Panicker v. Compass Group U.S.A. Inc., 712 F. App'x 784

Background

Solomon Panicker filed an EEOC charge alleging race/national-origin discrimination by Compass Group and signed the EEOC Charge form listing the street address as "11686 S.W. 3rd" (incorrect).
The EEOC mailed a right-to-sue letter on February 12, 2014 to the address on file (the incorrect address), which Panicker alleges he never received.
On June 4, 2014 the EEOC mailed a separate letter to Panicker’s correct address notifying him his file was reassigned; Panicker noted on that letter that the matter had been dismissed in February.
Panicker did not seek the EEOC case file until July–September 2015; he received a copy of the February 2014 right-to-sue letter on September 16, 2015 and filed suit five days later.
Compass moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) as untimely and opposed equitable tolling; the district court dismissed the Title VII claim as untimely and denied Rule 59 motions to reconsider.
The Tenth Circuit affirmed, holding Panicker was at fault for providing the incorrect address on the EEOC charge and therefore not entitled to equitable tolling of the 90-day filing period.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Panicker’s Title VII suit was timely under the 90-day rule after EEOC dismissal	Panicker argued his suit was timely because he only learned of the right-to-sue when he obtained the file in Sept. 2015 (filed 5 days later)	Compass argued the 90-day clock began when EEOC mailed the right-to-sue to the address on file in Feb. 2014 and Panicker’s suit was untimely	Held untimely: filing occurred well after expiration of 90 days from the EEOC notice date
Whether Panicker is entitled to equitable tolling because he did not receive the right-to-sue letter	Panicker contended he never received the notice and the June 4, 2014 reassignment letter showed he did not know his case was dismissed	Compass argued Panicker provided the EEOC an incorrect address on his signed charge and therefore his nonreceipt was his fault; no equitable tolling	Held no equitable tolling: plaintiff’s provision of incorrect address was his fault and does not qualify for equitable tolling
Whether the June 4, 2014 reassignment letter nullified or voided the February 12 right-to-sue notice	Panicker argued the reassignment letter cancelled or voided the right-to-sue notice	Compass maintained the reassignment letter did not affect the right-to-sue notice or tolling calculation	Held waived on appeal (no legal authority offered) and in any event immaterial because equitable tolling not warranted
Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying reconsideration of Rule 59 motions	Panicker argued lack of EEOC contact justified tolling and reconsideration	Compass argued plaintiff lacked diligence and no grounds for reconsideration	Held no abuse of discretion: even if timing of Panicker's knowledge varied, his own fault in providing wrong address foreclosed tolling

Key Cases Cited

Braxton v. Zavaras, 614 F.3d 1156 (10th Cir. 2010) (standard of review for 12(b)(6) dismissal and pro se liberal construction)
Million v. Frank, 47 F.3d 385 (10th Cir. 1995) (90-day rule is a condition precedent subject to equitable tolling)
Lozano v. Ashcroft, 258 F.3d 1160 (10th Cir. 2001) (presumption of receipt dates for mailed EEOC right-to-sue letters)
Kerr v. McDonald’s Corp., 427 F.3d 947 (11th Cir. 2005) (no tolling when plaintiff’s fault explains nonreceipt of notice)
Biester v. Midwest Health Servs., 77 F.3d 1264 (10th Cir. 1996) (equitable tolling limited to active deception or extraordinary prevention)
Maggio v. Wisconsin Avenue Psychiatric Ctr., 795 F.3d 57 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (no tolling where plaintiff provided outdated address and never updated EEOC)
Nelmida v. Shelly Eurocars, 112 F.3d 380 (9th Cir. 1997) (limitations period ran when delivery to address of record was attempted)
Barnes v. United States, 776 F.3d 1134 (10th Cir. 2015) (diligence is an element of equitable tolling)