Santa Maria v. PacBell, 98-16437

Citation202 F.3d 1170
Decision Date25 January 2000
Docket NumberNo. 98-16437,98-16437
Parties(9th Cir. 2000) JAMES F. SANTA MARIA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PACIFIC BELL, Defendant-Appellant
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)

COUNSEL: Jim D. Newman, Pacific Telesis Group, San Francisco, California, for the defendant-appellant.

William A. Wineberg, Wineberg, Simmonds & Narita, San Francisco, California, for the plaintiff-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California; Susan Yvonne Illston, District Judge,

Presiding. D.C. No. CV-97-00148-SI/PJH

Before: Betty B. Fletcher and Barry G. Silverman, Circuit Judges, and Tom Stagg,1 District Judge.

OPINION

SILVERMAN, Circuit Judge:

This disability discrimination case concerns the circumstances under which equitable estoppel or equitable tolling will excuse the failure to file a timely EEOC charge. We hold that a plaintiff's reasonable reliance on fraudulent concealment is required for application of the doctrine of equitable estoppel. We also hold that equitable tolling will not excuse the untimely filing of an EEOC charge by a plaintiff who, within the time limit, knew or should have known of the existence of a possible disability discrimination claim.

I. Facts
A. Santa Maria's Employment with Pacific Bell

James F. Santa Maria was hired by Pacific Bell ("PacBell") in 1980 as an installation supervisor. Eventually, he became an assistant project manager in one of PacBell's technology support organizations, and was responsible for developing computer applications to enhance customer service. In 1994, believing that Santa Maria's job performance had become unsatisfactory, Santa Maria's then-supervisor placed him on an intensive "coaching program." When Santa Maria's work improved, he was taken off the coaching program.

Sometime thereafter, Santa Maria made what PacBell considered to be two serious on-the-job errors, one of which delayed a product launch. About three weeks later, the situation came to a head when Santa Maria informed his PacBell supervisors that he had completed certain systems work. When other managers tested the application, however, they found that the program had not been correctly implemented, and customers were not able to access the program properly. On January 6, 1995, JoAnne Penrith, the head of Santa Maria's department, informed Santa Maria that she was recommending his termination from employment for poor performance. Penrith sent Santa Maria home with pay pending approval of her recommendation.

Santa Maria immediately contacted PacBell's Employment Assistance Program complaining of stress caused by his threatened termination. Santa Maria was referred to Dr. Gregory Larson, an outside psychologist, who made a diagnosis of major depression. Dr. Paul Hersch, a psychologist in PacBell's medical department, agreed with Dr. Larson's diagnosis. Both Doctors Larson and Hersch concluded that Santa Maria's depression temporarily disabled him from working. Santa Maria was granted benefits under PacBell's short term disability benefits program from January 9, 1995 through August 11, 1995, during which time he was off work.

While on disability leave, Santa Maria met with his own treating doctors -his psychologist, Dr. Larson, and his psychiatrist, Dr. John Baker -as well as with Dr. Hersch. Doctors Hersch and Larson agreed that Santa Maria could return to work in early August if he were eased back on a half-time schedule the first week. After the first week, there were no restrictions placed on Santa Maria's work schedule. Santa Maria returned to work on August 11, 1995. Upon his return, Santa Maria was placed on a 30-day written improvement program containing specific goals and deadlines. Santa Maria was informed on his first day back that if he failed to meet the objectives of the improvement program, he would be terminated from employment with PacBell.

Shortly after Santa Maria's return from disability leave, Dr. Larson called Beth Knueven, the disability nurse at PacBell, to inform her that he believed Santa Maria was being treated unfairly and that the strict time pressures of his program were inappropriate given Santa Maria's mental health. On September 14, 1995, Santa Maria informed John Bianchi, a senior supervisor, that he did not feel he was ready to come back to work and face the pressures of the 30-day improvement program. Santa Maria said that he thought his medication was slowing him down, and that he "may be ready to come back and try and manage things with a little less pressure but not a 30 day program." Bianchi advised Santa Maria to consult his doctors, because it was Bianchi's understanding that Santa Maria was to have returned to work without restrictions.

