLaughlin (argued), McLaughlin Law Firm, Inc., Jim D. Waide, III, Waide & Associates, P.A., Tupelo, MS, for Plaintiff–Appellee.William Thomas Siler, Jr., (argued), Mark D. Fijman, Phelps Dunbar, L.L.P., Jackson, MS, for Defendant–Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi.Before JONES, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.LESLIE H. SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judge:

This is an age discrimination suit. Following a jury trial which resulted in a verdict for the employee, the employer timely moved for judgment as a matter of law. The district court denied that motion. We REVERSE as we conclude that the claim was time-barred.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In June 2007, Leggett & Platt, Inc. (“Leggett”) informed its employees that it was consolidating the operations of two of its Mississippi facilities by closing the one in Verona and leaving open the Houlka plant. Jean Phillips, employed by Leggett for 24 years, was the accounts-payable clerk at the Verona plant. Later that month, Leggett informed Phillips that there were no positions available for her at the Houlka facility. She would be laid off once the Verona facility closed with her last day of employment being July 30, 2007. There was evidence that Phillips was the only Verona employee willing to work in the Houlka facility who was unable to do so.

Phillips was 66 years old when she received her termination notice. She suspected that she was denied the accounts-payable clerk position at the Houlka facility because of her age. Kathy Gamble, the employee transferred to the Houlka facility to do that work, was younger and less experienced than Phillips.

Four business days after the end of her employment, Leggett recalled Phillips to work in Houlka. She was told she was needed to assist with the consolidation. Phillips was informed this new job was temporary but without a stated end-date. Phillips' job at the Houlka facility included work similar to what she had done in Verona. Although Phillips knew the work was temporary, she hoped that if she performed well, permanent employment would result. After approximately five months, though, she was informed of her termination. Her employment was officially terminated on January 2, 2008.

At about the same time, the person who had replaced Phillips as accounts-payable clerk, Kathy Gamble, left Leggett. Hired next was Amy Watkins, a 35–year–old former Leggett employee who had worked on accounts payable at the Houlka facility. She had been laid off from Houlka when Gamble took those duties as part of the consolidation. Once Gamble left, Watkins was hired permanently to fill the accounts-payable position in the Houlka facility. Phillips did not apply for Gamble's position when it became available, contending she “had no way of knowing there was an opening.”

On March 5, 2008, 63 days after her termination from the Houlka facility, Phillips filed an age-discrimination claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). She received a right-to-sue letter from the EEOC on September 18, 2008, then filed this action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi on December 16, 2008.

Although her initial complaint stated a single claim of unlawful discriminatory termination, her complaint was later understood by the parties also to include a claim for failure to rehire for the position that went to Amy Watkins. The jury found Leggett liable for discriminatory termination. The district court dismissed the claim of failure to rehire. Phillips did not appeal the dismissal of that claim.

Following the jury's verdict, Leggett timely renewed its motion for judgment as a matter of law. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(b). Among its contentions was that Phillips' discriminatory-termination claim was time-barred. The district court held that the claim was not barred because the final termination was not until January 2, 2008, less than 180 days from when Phillips filed her EEOC charge. The district court determined that Phillips was recalled to “basically the same position” and was obligated to accept the recall. The court also found that Phillips effectively was transferred from the Verona facility to the Houlka facility, and a “transfer” must be “objectively worse” than the original position to constitute an adverse employment action.

The district court held that Phillips did not experience an adverse employment action until she was finally terminated from the Houlka facility on January 2, 2008. In the alternative, the district court found that the 180–day limitations period should be equitably tolled because Leggett's actions “induced” Phillips not to file suit until after the limitations period had expired.

DISCUSSION

Leggett contends that Phillips' “sole cause of action” is her layoff from the Verona facility, and the temporary employment in the Houlka facility did not toll the running of the limitations period for timely filing her claim. Phillips' argument is that the 180–day limitations period did not begin until her Houlka facility termination. Alternatively, she argues that the limitations period should be equitably tolled.

