Elaine Lee v. Scott Nasatir
671 F. App'x 388
7th Cir.2016Background
- Plaintiff Elaine J. Lee, a school psychologist, sued individual employees of School District 89 under Title VII alleging race-based disparate work assignment (she is African American).
- Title VII permits suit only against the employer (the school district), not individual employees; Lee proceeded pro se and named individuals.
- The district court sua sponte ordered Lee to produce her EEOC right-to-sue notice after she filed her complaint on July 25, 2016.
- Upon receiving the EEOC letter dated March 31, 2016, the district court dismissed Lee’s complaint as untimely under Title VII’s 90-day filing deadline following receipt of a right-to-sue letter (42 U.S.C. § 2000e–5(f)(1)).
- Noncompliance with that 90-day limit is an affirmative (not jurisdictional) defense, and courts normally give a plaintiff an opportunity to address such defects before sua sponte dismissal.
- On appeal Lee conceded she missed the deadline and instead challenged the EEOC’s decision to dismiss her administrative charge; the Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal as untimely.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lee’s Title VII suit was timely under the 90-day right-to-sue rule | Lee did not dispute missing the 90-day window in district court but argued on appeal the EEOC unlawfully dismissed her charge | District court argued suit was filed after the 90-day period following receipt of the EEOC letter and thus untimely | Court held suit was untimely; affirmed dismissal |
| Whether the EEOC’s dismissal decision provides a basis to revive untimely suit | Lee contended the EEOC acted unlawfully in dismissing her administrative charge | Defendants relied on procedural timeliness, not EEOC rationale | Court rejected disagreement with EEOC as a ground to avoid the statutory filing deadline |
| Whether district court erred by sua sponte dismissing without giving opportunity to respond | Lee could have argued for tolling or excusable neglect | Court asserted generally courts should permit response before sua sponte dismissal | Lee conceded untimeliness on appeal, so any error was harmless; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether individuals can be sued under Title VII | Lee sued individual district employees | Defendants noted Title VII liability attaches to employer (district), not individuals | Court reiterated that individuals are not proper Title VII defendants |
Key Cases Cited
- Passananti v. Cook Cnty., 689 F.3d 655 (7th Cir. 2012) (Title VII defendant must be the employer, not individual employees)
- Thanongsinh v. Bd. of Educ., 462 F.3d 762 (7th Cir. 2006) (same principle regarding Title VII defendants)
- DeTata v. Rollprint Packaging Prods. Inc., 632 F.3d 962 (7th Cir. 2011) (explains risk of dismissal when Title VII complaint is not filed within 90 days of right-to-sue letter)
- Salas v. Wis. Dep’t of Corr., 493 F.3d 913 (7th Cir. 2007) (statute of limitations is an affirmative defense, not jurisdictional)
- Dawson v. Newman, 419 F.3d 656 (7th Cir. 2005) (district courts should ordinarily give plaintiffs opportunity to respond before sua sponte dismissal)
- Stewart Title Guar. Co. v. Cadle Co., 74 F.3d 835 (7th Cir. 1996) (same on sua sponte dismissal procedure)