Calvin v. Sub-Zero Freezer, Co.
697 F. App'x 874
7th Cir.2017Background
- Calvin worked at Sub-Zero for ~10 years; suffered a work-related injury in Aug 2001 and could no longer perform his production-line job.
- Sub-Zero assigned him a different position that ended in July 2002; he was escorted out and told his "employment with Sub-Zero was done," and payments stopped.
- In Feb 2004 Sub-Zero sent a letter confirming he had exhausted unpaid leave under the CBA and that his job was terminated.
- Calvin filed an administrative complaint with the Wisconsin Equal Rights Division in Nov 2004; the matter lingered and he filed again in 2010; an ALJ found no probable cause in 2015.
- Calvin sued under the ADA in 2016; the district court granted summary judgment to Sub-Zero, concluding Calvin’s suit was time-barred because he did not file the administrative charge within 300 days of the adverse action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 300-day administrative filing period began in July 2002 or Feb 2004 | Calvin: limitations period began in Feb 2004 when he received the termination letter | Sub-Zero: limitations period began in July 2002 when he was walked out, told his job was done, and pay stopped | Limitations began in July 2002; 300-day period not restarted by 2004 letter |
| Whether Calvin exhausted administrative remedies timely for ADA suit | Calvin: his 2004 administrative complaint was within 300 days of the effective termination date | Sub-Zero: the 2004 complaint was untimely because the adverse action occurred in 2002 | Calvin failed to file within 300 days, so suit is barred |
| Whether later communicative act (termination letter) restarts limitations | Calvin: the 2004 letter made the discharge "official," restarting limitations | Sub-Zero: the letter merely reflected an earlier decision and does not restart the clock | The letter did not restart the limitations period; earlier adverse act controls |
| Effect of failure to timely file administrative charge on ADA claim | Calvin: procedural and factual uncertainties justify tolling or deeming timely | Sub-Zero: no tolling; failure to meet exhaustion bars suit | Court affirms dismissal on statute-of-limitations grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Barrett v. Illinois Department of Corrections, 803 F.3d 893 (7th Cir. 2015) (limitations period begins when plaintiff knows of adverse employment action)
- Roney v. Illinois Department of Transportation, 474 F.3d 455 (7th Cir. 2007) (timeliness of administrative charge under Title VII framework)
- de la Rama v. Illinois Department of Human Services, 541 F.3d 681 (7th Cir. 2008) (adverse employment actions start the limitations clock)
- Delaware State College v. Ricks, 449 U.S. 250 (U.S. 1980) (discrete adverse acts start limitations even if consequences occur later)
- Cada v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 920 F.2d 446 (7th Cir. 1990) (limitations accrual for employment discrimination claims)
- Kersting v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 250 F.3d 1109 (7th Cir. 2001) (ADA adopts Title VII exhaustion procedures)
- Fairchild v. Forma Scientific, Inc., 147 F.3d 567 (7th Cir. 1998) (exhaustion required before ADA suit)
- Salas v. Wisconsin Department of Corrections, 493 F.3d 913 (7th Cir. 2007) (untimely administrative filing bars Title VII suit)
- Johnson v. J.B. Hunt Transportation, Inc., 280 F.3d 1125 (7th Cir. 2002) (300-day filing period in Wisconsin jurisdictions)