Brian Lax v. Alejandro Mayorkas, 20 F.4th 1178

Lax filed an internal EEO complaint after FEMA allegedly suspended him and his security clearance following a mental-health hospitalization.
DHS issued a final agency decision on July 15, 2019; a password-protected attachment containing the decision and a notice of the right to sue was emailed to Lax on July 17, 2019, with the password sent one minute later.
Lax opened and read the body of the emails on July 17 but asserts he could not open the attachment until July 18 due to password/device restrictions; the attachment’s certificate of service stated receipt would be presumed as of 07/17/2019.
Lax filed suit on October 16, 2019 (91 days after July 17); DHS moved to dismiss as time-barred under the 90-day filing rule; the district court dismissed and Lax appealed.
The Seventh Circuit accepted Lax’s factual claim that he did not open the attachment until July 18 but held that receipt of the email on July 17 triggered the 90-day filing period and affirmed dismissal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
When does the 90-day filing window start?	Window begins when Lax opened and read the attached final decision (July 18).	Window begins when claimant actually receives the agency notice (here, the email received July 17).	Filing window began on July 17 (receipt of the email); Lax’s suit filed Oct 16 was untimely.
Should equitable tolling apply for technical inability to open attachment?	Technical problems and security limits prevented timely access, so tolling is warranted.	Lax knew the decision was attached, was on notice of the July 17 date, could have contacted EEO, and did not show extraordinary circumstances or due diligence.	Equitable tolling denied: no extraordinary circumstances and no due diligence; tolling not warranted.

Threadgill v. Moore U.S.A., Inc., 269 F.3d 848 (7th Cir. 2001) (holding actual receipt by mail, even unopened, triggers the filing window).
Jones v. Madison Serv. Corp., 744 F.2d 1309 (7th Cir. 1984) (filing window begins when claimant or counsel actually receives right-to-sue notice).
Irwin v. Dep't of Veterans Affs., 498 U.S. 89 (1990) (equitable tolling is for extraordinary circumstances and where claimant acted with diligence).
Lombardo v. United States, 860 F.3d 547 (7th Cir. 2017) (mistakes or miscalculations of filing deadlines do not satisfy extraordinary circumstances for tolling).
Clark v. Runyon, 116 F.3d 275 (7th Cir. 1997) (standard of review for equitable tolling decisions).
Archie v. Chicago Truck Drivers, Helpers, & Warehouse Workers Union, 585 F.2d 210 (7th Cir. 1978) (distinguishes third-party interception; actual receipt by plaintiff required).