Right-to-Sue Letter Directed to Attorney Constituted Notice to Employee for Purposes of Filing Timely Lawsuit

After she was denied sick leave, a doctor filed a complaint with the anti-discrimination unit of the Puerto Rico Department of Labor and Human Resources, alleging unlawful discrimination and unwarranted refusal to make a reasonable accommodation for her disability. The local agency referred the matter to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), and without considering the merits, the EEOC issued a right-to-sue letter. The notice was sent to the doctor, her attorney, and to the employer, and stated that the doctor had 90 days in which to file a Title I action against her employer. Approximately 144 days after the right-to-sue letter was sent, the doctor sued her former employer for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The employer argued that the case should be dismissed because the doctor’s claim was time barred.

The doctor claimed she did not receive the right-to-sue letter until roughly four months after it was issued, and that the filing period did not begin to run until after the notice was received. She, therefore, claimed her lawsuit was timely because it was filed within roughly 20 days after she allegedly received notice. The district court granted the employer’s motion for summary judgment, effectively dismissing the suit. The doctor appealed.

The First Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the employer and the district court and found that the receipt of the EEOC right-to-sue notice by the doctor’s attorney was sufficient to commence the running of the filing period. Since there was no dispute as to the fact that the attorney timely received the notice, the doctor was deemed to have constructive notice of the 90-day filing period. Since the doctor admittedly did not file the lawsuit within that 90 days, her claims were time-barred.

The clock is always ticking. Failure to adhere to well-settled statutorily-prescribed time frames can cause problems for both employees and employers alike. For more information read Loubriel v. Fondo del Seguro del Estado, No. 11-1555 (1st Cir., September 21, 2012).