555 F. App'x 600
7th Cir.2014Background
- Fugate, age 49, worked at Dollar General New Carlisle, Indiana, rising to store manager in 2004; she quit after 4.5 years of management.
- Neely became Fugate’s district manager in mid-2006 and authored 2006 and 2007 reviews; 2006 rating lowered, 2007 remained standard but with a small raise.
- Neely made age-related or age-stereotyping remarks toward Fugate and Wind (in her sixties); Neely also made negative, sometimes demeaning comments about aging and capabilities.
- Neely repeatedly criticized store cleanliness and organization, conducted frequent inspections, and issued a disciplinary note in April 2008; subsequent actions included coercive or punitive behaviors toward Fugate and Wind.
- Fugate resigned in November 2008 after ongoing criticisms; she filed an EEOC charge through South Bend Human Rights Commission in May 2009, just before the 180-day deadline, with the charge ultimately being pursued in federal court.
- Dollar General moved for summary judgment two years later arguing untimeliness; district court upheld on timeliness and did not address merits; appellate court ultimately affirmed on constructive-discharge grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Fugate’s EEOC charge was timely filed | Fugate contends the May 21, 2009, telephone filing should be timely under 29 C.F.R. § 1626.7(b)(3) and equitable tolling. | Dollar General argues the charge was untimely; timing defense was not raised earlier and the record supports untimeliness. | The court does not decide timeliness on the merits; upheld affirming on alternative ground that conduct did not show constructive discharge. |
| Whether Neely’s conduct constituted a constructive discharge | Fugate argues hostile, age-based criticisms and false photographs show intolerable working conditions forcing resignation. | Dollar General contends conditions were unpleasant but not extreme enough for a constructive discharge. | Working conditions were unpleasant but not sufficiently intolerable to constitute a constructive discharge. |
| Whether equitable tolling or waiver bars summary judgment on timeliness | Agency conduct may have lulled Fugate into believing filing requirements were satisfied. | Equitable tolling not established; charge filing not clearly timely; waiver not shown. | Court adopts an outcome on the constructively discharged holding and need not resolve tolling/waiver; timeliness defense preserved. |
| Whether the ADEA hostile-environment claim provides damages here | Fugate raised hostile-environment theory under ADEA. | ADEA damages do not include compensatory damages for emotional distress; hostile-environment remedy not available as asserted. | Even assuming a hostile-environment claim, no damages are available beyond lost wages; claim treated as constructive-discharge. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tradesman Int’l, Inc. v. Black, 724 F.3d 1004 (7th Cir. 2013) (proper standard for reviewing summary judgment on evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party)
- Fed. Express Corp. v. Holowecki, 552 U.S. 389 (U.S. 2008) (filing deemed a charge must reasonably be construed as a request for agency action to protect rights)
- Prince v. Stewart, 580 F.3d 571 (7th Cir. 2009) (equitable tolling when agency representation lulled plaintiff into thinking no further filing needed)
- Early v. Bankers Life & Cas. Co., 959 F.2d 75 (7th Cir. 1992) (equitable tolling when EEOC told plaintiff paperwork completed but actually not)
- Downes v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 41 F.3d 1132 (7th Cir. 1994) (EEOC inaction should not bar an ADEA suit for time limits)