Harris v. Boyd Tunica, Inc., 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 25860

Harris, plaintiff-appellant, alleges religion-based discrimination under Title VII after termination by Boyd Tunica, Inc.
EEOC mailed a right-to-sue notice on December 11, 2008, stating a 90-day filing deadline.
Harris hired attorney James Bell; a paralegal allegedly marked the 90-day deadline and failed to count days correctly.
The paralegal allegedly dated the deadline as April 10, 2009, instead of March 16, 2009, due to a clerical error.
Harris filed the complaint on April 8, 2009, outside the 90-day period, and the district court dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6).
The Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding equitable tolling does not apply to ordinary attorney negligence and the district court did not abuse its discretion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether equitable tolling applies to attorney negligence to toll the 90-day period.	Harris argues tolling should apply due to paralegal clerical error.	Tunica contends tolling cannot excuse attorney/negligence.	No; tolling not available for routine attorney negligence.
Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying tolling and granting dismissal.	District court misapplied tolling standards.	Discretion properly exercised against tolling.	District court did not abuse discretion; affirmed dismissal.

Irwin v. Dept. of Veterans Affairs, 498 U.S. 89 (1990) (agency-tied tolling; attorney acts bind client; excusable neglect not tolled)
Teemac v. Henderson, 298 F.3d 452 (5th Cir. 2002) (equitable tolling applies in rare, exceptional circumstances)
Crown, Cork & Seal Co., Inc. v. Parker, 462 U.S. 345 (1983) (statutory filing periods tollable; not jurisdictional)
Espinoza v. Mo. Pac. R.R. Co., 754 F.2d 1247 (5th Cir. 1985) (90-day-like periods treated as tollable; context for tolling analysis)
Gonzalez v. Kay, 577 F.3d 600 (5th Cir. 2009) (standard for reviewing tolling and dismissal decisions)