Williams v. Thomson Corp., 03-2395.
Decision Date | 25 August 2004 |
Docket Number | No. 03-2395.,03-2395. |
Citation | 383 F.3d 789 |
Parties | June WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. The THOMSON CORPORATION; Thomson Publishing Corporation; West Publishing Company, doing business as West Legal Publishing, doing business as West Group; Brian Hall; Andrew Prozes; Timothy J. Blank; Jeannine Bieter; Lea Harpster, also known as Lea Walstrom; Kevin Appold; Kay Engler; Kirk Emmen, Appellees. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, Michael J. Davis, J Attorney June R. Williams presented argument on behalf of herself. Also appearing on appellant's brief was William D. Bell, Sr.
Counsel who presented argument on behalf of the appellee was Susan E. Ellingstad, Minneapolis, MN.
Before MURPHY, HEANEY, and MAGILL, Circuit Judges.
[PUBLISHED]
June R. Williams was terminated on February 4, 1998, after four years of working as a reference attorney for the Westlaw division of West Group. Following her termination, Williams lodged a complaint against Westlaw with the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, alleging that she was discriminated against on the basis of her race, sex, religion, and disability. Williams's complaint was referred to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which mailed a right-to-sue letter to her on-file address on June 17, 1999. Williams filed suit against West Publishing Corporation, The Thomson Corporation, several of Thomson's subsidiaries, and various West employees on October 21, 1999, in the United States District Court for the District of Ohio, advancing claims under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Equal Pay Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Minnesota Whistleblower's Act, and the Family Medical Leave Act. The district court in Ohio granted the defendants' motion to transfer the case to the District of Minnesota. After the case was transferred, the defendants moved for summary judgment, urging the district court1 to dismiss several of the claims as time-barred and to dismiss the remaining claims on the merits. The court granted the motion and Williams now appeals. After carefully reviewing the record before us, see McKay v. United States Dep't of Transp., 340 F.3d 695, 697 (8th Cir.2003) ( ), we affirm.
We agree with the district court that Williams's Title VII and ADA claims are time-barred, see 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1); 42 U.S.C. § 12117(a) ( ); Maegdlin v. Int'l Ass'n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, Dist. 949, 309 F.3d 1051, 1054 (8th Cir.2002) ( ). Williams's explanation that she did not read the right-to-sue letter until two weeks after it arrived at her forwarding address, does not save her claims from being time-barred. Hill v. John Chezik Imps., 869 F.2d 1122, 1124 (8th Cir.1989) (); St. Louis v. Alverno Coll., 744 F.2d 1314, 1317 (8th Cir.1984). Additionally, Williams's argument that the district court was bound by the law of the case doctrine because the Ohio court ordered her case transferred, as opposed to dismissing her claims as untimely, is incorrect. See Murr Plumbing, Inc. v. Scherer Bros. Fin. Servs., Co., 48 F.3d 1066, 1070 (8th Cir.1995) (); United States Fire Ins. Co. v. Am. Family Life Assurance Co., 787 F.2d 438 (8th Cir.1986) (per curiam) ( ).
Furthermore, the district court was correct to conclude that the facts of this case do not warrant an equitable tolling of the statute of limitations. See Heideman v. PFL, Inc., 904 F.2d 1262, 1266 (8th Cir.1990) (). Williams failed to update her address with the EEOC when she moved to Ohio in the beginning of June, despite her pending appeal with the EEOC and her awareness that the EEOC intended to issue her a right-to-sue letter. See Hill, 869 F.2d at 1124 ( ); 29 C.F.R. § 1601.7(b) ( ). Additionally, even if Williams's claims were not time-barred, she has not adduced...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
FCStone LLC v. Buckley
...discretion of the district court.” Symington v. Daisy Mfg. Co. Inc., 360 F.Supp.2d 1027, 1030 (D.N.D.2005) (citing Williams v. Thomson Corp., 383 F.3d 789, 791 (8th Cir.2004)). While FCStone was procedurally in error, the late filing merely placed in declaration form information already pre......
-
Garcia v. Penske Logistics, L.L.C.
...failed to call the EEOC or Lopez despite being informed that her right-to-sue letter would be forthcoming. See Williams v. Thompson Corp., 383 F.3d 789, 791 (8th Cir. 2004) (concluding that equitable tolling was not warranted where the plaintiff failed to update her address with the EEOC af......
-
Dida v. Ascension Providence Hosp.
...appropriate only when the circumstances that cause a plaintiff to miss a filing deadline are out of his hands. Williams v. Thomson Corp., 383 F.3d 789, 791 (8th Cir. 2004) (affirming summary judgment where plaintiff failed to inform EEOC of her change of address). By contrast, equitable est......
-
Dida v. Ascension Providence Hosp.
... ... cause of action will not do.” Bell Atl. Corp. v ... Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007); Huang v. Gateway ... deadline are out of his hands. Williams v. Thomson ... Corp. , 383 F.3d 789, 791 (8th Cir. 2004) (affirming ... ...