That same day, Dr. Larson wrote the following letter to Nurse Knueven on Santa Maria's behalf:

It is my understanding that on the day of his return to work, Mr. Santa Maria was confronted with an ultimatum; a written contract that he had 30 days to fully complete a specific, complex project, and if he did not meet this criteria he would be terminated.

These are not the conditions under which I and Dr. Baker were releasing Mr. Santa Maria to work. These conditions are not medically appropriate for Mr. Santa Maria's return to work and rehabilitation. Further, I do not believe they comply with the laws governing disabilities in the work place.

* * *

The managers involved supervising [sic] Mr. Santa Maria do not adequately understand his condition nor do they demonstrate the ability to provide Mr. Santa Maria with the proper balance of setting rea sonable goals and limits, while concurrently, provide [sic] him with support and guidance.

* * *

I believe Mr. Santa Maria should be provided such an environment within a realistic time frame to meet specific, reasonable, and concrete requirements for continued employment. This should take place over a three to four month period rather than a 30 day period.

Knueven did not reply to Larson's letter, but filed it in Santa Maria's medical file without showing it to other PacBell personnel, out of concern, she later testified, for Santa Maria's privacy. It is significant to note that Santa Maria knew that his doctor had sent a letter to PacBell . However, he neither saw nor requested a copy of it. Santa Maria did request that Ms. Knueven show the letter to his supervisors, and Knueven did communicate the essence of Dr. Larson's recommendations to PacBell personnel after Santa Maria's 30-day improvement program expired.

Dr. Larson's letter caused PacBell managers to extend Santa Maria's improvement program to until December 1, 1995. The extended program was similar to the 30-day program, but set out additional objectives and deadlines, and included a few objectives from the original improvement program that Santa Maria had not yet completed. Santa Maria's workload also was increased. PacBell managers told him that this was pursuant to an agreement with Santa Maria's doctor because Santa Maria "was only doing 1/3 of the work for the first 6 week period." It is unclear how much Santa Maria's workload increased under the extended program; however, Santa Maria testified at trial that the goals of the extended program were reasonable. Santa Maria also continued to receive "coaching" during the extended improvement plan. By the end of the program period, Santa Maria had failed to meet all but a few of the objectives of the extended program. He was terminated from employment with PacBell on December 11, 1995.

B. Procedural History

On February 29, 1996, Santa Maria filed a charge of age and gender discrimination against PacBell with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing. He thereafter filed suit in the California Superior Court for the County of San Francisco alleging that he was fired because of his age and gender.

While conducting discovery in the age and gender discrimination lawsuit, Santa Maria claims he discovered for the first time two facts that then caused him to believe that he also may have been the victim of disability discrimination. First, Santa Maria and his lawyer learned the exact contents of the September 14, 1995 letter written by Dr. Larson to Beth Knueven. Second, contrary to what he previously had been told by his supervisors, he learned during the course of Dr. Hersch's deposition that Dr. Hersch had not made any recommendations regarding the duration of Santa Maria's extended improvement program.

Because Santa Maria had filed his age and gender discrimination charges with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing, he had 300 days (instead of the usual 180 days) from the last act of discrimination in which to file an EEOC charge.2 Since Santa Maria was fired on December 11, 1995, the 300 day period ended on October 7, 1996. On December 1, 1996, Santa Maria's attorneys served PacBell with an amended complaint in the state court suit asserting a new cause of action for disability discrimination under California law. However, it was not until December 19, 1996 -73 days after the 300-day deadline -that Santa Maria finally filed an EEOC charge alleging disability discrimination.

Less than a month later, Santa Maria filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging that PacBell had failed to reasonably accommodate his mental disability of major depression as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). PacBell moved for summary judgment, claiming among other things, that Santa Maria's claim was time-barred.

