Maggio v. Wisconsin Avenue Psychiatric Center, Inc.
417 App. D.C. 320
| D.C. Cir. | 2015Background
- Maggio filed an EEOC charge on May 11, 2012 alleging December 2011 sex discrimination and listed a Washington, D.C. Rodman Street address on EEOC Form 5, though by then he had moved to South Carolina and did not inform the EEOC of the change.
- The EEOC mailed a right-to-sue notice to the Rodman Street address on November 26, 2012; Maggio did not receive it and did not forward a change-of-address to the EEOC.
- Maggio’s counsel contacted the EEOC in June 2013, obtained the right-to-sue notice, and Maggio filed suit on June 21, 2013 — more than ninety days after the EEOC mailed the notice.
- The district court dismissed Maggio’s Title VII claim as time-barred under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1); the majority of the circuit panel affirmed, refusing to apply equitable tolling where the plaintiff failed to notify the EEOC of an address change.
- The court majority relied on precedent from multiple circuits holding that failure to receive a right-to-sue notice due to a plaintiff’s incorrect or outdated address ordinarily precludes equitable tolling.
- Judge Rogers dissented, arguing Maggio reasonably directed the EEOC to send correspondence “c/o” his attorney, relied on the EEOC and the local worksharing office, pursued his rights diligently, and thus was entitled to equitable tolling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 2000e-5(f)(1)’s 90‑day filing period may be equitably tolled when plaintiff did not receive the right‑to‑sue notice because he failed to update his address | Maggio: Equitable tolling applies because he reasonably expected EEOC to send the notice to his attorney (listed "c/o"), and he pursued his rights diligently | Employer: Statute bars late suits; plaintiff’s failure to update his address caused nonreceipt and excuses are not allowed | Majority: No tolling; plaintiff’s failure to notify EEOC of address change bars tolling; claim time‑barred |
| Whether listing counsel "c/o" on EEOC form or providing counsel’s contact should obligate EEOC to send notice to counsel | Maggio: "c/o" and counsel contact info put EEOC on notice to send correspondence to counsel | Employer: No obligation to send notice to counsel absent explicit instruction; plaintiff remained responsible for address accuracy | Majority: Not enough — absent clear, documented instruction or EEOC practice, plaintiff’s omission controls |
| Whether the D.C. Office of Human Rights’ intake info (and worksharing agreement) imputes notice of counsel to the EEOC | Maggio: OHR intake showed counsel; under the worksharing agency the EEOC should be charged with that knowledge | Employer: Worksharing does not relieve charging party of duty to update EEOC address directly | Majority: Declined to rely on agency imputation; plaintiff responsible for updating EEOC |
| Whether precedent supports tolling when nonreceipt results from plaintiff’s failure to update address | Maggio: Cites cases allowing tolling where plaintiff reasonably relied on EEOC to notify counsel | Employer: Circuit precedent compiles many decisions denying tolling in similar facts | Majority: Follows circuits denying tolling for failure to update address; affirms dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Baldwin Cnty. Welcome Ctr. v. Brown, 466 U.S. 147 (notice presumptively received a few days after mailing; 90‑day rule applies)
- Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (2010) (two‑part test for equitable tolling: diligence and extraordinary circumstances)
- Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 455 U.S. 385 (reasonable reliance on EEOC procedures may affect timeliness analysis)
- Dyson v. District of Columbia, 710 F.3d 415 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (refused equitable tolling where plaintiff failed to follow EEOC instructions and delayed)
- Abraham v. Woods Hole Oceanographic Inst., 553 F.3d 114 (1st Cir. 2009) (denying tolling when plaintiff failed to update address)
- St. Louis v. Alverno Coll., 744 F.2d 1314 (7th Cir. 1984) (plaintiff’s failure to receive notice through own fault precludes tolling)
- Nelmida v. Shelly Eurocars, Inc., 112 F.3d 380 (9th Cir. 1997) (refusing tolling where plaintiff failed to inform agency of address change)
- 3M Co. v. Browner, 17 F.3d 1453 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (interpretive approach to whether equitable doctrines apply to statutory limitations)