Granger v. Aaron's, Inc.
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 5995
| 5th Cir. | 2011Background
- Granger and Descant worked for Aaron's in Mansura, Louisiana, and alleged supervisor sexual harassment leading to resignations in 2007.
- They had a 300-day time limit to file an administrative discrimination charge after resignations.
- Their attorney mailed complaints to OFCCP, not EEOC, because Aaron's is not a federal contractor and OFCCP processed claims.
- OFCCP staff repeatedly told counsel they were investigating, with no notice of wrong filing, delaying timely filing.
- OTCCP closed the claims in September 2008 and transferred them to EEOC, which treated them as timely and issued right-to-sue letters.
- Granger and Descant filed suit in August 2009, removed to federal court, with Aaron's moving to dismiss arguing untimely EEOC filing; district court tolling held equitable tolling applied; interlocutory appeal granted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the MOU permits dual filing given OFCCP lack of jurisdiction. | Granger/Descant rely on MOU to treat OFCCP filing as dual-filed with EEOC. | OFCCP jurisdiction was absent; claims were not dual-filed. | Not reached; court affirms tolling, deferring MOU interpretation. |
| Whether equitable tolling was proper given attorney error and government delay. | Tolling justified due to OFCCP misprocessing and attorney diligence. | Tolling improper due to attorney error and potential prejudice to Aaron's. | Tolling affirmed under abuse-of-discretion review; rare, due-diligence circumstances supported tolling. |
| Standard of review for evaluating equitable tolling in this context. | Abuse-of-discretion review appropriate per this circuit's precedent. | De novo review may apply in some contexts. | Abuse-of-discretion review governs; district court's factual determinations favored tolling. |
Key Cases Cited
- Barrs v. Sullivan, 906 F.2d 120 (5th Cir.1990) (equitable tolling may be warranted when equities require it; not plain abuse of discretion)
- Teemac v. Henderson, 298 F.3d 452 (5th Cir.2002) (establishes standard of review for tolling decisions; fact-specific and discretionary)
- Perez v. Quarterman, 456 F.3d 511 (5th Cir.2006) (courts consider due diligence and action taken before deadline in tolling)
- Wilson v. Sec'y, Dept. of Veterans Affairs, 65 F.3d 402 (5th Cir.1995) (tolling considerations when plaintiff or counsel pursue rights diligently)
- Ramirez v. City of San Antonio, 312 F.3d 178 (5th Cir.2002) (discusses equitable tolling; cited for context on tolling standards)
- Harris v. Boyd Tunica, Inc., 628 F.3d 237 (5th Cir.2010) (recent precedent applying abuse-of-discretion standard for tolling)
- Fisher v. Johnson, 174 F.3d 710 (5th Cir.1999) (illustrates factors in evaluating tolling after delay)
- Irwin v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs, 498 U.S. 89 (1990) (Supreme Court on tolling as a non-jurisdictional prerequisite)
- Prieto v. Quarterman, 456 F.3d 511 (5th Cir.2006) (considers due diligence and timely pursuit of rights)