Cristina Cruz v. Nilda Maypa
773 F.3d 138
| 4th Cir. | 2014Background
- Cruz, a Philippine citizen, was recruited in 2002 to work as a domestic employee in Virginia under written contracts promising $6.50/hour and benefits but was paid $250–$450/month and forced to work 17–18 hours/day without days off until she escaped in January 2008.
- Defendants confiscated her passport, isolated and monitored her, threatened deportation and imprisonment, restricted movement, and falsified time sheets/pay records.
- Cruz filed suit in July 2013 asserting claims under the TVPA (18 U.S.C. §§ 1589, 1590, 1595), the FLSA (29 U.S.C. § 206), and Virginia contract law; district court dismissed all claims as time-barred.
- Congress amended the TVPA in 2008 to add a ten-year statute of limitations (TVPRA); previously, a four-year federal limitations period governed TVPA claims.
- On appeal, Cruz argued (1) the 10-year TVPA limitations period applies to her unexpired claims, (2) equitable tolling for TVPA/FLSA due to defendants’ wrongful conduct and lack of notice, and (3) state-law contract claims should be tolled for interference.
- The Fourth Circuit affirmed dismissal of state contract claims but reversed dismissal of TVPA and FLSA claims and remanded for factual development on tolling and accrual issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the 2008 TVPRA ten-year limitations period apply to TVPA claims arising before enactment? | The ten-year period governs claims that were unexpired when the TVPRA was enacted. | Applying the 10-year period retroactively to pre-enactment conduct is impermissible. | Applying the 10-year period to claims unexpired at enactment is not retroactive under Landgraf; remanded to determine if Cruz’s claims were unexpired when TVPRA enacted. |
| Were Cruz’s TVPA claims equitably tolled while she was under defendants’ control? | Defendants’ confiscation of passport, isolation, threats, and virtual imprisonment prevented filing until escape in Jan 2008. | Tolling is unwarranted; claims accrued earlier. | Allegations suffice at pleading stage to support equitable tolling; remand for discovery to decide tolling period. |
| Is the FLSA claim tolled by defendants’ failure to post notice (actual/constructive notice rule)? | Vance’s actual-notice tolling (ADEA) should apply; lack of notice tolled limitations until plaintiff learned rights or retained counsel. | Posting would have been futile given language barriers; thus no tolling. | Extends Vance to FLSA; remand for discovery to determine when Cruz obtained actual knowledge or counsel and whether claim is timely. |
| Are Virginia contract claims tolled beyond escape under Va. Code § 8.01-229? | Tolling applies while defendants obstructed filing; should cover period of control and possibly beyond. | Any tolling ended at escape; plaintiff filed more than five years after escape. | Even if tolled until escape, Cruz filed after the five-year statute; state contract claims properly dismissed as time-barred. |
Key Cases Cited
- Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244 (1994) (framework for retroactivity analysis of statutes enacted after the conduct at issue)
- Baldwin v. City of Greensboro, 714 F.3d 828 (4th Cir. 2013) (applied Landgraf to limitations-period extension and distinguished expired vs. unexpired claims)
- Vance v. Whirlpool Corp., 716 F.2d 1010 (4th Cir. 1983) (actual-notice tolling where employer failed to post statutory notice)
- McCauley v. Home Loan Inv. Bank, F.S.B., 710 F.3d 551 (4th Cir. 2013) (motion-to-dismiss standard — accept plaintiff’s factual allegations as true)
- Harris v. Hutchinson, 209 F.3d 325 (4th Cir. 2000) (standards for equitable tolling)