Thompson v. Gen Elec Co , 81 F. App'x 415 ( 2003 )

Opinions of the United
2003 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
11-25-2003
Thompson v. Gen Elec Co
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 02-3892
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2003
Recommended Citation
"Thompson v. Gen Elec Co" (2003). 2003 Decisions. Paper 94.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2003/94
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2003 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 02-3892
___________
JOYCE A. THOMPSON,
Appellant
v.
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
___________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania
District Court Judge: The Honorable Sean J. McLaughlin
(D.C. Civil No. 00-cv-00388)
___________
Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
October 24, 2003
Before: ALITO, FUENTES and BECKER, Circuit Judges.
(Opinion Filed: November 24, 2003)
________________________
OPINION OF THE COURT
________________________
FUENTES, Circuit Judge:
The United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania held that
Joyce A. Thompson (“Thompson”) failed to timely file her claims of discrimination
against her former employer, Appellant General Electric. Because we agree, we will
affirm the Order of the District Court. We write solely for the parties, therefore our
review of the factual background is limited to that which is necessary to inform our
opinion today.
Thompson worked for General Electric from 1969 until 1996, serving in various
positions with the General Electric Transportation Systems Division. After receiving a
right to sue letter from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) dated
September 9, 2000, Thompson filed a civil action in the District Court on December 22,
2000, asserting violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act, and the Pennsylvania Human Rights Act (PHRA). In her complaint,
Thompson alleged that the company failed to make good faith efforts to identify and
provide her with reasonable accommodations for her disability (Thompson suffered from
spine deterioration and chronic back pain due to a work-related injury), and ultimately
fired her because of her disability and request for reasonable accommodations.
Thompson also claimed that General Electric engaged in reverse race discrimination
because the company refused to provide reasonable accommodations to her that were
given to similarly-situated African-American employees; refused to honor work
restrictions that were honored for similarly-situated African-American employees; and
2
forced Thompson to have back surgery in order to keep her job, but did not force
similarly-situated African-American employees to do the same. Thompson had a
discectomy on March 20, 1997, but was subsequently unable to return to work at General
Electric.
The parties agree that Thompson’s claims basically break down into two groups:
the alleged discriminatory treatment by General Electric during Thompson’s employment
with the company, and the directive essentially telling Thompson to have back surgery or
risk losing her job.
General Electric requested summary judgment in the District Court, contending
that Thompson failed to file her claims of discrimination within the applicable federal and
state time periods (300 days for her ADA and Title VII claims, 180 days for her claim
under the PHRA). At a September 16, 2002 hearing in the District Court on Appellant’s
summary judgment motion, Thompson’s attorney, William Taggart, admitted on the
record that Thompson’s claims of discrimination relating to her treatment at General
Electric accrued on the last date she worked at the company, which was November 8,
1996. Taggart also confirmed that Thompson was informed by letter on November 13,
1996 of the company’s proposition regarding surgery. The District Judge asked Taggart
whether there was evidence that Thompson submitted anything in writing to the EEOC
prior to November 15, 1997 (the date on a questionnaire Thompson submitted to the
EEOC), and Taggart responded, “Although, I’m an advocate, I’m still bound by reality.
And I think after much combing by both parties through the record, that it is correct based
3
on everything that came out in discovery.” (Plaintiff’s Revised Appendix Two, at 66.)
Taggart also conceded that Thompson was not raising an equitable tolling claim with the
District Court. (Id. at 71.)
Construing these facts in the light most favorable to Thompson, we conclude that
the District Court properly granted summary judgment to General Electric and dismissed
Thompson’s claims as untimely. Assuming (and given the conflicting evidence in the
record, this truly is an assumption) that Thompson communicated her grievances to the
EEOC by November 15, 1997, she was still outside the statutory period for all of her
claims. The Civil Rights Act provides that a charge of discrimination must be filed
within 300 days after the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred. 42 U.S.C. §
2000e-5(e). A complaint under the Pennsylvania Human Rights Act must be filed within
180 days of the alleged act of discrimination. 43 P.S. § 959(h). Therefore, the conduct of
which Thompson complains must have occurred before January 20, 1997 (for her federal
claims) or May 20, 1997 (for her PHRA claim) in order to be considered timely. Because
the alleged discrimination occurred before these dates, the District Court correctly held
that Thompson’s claims were time-barred.
Thompson contends here, as she did in the District Court, that November 13, 1996
(when she received the company’s directive to have surgery) should not be considered the
accrual date for the second group of claims. Rather, she urges that the claims accrued
when she actually decided to have the discectomy (apparently in February 1997). The
District Court properly rejected this position, relying on the well-established principle that
4
the statute of limitations begins to run at the time that an employee receives notice of an
adverse employment action. See Delaware State College v. Ricks, 449 U.S. 250, 101
S.Ct. 498, 66 L.Ed.2d 431 (1980); Watson v. Eastman Kodak Co., 235 F.3d 851, 852-53
(3d Cir. 2000) (noting that the Supreme Court held in Ricks that “an adverse employment
action occurs, and the statute of limitations therefore begins to run, at the time the
employee receives notice of that action and termination is a delayed but inevitable
result.”).
As of November 13, 1996, there were strong indications that absent surgery,
Thompson was never coming back to General Electric. On the record before us, drawing
all reasonable inferences in favor of Thompson, as we must, her claim that she might
have returned to work is speculative. We have held that speculation does not prevent the
statute of limitations from running. In Watson, for example, the plaintiff (an account
executive at Kodak) was informed in February that he would be terminated in March
unless he found another position within the company. Watson, 235 F.3d at 853. Watson
did not, and was fired. This Court held that “the relevant date from which to measure the
timeliness of Watson’s discrimination claim is the date on which he was removed from
the Account Executive position, and . . . we conclude that the mere speculative possibility
of continued employment does not alter Rick’s date of notification rule.” Id. Likewise,
in this case, Thompson’s termination seemed fairly certain, pending only the speculative
outcome of her surgery.
5
Thompson argues on appeal that she communicated by telephone with an EEOC
officer in June and August 1997 (within the statutory period) and submitted intake
documents to the EEOC by mid-August 1997. She argues that the EEOC misplaced her
file, thereby causing the delay, and that the court should relate her later written
communications back to those earlier dates. The record does not support Thompson’s
assertions, however, and Thompson’s own attorney conceded that she did not
communicate with the EEOC in writing before November 15, 1997.
Finally, because Taggart explicitly informed the District Court that Thompson was
not asserting an equitable tolling claim, this argument was waived and may not be raised
here. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, we affirm the judgment of the District
Court.
____________________________
TO THE CLERK OF THE COURT:
Kindly file the foregoing Opinion.
By the Court,
/s/ Julio M. Fuentes
Circuit Judge
6