Dube v. Wyeth Biotech
1:10-cv-11316
D. Mass.Jan 14, 2011Background
- Dube filed a Massachusetts Chapter 151B discrimination claim against Wyeth Biotech on August 4, 2010.
- The 151B claim was untimely under the Massachusetts three-year statute of limitations.
- Dube amended the complaint on October 28, 2010 to designate Count I as a federal ADA claim.
- Dube argues the ADA claim relates back to the original filing to render it timely.
- The ADA requires administrative prerequisites (EEOC charge within 180 days and 90-day Right-to-Sue window).
- Wyeth moves to dismiss, arguing the original filing was untimely and cannot relate back.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the ADA relate back to the original filing date? | Dube seeks relation back to make ADA timely. | Relation back does not cure an untimely original filing where the initial pleading was not timely. | Relation back rejected; original filing untimely bars ADA claim. |
| Can a later untimely amendment cure a jurisdictional defect in the original complaint? | Amendment would cure the labeling error and render the action timely. | Untimely amendment cannot cure a jurisdictional defect when the original complaint was untimely. | Untimely amendment cannot cure; does not save jurisdiction. |
| Does the ADA borrow the statute of limitations from the closest analogous state claim? | ADA should borrow state law (Chapter 151B) for limitations purposes. | Borrowing is proper but cannot bypass timing issues or administrativetolling. | Statute borrowed and application does not save timeliness here. |
| Are the administrative prerequisites (EEOC charge and Right-to-Sue) applicable to timeliness analysis? | Administrative timing should toll or align with ADA procedure. | Administrative prerequisites do not salvage an untimely original filing. | Administrative prerequisites do not render the filing timely. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nieves-Marquez v. Puerto Rico, 353 F.3d 108 (1st Cir. 2003) (borrows statute of limitations for ADA claims)
- Bonilla v. Muebles J.J. Alvarez, Inc., 194 F.3d 275 (1st Cir. 1999) (ADA administrative prerequisites tolling framework)
- Basch v. Ground Round, Inc., 139 F.3d 6 (1st Cir. 1998) (90-day period jurisdictional after Right-to-Sue letter)
- Evans v. Thompson, 465 F. Supp. 2d 62 (D. Mass. 2006) (sine qua non of relation back in related contexts)
- Krupski v. Costa Crociere S.p.A., 130 S. Ct. 2485 (2010) (Rule 15(c) relation back governs timely amendment)
- Williams v. Lampe, 399 F.3d 867 (7th Cir. 2005) (timeliness requirement for relation back discussed)
- Caldwell v. Martin Marietta Corp., 632 F.2d 1184 (5th Cir. 1980) (contrasting views on relation back timing)