Coppinger-Martin v. Solis
627 F.3d 745
| 9th Cir. | 2010Background
- Coppinger-Martin was Nordstrom’s Chief Technical Architect from 1999 until April 21, 2006, and reported alleged SEC-related security vulnerabilities in 2005.
- Nordstrom informed her of job duties being eliminated in November 2005; she remained employed until April 2006 and sought severance discussions in May 2006.
- She learned in July 2006 that others were performing her former duties, which led her to believe the termination might have been retaliatory.
- She filed an OSHA SOX whistleblower complaint on October 13, 2006, after initial administrative steps and an ALJ hearing were pursued.
- The ARB dismissed the complaint as untimely, and the Ninth Circuit reviewed under APA standards, upholding the dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When does SOX whistleblower accrual occur | Coppinger-Martin argues accrual occurred when retaliation was communicated | Nordstrom argues accrual occurred earlier or at last day of employment | Accrual occurred when the adverse action was communicated, by April 21, 2006. |
| Whether equitable tolling applies to extend the filing period | Coppinger-Martin contends tolling due to later discovery of motive | Nordstrom asserts tolling unavailable after counsel engagement and prima facie case timely | Equitable tolling does not extend where plaintiff had enough information by April 21, 2006. |
| Whether equitable estoppel applies to toll the statute | Coppinger-Martin asserts concealment of motive equitably extended filing time | Nordstrom allegedly misled but no concealment beyond claim itself | Equitable estoppel not available; concealment of motive insufficient to toll. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lukovsky v. City & County of San Francisco, 535 F.3d 1044 (9th Cir. 2008) (claims accrual at discovery of injury, not awareness of legal wrong)
- Santa Maria v. Pacific Bell, 202 F.3d 1170 (9th Cir. 2000) (equitable tolling depends on excusable delay and information, not defendant's conduct)
- Cada v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 920 F.2d 446 (7th Cir. 1990) (fraudulent concealment required beyond mere claim basis)
- Amini v. Oberlin Coll., 259 F.3d 493 (6th Cir. 2001) (Title VII/ADEA tolling examples supportive of accrual concept)
- Lukovsky v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 535 F.3d 1044 (9th Cir. 2008) (reiterates accrual and tolling principles in context of retaliation)