Brilliant Semenova v. MD Transit Administration
845 F.3d 564
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Appellant Brilliant Semenova, who uses a walker/crutches due to cerebral palsy, alleged Title II ADA discrimination by the Maryland Transit Administration for bus operators refusing to use lifts or assist her beginning in Oct. 2011 through 2012, causing her to withdraw from school in summer 2012.
- Semenova filed suit in federal district court on October 30, 2014 asserting denial of public transportation services under Title II of the ADA.
- The ADA (Title II) contains no express statute of limitations; courts borrow the most analogous state-law limitations period.
- MTA moved to dismiss as time-barred, arguing Maryland’s two-year limitations in its anti-discrimination statutes applies; district court agreed and dismissed the complaint as untimely.
- The Fourth Circuit reversed, holding Maryland’s three-year general civil-action statute governs because the Maryland anti-discrimination statute does not provide a state cause of action for disability discrimination in public services.
- The panel remanded for further proceedings because alleged discriminatory acts fell within three years of filing; Judge Traxler dissented arguing the two-year county-analog statute should control.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which state statute of limitations applies to a Title II ADA claim in Maryland? | Maryland's 3-year general civil-action limitations (Md. Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-101) is the closest analogue. | Maryland's anti-discrimination provisions (2-year limitations) reflect the legislature's choice and are the appropriate analogue. | 3-year general civil-action statute applies because Maryland's anti-discrimination law lacks a state cause of action for public-services disability claims. |
| Whether the complaint is time-barred under the applicable limitations period | Complaint alleges discrimination continuing through 2012, so filing in Oct. 2014 is timely under a 3-year rule. | Even accepting last act in summer 2012, a 2-year rule would render the suit untimely. | Because 3-year period governs, the complaint falls within the limitations period; dismissal for untimeliness was error. |
| Standard for choosing borrowed state limitations period | Use the state statute most analogous in rights/remedies to the federal claim. | Same rule, but argue specific Maryland anti-discrimination provisions are the proper analog. | Reiterated Fourth Circuit test: borrow the most analogous state statute that provides substantially the same rights/remedies; applied to facts. |
| Deference to state legislative judgment on repose | Maryland's general 3-year rule better matches available remedies for public-services ADA claims. | Maryland's enactment of county-based private remedies (with 2-year limits) shows statewide legislative choice favoring 2 years. | Court declined to adopt county-limited causes of action as the state analogue; focused on statewide statutes and remedies. |
Key Cases Cited
- A Soc’y Without A Name v. Virginia, 655 F.3d 342 (4th Cir. 2011) (adopted state disability-rights limitations period where statute paralleled ADA and required consistency with federal law)
- Wolsky v. Medical College of Hampton Roads, 1 F.3d 222 (4th Cir. 1993) (state statute that tracks federal remedies is the appropriate analogue for borrowing a limitations period)
- McCulloch v. Branch Banking & Trust Co., 35 F.3d 127 (4th Cir. 1994) (applied state handicapped-persons statute limitations despite differences because it better targeted the same protected class)
- Hardin v. Straub, 490 U.S. 536 (1989) (federal courts borrow state limitations periods to respect state policy balancing between repose and enforcement)
- Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261 (1985) (Supreme Court guidance on borrowing state statutes of limitations for federal civil rights actions)
- Belmora LLC v. Bayer Consumer Care AG, 819 F.3d 697 (4th Cir. 2016) (standards for Rule 12(b)(6) review)
- Dean v. Pilgrim’s Pride Corp., 395 F.3d 471 (4th Cir. 2005) (statute-of-limitations dismissal on Rule 12(b)(6) only where time bar is apparent on the face of the complaint)