Jose Caycho Melgar v. T.B. Butler Publishing Compa
931 F.3d 375
5th Cir.2019Background
- Caycho worked for T.B.B. Printing from Sept. 2011 to Dec. 2013 and alleged discrimination based on age, disability, and national origin.
- He completed an intake questionnaire with the Texas Workforce Commission (TWC) (emailed June 30, 2014) which checked retaliation and national-origin discrimination; TWC treated it as untimely for TWC but forwarded it to the EEOC.
- The EEOC acknowledged receipt of his correspondence in Sept. 2014, scheduled an interview process, and later (June–July 2015) sought a signed EEOC Form 5 from Caycho; the EEOC told the employer the delay in serving the charge was not the charging party’s fault.
- Caycho signed the EEOC Form 5 on Dec. 15, 2015; the EEOC issued a Dismissal and Notice of Rights on Jan. 26, 2016; Caycho sued in federal court on Apr. 20, 2016.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment on exhaustion/timeliness grounds (failure to file an EEOC charge within 300 days); district court granted summary judgment and denied equitable tolling; Caycho appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the TWC intake questionnaire constituted a timely EEOC charge | The TWC intake form should be treated as an EEOC charge and thus was timely (within 300 days) | The intake questionnaire lacked the clear, concise factual statement required and TWC expressly declined to draft a charge, so it was not a charge | Intake questionnaire did not suffice as an EEOC charge; filing was untimely |
| Whether equitable tolling excuses the untimely EEOC filing | Tolling should apply due to administrative delay, alleged EEOC/TWC misinformation, and possible concealment/futility | No basis for tolling: plaintiff was responsible for portion of delay and did not meet tolling standards | Court rejected tolling; even allowing some tolling, plaintiff remained untimely |
| Whether defendants forfeited the failure-to-exhaust defense | Defendants failed to timely raise the defense and thus forfeited it | Defendant raised the defense in their original answer after the court-ordered response | Defense not forfeited; district court properly considered it |
Key Cases Cited
- Price v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., 687 F.2d 74 (5th Cir.) (administrative charge must contain the factual statement; pro se complainant may reasonably rely on EEOC procedures)
- Pacheco v. Mineta, 448 F.3d 783 (5th Cir. 2006) (scope of Title VII review includes scope of EEOC investigation reasonably expected to grow out of the charge)
- Manning v. Chevron Chemical Co., 332 F.3d 874 (5th Cir. 2003) (equitable tolling/estoppel doctrines may apply to EEOC filing deadlines and grounds for tolling)
- Teemac v. Henderson, 298 F.3d 452 (5th Cir. 2002) (standard of review and circumstances warranting equitable tolling)
- McKinney v. Irving Indep. Sch. Dist., 309 F.3d 308 (5th Cir.) (Rule 12(b)(6) motion is not a responsive pleading for purposes of waiver analysis)
- McKee v. McDonnell Douglas Tech. Serv., 700 F.2d 260 (5th Cir.) (complainant should not be prejudiced by EEOC’s failure to fulfill its duties)
- Hood v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 166 F.3d 231 (5th Cir.) (recognizes that other rare circumstances may warrant equitable tolling)
Conclusion: The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court—Caycho failed to file a timely EEOC charge, the TWC intake did not suffice as a charge, and equitable tolling did not render the December 2015 EEOC Form 5 timely.