McCarrol Page v. Postmaster General and Chief Executive Oficer of the United States Postal Service
493 F. App'x 994
11th Cir.2012Background
- Page, an African-American man, sues USPS for race and disability discrimination under Title VII and the Rehabilitation Act.
- District court dismisses as time-barred, granting USPS’s renewed motion to dismiss for lack of evidence of receipt of the final agency decision.
- Page contends no certified mail service occurred; he asserts counsel representation and that USPS knew his last address.
- Page allegedly advised the EEOC of address changes and had communications (including a fax on April 27, 2011) requesting the final agency decision.
- The court did not hold an evidentiary hearing or convert the motion to summary judgment, and did not address Page’s counsel-related arguments.
- Court vacates dismissal and remands for an evidentiary hearing or record development to determine receipt and timing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness based on receipt of final agency decision | Page argues receipt on address and counsel; requests for final decision; is timely under 90-day rule. | Postal Service contends no evidence of receipt and timeliness bar remains. | Remand for evidentiary development; timeliness unresolved. |
| Need for evidentiary hearing to determine receipt and responsibility | District court should develop record regarding counsel’s requests and address changes. | Record already shows no receipt; no need for further fact-finding. | Vacate and remand to hold an evidentiary hearing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Stallworth v. Wells Fargo Armored Servs. Corp., 936 F.2d 522 (11th Cir. 1991) (addressed receipt and proper mailing of right-to-sue letter to counsel)
- Lewis v. Conners Steel Co., 673 F.2d 1240 (11th Cir. 1982) (burden to ensure receipt of notices; minimal responsibility)
- Chappell v. Goltsman, 186 F.2d 215 (5th Cir. 1950) (district court cannot resolve disputes of fact on Rule 12(b)(6))
- Lawrence v. Dunbar, 919 F.2d 1525 (11th Cir. 1990) (disputes of material fact preclude dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6))
- Lopez v. Target Corp., 676 F.3d 1230 (11th Cir. 2012) (standard for plausibility at motion to dismiss; context cited)