Vernon v. Cassadaga Valley Cent. School Dist.

• Decision Date: 08 March 1995
• Docket Number: No. 550,D,550
• Citation: 49 F.3d 886
• Parties: 67 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 295, 66 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 43,465, 63 USLW 2582, 98 Ed. Law Rep. 632 Judith J. VERNON, Evelyn N. Harmon & Paul K. Cooley, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CASSADAGA VALLEY CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, Kenneth K. Connoly, Superintendent, Cassadaga Valley Central School District, Brian R. Jordan, Principal, Defendants-Appellees. ocket 94-7482.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

Page 886

49 F.3d 886

67 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 295,

66 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 43,465, 63 USLW 2582,

98 Ed. Law Rep. 632

Judith J. VERNON, Evelyn N. Harmon & Paul K. Cooley Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CASSADAGA VALLEY CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, Kenneth K Connoly, Superintendent, Cassadaga Valley Central School District, Brian R. Jordan Principal, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 550, Docket 94-7482.

United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.

Argued Nov. 1, 1994.

Decided March 8, 1995.

Jennifer A. Coleman, Buffalo, NY (Murray & Coleman, Buffalo, NY, of counsel), for plaintiffs-appellants.

Robert J. Lane, Jr., Buffalo, NY (Daniel A. Spitzer, Hodgson, Russ, Andrews, Woods & Goodyear, Buffalo, NY, of counsel), for defendants-appellees.

Before: MINER, McLAUGHLIN, and CABRANES, Circuit Judges.

MINER, Circuit Judge:

Plaintiffs-appellants, high school teachers, filed complaints with the New York State Division of Human Rights ("NYDHR") alleging that the defendants had altered their teaching duties in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"). At the time of the alleged discrimination, the statute of limitations for an action under the ADEA was two years, or three years in the case of a "willful" violation. In November of 1991, Congress enacted the Civil Rights Act of 1991 ("the 1991 Act"), in which it amended the statute of limitations for actions brought under the ADEA to require that such actions be filed within ninety days of a complainant's receipt of a "right-to-sue" letter from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). Plaintiffs received right-to-sue letters that informed them of this change, but they failed to file suit within the ninety-day limitations period. After the action giving rise to this appeal was commenced, the district court granted a motion for summary judgment made by defendants, applying the statute of limitations enacted in the 1991 Act to bar the action and rejecting plaintiffs' contention that the limitations period was subject to equitable tolling. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

During February of 1991, when plaintiffs-appellants Judith Vernon, Evelyn Harmon, and Paul Cooley were high-school teachers in the Cassadaga Valley Central School District, they were advised that they would be assigned to teach middle-school classes commencing in the fall of 1991. Plaintiffs filed their complaints with the NYDHR during the period May-July 1991, alleging that this change in their assignment was made in violation of the ADEA and the New York Human Rights Law. Thereafter, the complaints were forwarded to the EEOC.

At that time, the ADEA statute of limitations required plaintiffs to file suit within two years of the allegedly discriminatory acts, or within three years if the claim involved a willful violation. Subsequently, on November 21, 1991, Congress amended the statute of limitations in the Civil Rights Act of 1991 ("the 1991 Act"), doing away with the two- or three-year period. The new limitations period provided that a complaint could be filed at any time from 60 days after the charge was filed with the EEOC, until 90 days after the complainant received a "right-to-sue" letter from the EEOC, no matter how long after the alleged violation the letter was received.

After plaintiffs' complaints had been forwarded to the EEOC, each plaintiff received at least three notices, sent by either the EEOC or the NYDHR, advising that the two-year statute of limitations applied to their claims. As late as June of 1992, the EEOC advised plaintiffs of the two-year statute of limitations and the three-year limitations period for willful violations of the ADEA. However, on October 30, 1992 the EEOC sent plaintiffs their right-to-sue letters, which stated:

A lawsuit under the ADEA ordinarily must be filed within two years of the date of discrimination alleged in the charge. On November 21, 1991, the ADEA was amended to eliminate the two year limit. An ADEA lawsuit may now be filed any time from 60 days after a charge is filed until 90 days after the receipt of notice that EEOC has completed action on the charge. Because it is not clear whether this amendment applies to instances of alleged discrimination occurring before November 21, 1991, if Charging Party decides to sue, a lawsuit should be brought within two years of the date of the alleged discrimination, 2/8/91, and within 90 days of receipt of this letter, whichever is earlier, in order to assure the right to sue. (emphasis in original).

Plaintiffs, who were proceeding pro se at the time, did not file their complaint until May 11, 1993. It seems clear that this date was beyond the ninety-day period established by the 1991 Act and referred to in the right-to-sue letter.

