Aneka Myrick v. Discover Bank
662 F. App'x 179
| 3rd Cir. | 2016Background
- Myrick sued Discover Bank alleging termination (April 1, 2011) based on religion, sex, pregnancy, and disability (Title VII/ADA) and alleged Discover failed to provide COBRA continuation-coverage notice.
- Discover moved to dismiss; District Court dismissed all claims except the COBRA claim and denied Myrick leave to amend; those denials are not appealed.
- Discover moved for summary judgment on the COBRA/ERISA claim; the District Court granted summary judgment without explanation and closed the case. Myrick appealed pro se.
- Discover argued it was not the plan administrator and therefore not liable under ERISA §1132(c)(1); Discover also produced evidence that the plan administrator (Hewitt) mailed the COBRA notice on April 7, 2011.
- Myrick did not produce contrary evidence and did not exhaust religious claims in her EEOC charge; her Title VII and ADA claims were filed after the 90-day right-to-sue period.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Myrick exhausted administrative remedies for religious-discrimination claim | Myrick contends discrimination included religion | Discover: EEOC charge contained no religious-allegations or notice to investigate religion | Court: No exhaustion; religious claim not pleaded to EEOC so dismissed |
| Whether Title VII/ADA claims were timely filed after EEOC right-to-sue letter | Myrick implied equitable tolling due to lack of counsel/other circumstances | Discover: Complaint filed after 90-day deadline (received by clerk June 11 vs. deadline June 7) | Court: Claims time-barred; equitable tolling not warranted |
| Whether Discover is liable under ERISA/COBRA for failing to give COBRA notice | Myrick sues Discover Bank for COBRA notification violation | Discover: It is not the plan administrator; plan administrator handled and mailed notice (Hewitt) on April 7, 2011 | Court: Discover not liable as non-administrator; summary judgment affirmed because no genuine dispute that notice was sent |
| Whether summary judgment should be vacated for lack of district-court explanation or because mediation/settlement discussions were ongoing | Myrick argues court erred by entering unexplained summary judgment and ruling during mediation | Discover: Motion properly decided; record supports either of two alternative bases for judgment | Court: Although explanation ideally required (Vadino), appellate court declines remand because record supports either ground; no rule precludes ruling during settlement talks |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (legal-pleading plausibility standard)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading must state a plausible claim)
- Giles v. Kearney, 571 F.3d 318 (3d Cir. review standards for dismissal/summary judgment)
- Hicks v. ABT Associates, Inc., 572 F.2d 960 (EEOC charge exhaustion requirement)
- Webb v. City of Philadelphia, 562 F.3d 256 (notice to EEOC standard)
- Seitzinger v. Reading Hosp. & Med. Ctr., 165 F.3d 236 (90-day right-to-sue period and equitable tolling limits)
- Thomas v. Town of Hammonton, 351 F.3d 108 (summary-judgment evidence standard on disputes of fact)
- DeGruise v. Sprint Corp., 279 F.3d 333 (employer good-faith compliance with notice rules)
- Vadino v. A. Valey Engineers, 903 F.2d 253 (district courts should state reasons when granting summary judgment)