eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 2021-06

Yvonne Reed v. Cognizant Technology Solutions ( 2021 )


Menu:
 
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JUN 1 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YVONNE REED,                                    No. 20-16379
Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 2:20-cv-00061-SMB
v.
MEMORANDUM*
COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY
SOLUTIONS,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Susan M. Brnovich, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 18, 2021**
Before:      CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
Yvonne Reed appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing her
Title VII employment discrimination action. We have jurisdiction under
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . We review de novo. Doughtery v. City of Covina,
    654 F.3d 892
    ,
897 (9th Cir. 2011) (dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6));
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
O’Donnell v. Vencor Inc.,
    466 F.3d 1104
    , 1109 (9th Cir. 2006) (dismissal on the
basis of the applicable statute of limitations). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Reed’s action as time-barred because
Reed filed this action after the applicable statute of limitations had run and failed
to show extraordinary circumstances beyond her control that justified equitable
tolling. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) (setting forth 90-day period in which Title
VII complainant may bring a civil action); Payan v. Aramark Mgmt. Servs. Ltd.
P’ship,
    495 F.3d 1119
    , 1121-22 (9th Cir. 2007) (90-day period operates as a
limitations period; if a litigant does not file suit within 90 days of receipt of the
notice of right to sue, the action is time-barred); Stoll v. Runyon,
    165 F.3d 1238
    ,
1242 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining that equitable tolling is warranted “when
extraordinary circumstances beyond the plaintiff’s control made it impossible to
file a claim on time”).
AFFIRMED.
2                                     20-16379