After the action was filed, defendants moved for summary judgment, primarily on the ground that the plaintiffs' claims under the ADEA were barred by that statute's limitations provisions set forth at 29 U.S.C. Sec. 626(e), as amended by the 1991 Act:

If a charge filed with the [Equal Employment Opportunity] Commission under this chapter is dismissed or the proceedings of the Commission are otherwise terminated by the Commission, the Commission shall notify the person aggrieved. A civil action may be brought under this section [by an aggrieved party] against the respondent named in the charge within 90 days after the date of the receipt of such notice.

Defendants argued that the statute of limitations required filing within ninety days of receiving a right-to-sue letter from the EEOC, and that plaintiffs' failure to do so barred their claims. Plaintiffs contended, however, that the 1991 Act's limitations provisions should not be applied "retroactively," and that the limitations period contained in the pre-amendment statute should apply to their claims, which accrued before the effective date of the 1991 Act. Plaintiffs also alleged ongoing discriminatory conduct through May of 1991, and therefore claimed that their complaint was timely under the two-year limitations period.

The district court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment, holding that the court was required to apply the statute of limitations that was in effect at the time the plaintiffs filed their complaint in the action. The court first noted that the issue was not truly one of retroactivity; the question simply was whether to apply the statute of limitations in effect when the cause of action accrued, or the one in effect when the suit was filed. Concluding that the statute of limitations here is procedural, the court applied the limitations period in effect at the time the action was filed. The court also rejected plaintiffs' claim that the statute of limitations should be equitably tolled, finding that plaintiffs had not been misled by the letters from EEOC, and furthermore that no reasonable person could have been misled by the letters. Plaintiffs appeal.

DISCUSSION

This court reviews a grant of summary judgment de novo. Longo v. Shore & Reich, Ltd., 25 F.3d 94, 96 (2d Cir.1994). Summary judgment is warranted where the "pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c).

A. Applicable Statute of Limitations

There are no genuine issues of material fact in this case, and summary judgment therefore was appropriate. The district court was presented with a purely legal issue: whether to apply the statute of limitations in effect at the time of the allegedly discriminatory acts, or the limitations period in effect at the time of the filing of the complaint. See 29 U.S.C. Sec. 626(e). We agree with the district court that the new statute of limitations should be applied to plaintiffs' claims, and that the claims therefore were time-barred.

This issue is one of first impression for this court, and the courts that have addressed the issue are split. Some courts have concluded that the amended statute of limitations period should apply to claims that accrued before the passage of the 1991 amendments. See, e.g., Smith v. Zeneca, Inc., 820 F.Supp. 831, 833-34 (D.Del.1993), aff'd, 37 F.3d 1489 (3rd Cir.1994) (table); Hartig v. Safelite Glass Corp., 819 F.Supp. 1523, 1529 (D.Kan.1993); McConnell v. Thomson Newspapers, Inc., 802 F.Supp. 1484, 1495-96 (E.D.Tex.1992). However, other courts have concluded that all of the provisions of the 1991 Act were to be applied only prospectively, including the statute of limitations provisions. See Browning v. AT & T Paradyne Corp., 846 F.Supp. 970, 972-73 (M.D.Fla.1994); Henderson v. AT & T, No. 93 Civ. 3222, 1993 WL 464733, at * 1 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 5, 1993); Moskowitz v. City of Chicago, No. 93C1335, 1993 WL 478938, at * 11 (N.D.Ill. Nov. 16, 1993). We agree with those cases that hold that the limitations period enacted in the 1991 Act should apply to claims filed after its enactment, including those in which the cause of action accrued beforehand. ¹ The reasoning in those cases is more persuasive, and their conclusions are bolstered by previous decisions of this court as well as by the Supreme Court's decision in Landgraf v. USI Film Products, --- U.S. ----, 114 S.Ct. 1483, 128 L.Ed.2d 229 (1994).

As courts presented with this issue have recognized, applying a new or amended statute of limitations to bar a cause of action filed after its enactment, but arising out of events that predate its enactment, generally is not a retroactive application of the statute. See Smith, 820 F.Supp. at 833; McConnell, 802 F.Supp. at 1494 & n. 12. In such a case, the statute is applied to conduct that occurs after the statute's enactment--plaintiff's filing of the complaint--not the defendant's allegedly unlawful acts. Smith, 820 F.Supp. at 833. This general principle was adopted by this court in Walsche v. First Investors Corp., 981 F.2d 649, 654 (2d Cir.1992...