Threadgill v. Moore U.S.A., Inc.

• Decision Date: 19 October 2001
• Docket Number: No. 01-1051,01-1051
• Citation: 269 F.3d 848
• Parties: (7th Cir. 2001) Windell Threadgill, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Moore U.S.A., Inc., Defendant-Appellee
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

Page 848

269 F.3d 848 (7th Cir. 2001)

Windell Threadgill, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Moore U.S.A., Inc., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 01-1051

United States Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit

Argued September 5, 2001

Decided October 19, 2001

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. No. 00-C-0553-S--John C. Shabaz, Judge.

Before Flaum, Chief Judge, and Posner and Ripple, Circuit Judges.

Flaum, Chief Judge.

Plaintiff Windell Threadgill appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant on plaintiff's Title VII claim and dismissal of plaintiff's complaint as time-barred. For the reasons stated herein, we affirm.

I. Background

Threadgill worked at the Monroe, Wisconsin manufacturing facility of Moore U.S.A., Inc. ("Moore") from May 23, 1983, until September 22, 1997. In January 1998, Threadgill filed a complaint with the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development and the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"), alleging that he had been harassed, intimidated, denied promotional opportunities, and terminated based on race. The Wisconsin agency dismissed the complaint, and Threadgill eventually withdrew his appeal of that determination.

This opinion concerns the complaint filed with the EEOC. On October 11, 1999, David Lasker, Threadgill's attorney, sent to the EEOC's Milwaukee District Office a written request for a right-to-sue notice. In this letter, Lasker requested a copy of the notice. On November 18, 1999, the EEOC mailed the notice to Threadgill who received it soon thereafter. Threadgill did not immediately inform Lasker of the notice. In fact, Threadgill put the notice aside and neither acted on it nor mentioned its existence to his attorney for nearly seven months. Lasker never received a copy of the right-to-sue letter from the EEOC. It was not until June 16, 2000, that Lasker discovered that Threadgill had received the notice--well past the 90-day limit for filing suit. Although the notice clearly stated that the lawsuit "must be filed within 90 days of your receipt of this Notice," neither Threadgill nor Lasker took action within 90 days. On September 6, 2000, Lasker requested a second right-to-sue notice. In that letter, he claimed that because he did not receive a copy as requested, a second notice should be issued. The EEOC denied Lasker's request, and Plaintiff brought his Title VII claim in the Western District of Wisconsin on September 11, 2000. After giving the parties opportunity to present all relevant material, the district court ordered on December 11, 2000, that Moore's motion for summary judgment be granted and that Threadgill's complaint be dismissed as time-barred with prejudice and costs.

II. Discussion

We review the district court's grant of summary judgment de novo, construing all of the facts and reasonable inferences that can be drawn from those facts in favor of the nonmoving party. See Central States, Southeast & Southwest Areas Pension Fund v. Fulkerson, 238 F.3d 891, 894 (7th Cir. 2001). A grant of summary judgment is appropriate if the pleadings, affidavits, and other supporting materials leave no genuine issue of material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).

A.

A civil action alleging a Title VII violation must be filed within 90 days of receiving a right-to-sue notice from the EEOC. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1). Although the statute itself does not specify who the recipient of the notice must be, our case law is unambiguous. "The 90-day period of limitation set forth in 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) begins to run on the date that the EEOC right-to-sue notice is actually received either by the claimant or by the attorney representing him in the Title VII action." Jones v. Madison Service Corp., 744 F.2d 1309, 1312 (7th Cir. 1984) (emphasis added); see also Irwin v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs, 498 U.S. 89, 92 (1990); Saxton v. American Tel. & Tel. Co., 10 F.3d 526, 532 n. 11 (7th Cir. 1993). Threadgill's contention that the 90-day period should have begun to run only after his attorney received the notice is a misreading of the precedent. Two types of receipt of a right-to-sue notice can start running the 90-day limitation period, and each does so equally well: actual receipt by the plaintiff, and actual receipt by the plaintiff's attorney (as such receipt constitutes constructive receipt by the plaintiff). See Jones, 744 F.2d at 1312. Both methods of receipt focus on notice to the plaintiff. The attorney's receipt is pertinent only because he is an agent of the plaintiff. If, as in the instant case, the plaintiff actually receives notice from the EEOC, the attorney's receipt is irrelevant; it simply is not required for the 90-day period to begin running. Threadgill takes the holdings of Supreme Court and Seventh Circuit case law, which state that the 90-day period begins upon notice to the attorney or to the plaintiff, and reads them to state that only upon notice to the attorney does the clock begin to tick. Nowhere in our case law is such a result suggested.

B.

Threadgill...