I. Calculation of Limitations Period

Because this issue arises from a defendant's Rule 50 motion for judgment as a matter of law, our review is de novo, “applying the same standard that the district court used.” Julian v. City of Houston, 314 F.3d 721, 725 (5th Cir.2002). “A motion for judgment as a matter of law ... in an action tried by jury is a challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence.” Wyvill v. United Cos. Life Ins. Co., 212 F.3d 296, 301 (5th Cir.2000) (alteration in original) (quotation marks and citations omitted). We “must review all of the evidence in the record, draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party, and may not make credibility determinations or weigh the evidence.” Ellis v. Weasler Eng'g Inc., 258 F.3d 326, 337 (5th Cir.2001).

Under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), an employer may not “discharge any individual or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's age.” 29 U.S.C. § 623(a)(1). To prove a prima facie case of age discrimination under the ADEA, a plaintiff must show she was discharged; qualified for the position; within the protected age group at the time of the discharge; and either replaced by someone younger, replaced by someone outside the protected class, or otherwise discharged because of her age. Rachid v. Jack In The Box, Inc., 376 F.3d 305, 309 (5th Cir.2004).

A plaintiff is required to file a charge with the EEOC “within 180 days after the alleged unlawful practice occurred.” 29 U.S.C. § 626(d)(1)(A). Generally, the limitations period begins on the date of the alleged unlawful employment action; once the plaintiff has knowledge sufficient to support the ADEA claim, the 180–day limitations period begins. Barrow v. New Orleans S.S. Ass'n, 932 F.2d 473, 477–78 (5th Cir.1991).

The Supreme Court has provided guidance in determining the sufficiency of notice required to start the ADEA's limitations period. In the context of a non-tenured professor's teaching contract, the limitations period began to run on the date the tenure decision was made and communicated to the plaintiff, “even though one of the effects of the denial of tenure—the eventual loss of [employment]—did not occur until later.” Del. State Coll. v. Ricks, 449 U.S. 250, 258, 101 S.Ct. 498, 66 L.Ed.2d 431 (1980). “Mere continuity of employment, without more, is insufficient to prolong the life of a cause of action for employment discrimination.” Id. at 257, 101 S.Ct. 498.¹

The Supreme Court applied Ricks in finding that a Section 1983 suit challenging politically-motivated firings was time-barred by the one-year statute of limitations. Chardon v. Fernandez, 454 U.S. 6, 7–8, 102 S.Ct. 28, 70 L.Ed.2d 6 (1981). The plaintiffs, non-tenured administrators, were notified by letter that their appointments would terminate at a specified date in the future. Id. at 6–7, 102 S.Ct. 28. The statute of limitations began at “the time of the discriminatory act, not the point at which the consequences of the act become painful.” Id. at 8, 102 S.Ct. 28 (citing Ricks, 449 U.S. at 258, 101 S.Ct. 498).²

Accordingly, the 180–day limitations period begins on “the date of notice of termination, rather than the final date of employment.” Clark v. Resistoflex Co., 854 F.2d 762, 765 (5th Cir.1988) (citations omitted). The existence of notice “is based upon an objective standard, focusing upon when the employee knew, or reasonably should have known, that the adverse employment decision had been made.” Id. The notice of termination must be unequivocal to start the running of the limitations period. See, e.g., Thurman v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 952 F.2d 128, 133 (5th Cir.1992). The precise issue in this action—whether temporary, indefinite employment tolls the limitations period—appears to be one of first impression in the Fifth Circuit.

The limitations period begins when an employee is unambiguously informed of an immediate or future termination. In Ricks, the date of the termination was certain, though it was some distance in the future. Ricks, 449 U.S. at 257–58, 101 S.Ct. 498. Here, Phillips was told her employment would be terminated on a specific date—July 30. And she was. Phillips' rehiring for a temporary position on August 6 may have created a glimmer of hope of permanent re-employment if she performed well, yet may have cast a shadow of doubt about her chances of being rehired if she filed an EEOC claim. The...