Dwight Almond, III v. Unified School District 501
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 23718
| 10th Cir. | 2011Background
- 1) Almond and Weems were moved from higher-paid positions to lower-paying ones with a two-year pay-retention promise; 2) The district announced the transfers in 2003–2004 and later implemented pay reductions; 3) Plaintiffs alleged age discrimination (not pay-disparity) and filed administrative charges in 2006; 4) The district court dismissed as untimely under preexisting accrual rules; 5) Congress enacted the Ledbetter Act, purportedly altering accrual for compensation-discrimination claims; 6) The court must decide whether Ledbetter Act salvages plaintiffs’ claims or whether preexisting accrual governs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether preexisting accrual law bars the claims | Almond/Weems timely under later pay effects | Accrual runs when pay effects occur or when decision announced | Preexisting accrual governs; untimely under 300-day rule |
| Does the Ledbetter Act save the plaintiffs’ claims | Ledbetter broadens accrual to compensation discrimination | Act confines to unequal pay for equal work under §626(d)(3) | Ledbetter Act does not save these claims; no pay-discrimination claim proven |
| Does Morgan reset accrual under the Ledbetter Act | Morgan resets accrual for all acts contributing to discrimination | Morgan applies only to hostile environment claims; not here | Morgan does not reset accrual for non-hostile-discrimination claims; not timely under preexisting rule |
| Is there any timely ground based on ‘other practice’ language | ‘Other practice’ affects compensation and triggers accrual | Act does not cover non-compensation discrimination claims here | No; plaintiffs’ claims fall outside compensation-discrimination scope of the Act |
| Did the temporary pay-retention promise negate timing | Pay reductions not effective until later; timely filings possible | Announcement and communication of discriminatory acts controls, regardless of later effect | Announcement of transfers and future pay reductions started the limitations period; later pay effects do not toll |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Kubrick, 444 U.S. 111 (1979) (limitations clock starts when injury known, not upon unlawful intent)
- Delaware State College v. Ricks, 449 U.S. 250 (1981) (accrual occurs when adverse decision is announced)
- National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (2002) (hostile environment claims accrue with each contributing act; narrow exception)
- Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., Inc., 550 U.S. 618 (2007) (pay discrimination claims untimely; Ledbetter dissent argued different accrual rule)
- AT&T Corp. v. Hulteen, 129 S. Ct. 1962 (2009) (accrual depends on discriminatory decision; interaction with other provisions)