The district court denied PacBell's motion, ruling that although Santa Maria filed his EEOC charge past the prescribed limitations period, he had "supported the allegations of fraudulent concealment contained in the first amended complaint, thus warranting equitable tolling of the statute of limitations." The district...

To continue reading

Request your trial
431 cases
  • Lopez v. GMAC Mortg., CASE NO. CV F 11-1795 LJO JLT
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Eastern District of California
    • December 5, 2011
    ...all due diligence, a plaintiff is unable to obtain vital information bearing on the existence of his claim." Santa Maria v. Pacific Bell, 202 F.3d 1170, 1178 (9th Cir. 2000). The Ninth Circuit Court has explained:Unlike equitable estoppel, equitable tolling does not depend on any wrongful c......
  • Rodela v. Guild Mortg. Co., CASE NO. CV F 11-2126 LJO BAM
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Eastern District of California
    • January 18, 2012
    ...all due diligence, a plaintiff is unable to obtain vital information bearing on the existence of his claim." Santa Maria v. Pacific Bell, 202 F.3d 1170, 1178 (9th Cir. 2000). The Ninth Circuit Court has explained:Unlike equitable estoppel, equitable tolling does not depend on any wrongful c......
  • Das v. WMC Mortg. Corp.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Eastern District of California
    • November 28, 2011
    ...all due diligence, a plaintiff is unable to obtain vital information bearing on the existence of his claim.” Santa Maria v. Pac. Bell, 202 F.3d 1170, 1178 (9th Cir.2000), overruled on different grounds by Socop–Gonzalez v. INS, 272 F.3d 1176, 1194 (9th Cir.2000). Plaintiffs have alleged tha......
  • Altman v. PNC Mortg., CASE NO. CV F 11-1807 LJO MJS
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Eastern District of California
    • January 19, 2012
    ...all due diligence, a plaintiff is unable to obtain vital information bearing on the existence of his claim." Santa Maria v. Pacific Bell, 202 F.3d 1170, 1178 (9th Cir. 2000). The Ninth Circuit has explained:Unlike equitable estoppel, equitable tolling does not depend on any wrongful conduct......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 books & journal articles
  • Interpreting Federal Statutes of Limitations
    • United States
    • Invalid date
    ...tolling the period"). 35. See, e.g., Glus, 359 U.S. at 233 (citing Schroeder, 161 U.S. at 344). 36. See, e.g., Santa Maria v. Pac. Bell, 202 F.3d 1170, 1173 (9th Cir. 2000) (holding that "reasonable reliance on a fraudulent concealment is required for application of the doctrine of equitabl......
  • Motions
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Preparing for Trial in Federal Court
    • May 4, 2010
    ...S.Ct. 1801, 149 L.Ed.2d 983 (2001). • Rule 11 does not apply to administrative cases tried before agencies. Santa Maria v. Pacific Bell , 202 F.3d 1170, 1179 (9th Cir. 2000). 7- 449 Motions §7:195 • Rule 11 does not cover pre-litigation papers and post-litigation papers. Thus, a pre-litigat......
  • Interpreting Federal Statutes of Limitations
    • United States
    • University of Nebraska - Lincoln Nebraska Law Review No. 37, 2022
    • Invalid date
    ...tolling the period"). 35. See, e.g., Glus, 359 U.S. at 233 (citing Schroeder, 161 U.S. at 344). 36. See, e.g., Santa Maria v. Pac. Bell, 202 F.3d 1170, 1173 (9th Cir. 2000) (holding that "reasonable reliance on a fraudulent concealment is required for application of the doctrine of equitabl......
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Preparing for Trial in Federal Court
    • May 4, 2010
    ...§9:71 San Francisco Arts & Athletes v. United States Olympic Committee , 483 U.S. 522 (1987), Form 7-29 Santa Maria v. Pacific Bell , 202 F.3d 1170, 1179 (9th Cir. 2000), §7:193 Santoro v. CTC Foreclosure Servs. Corp. , ___ F.3d ___ (9th Cir. 1999), §9:76 Satcher v. Honda Motor Company, 52 ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT