Barr v. Bass Pro Outdoor World, LLC
5:17-cv-00378
N.D.N.Y.Dec 13, 2019Background
- Barr was hired by Bass Pro as a cashier in May 2014 after supervisors encouraged internal advancement; she alleges supervisors promised or suggested she could move into Customer Service/Credit Card and other roles.
- During 2014–2015 Barr experienced numerous incidents she characterizes as racially hostile (co-workers' confederate-flag comments, stereotypical remarks, comments about her natural hair, alleged swastika/Hitler talk, being assigned to isolated 'mall registers', and other workplace slights).
- Barr stopped working June 25, 2015 due to injury, had back surgery in November 2015, was on leave, and received a termination letter dated January 8, 2016.
- Barr contacted the EEOC by phone in January 2016; a draft written charge was prepared and she signed a verified charge on June 28, 2016 (EEOC stamp July 5, 2016). She received a right-to-sue letter in January 2017.
- Defendant moved for summary judgment arguing Barr's Title VII claims are time-barred (300-day filing rule), equitable tolling does not apply, and the post-employment home harassment is not imputable to Bass Pro nor part of a continuing hostile work environment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of EEOC filing / relation-back | Barr says her January 2016 EEOC phone intake and EEOC drafting meant her charge was effectively filed timely | Bass Pro points to the EEOC receipt stamp (July 5, 2016) and contends acts before Sept 9, 2015 are untimely | Court found the verified June 28, 2016 charge may relate back only to a draft a few days earlier; thus events in or after late Aug 2015 are timely, earlier acts are time-barred |
| Equitable tolling due to medical condition | Barr contends surgery/injury (Nov 2015) and medication prevented timely filing | Bass Pro says no extraordinary circumstances and Barr has not shown diligence or incapacity preventing filing | Court denied equitable tolling: Barr’s medical evidence was vague/conclusory and did not show inability to pursue rights for the relevant period |
| Continuing-violation doctrine for hostile work environment (including post-employment home harassment) | Barr argues harassment began at work and continued post-employment (bird/duck calls at her home), so the hostile environment is ongoing and timely | Bass Pro contends post-employment incidents are outside employment, not imputable, and unrelated to workplace incidents | Court held continuing-violation doctrine inapplicable: post-employment incidents did not affect working conditions, lacked employer attribution, and thus cannot revive stale discrete acts |
| Failure-to-promote claim timeliness | Barr says she was promised internal advancement and was overlooked for positions in 2014 | Bass Pro notes those are discrete acts in 2014 and were not timely charged | Court held failure-to-promote is a discrete act claim that occurred in 2014 and is time-barred because it falls outside the timely EEOC window |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment, genuine issue standard)
- Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (discrete acts vs. hostile work environment; continuing violation rule)
- Fed. Exp. Corp. v. Holowecki, 552 U.S. 389 (what constitutes an EEOC charge / agency-reduced writing)
- Edelman v. Lynchburg College, 535 U.S. 106 (relation-back of verified charges)
- Boos v. Runyon, 201 F.3d 178 (medical impairment and equitable tolling requirements)
- Bolarinwa v. Williams, 593 F.3d 226 (elements for equitable tolling)
- Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 455 U.S. 385 (EEOC filing is a precondition to suit)