Phillips v. Leggett & Platt, Inc.
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 19394
| 5th Cir. | 2011Background
- Leggett announced a June 2007 consolidation: Verona plant closed, Houlka plant remained open; Phillips, Verona accounts-payable clerk for 24 years, was laid off effective July 30, 2007; she was told no Verona-to-Houlka transfer positions were available.
- Phillips was 66 at termination and suspected age bias in not assigning the Houlka accounts-payable role to her successor, Kathy Gamble, who was younger and less experienced.
- Approximately four days after termination, Phillips was recalled to Houlka on a temporary basis with no definite end date, performing similar duties.
- Phillips was eventually terminated from Houlka on January 2, 2008; Kathy Gamble left, and Amy Watkins was hired as permanent accounts-payable clerk at Houlka.
- Phillips filed an EEOC charge on March 5, 2008 (within 180 days of some actions) and suit followed on December 16, 2008; the jury found discriminatory termination, but the district court held the claim timely under a theory of recall/transfer and possible tolling.
- The Fifth Circuit ultimately held the ADEA claim was time-barred, reversing the district court and remanding for judgment for Leggett.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When did the 180-day period begin for an ADEA claim here? | Phillips argued recall created a continuing action tolling period. | Leggett argued final termination date controlled; recall did not restart period. | Limitations began at unequivocal termination notice, time-barred. |
| Did temporary recall toll the limitations period? | Recall created ongoing employment and tolled filing. | Recall did not alter the original termination notice & did not toll. | No tolling; tolling not supported by record. |
| Should equitable tolling apply due to alleged inducement by Leggett? | Leggett’s temporary recall misled Phillips about rights to sue. | No evidence of misleading conduct sufficient for tolling. | District court abused discretion; no tolling. |
| Is Phillips' claim time-barred given the final adverse action occurred January 2, 2008? | N/A to issue; discusses timing. | Timing tied to notice of termination and recall. | Claim time-barred. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ricks v. Delaware State College, 449 U.S. 250 (U.S. 1981) (notice and termination timing start limitations; not mere continuities)
- Clark v. Resistoflex Co., 854 F.2d 762 (5th Cir. 1988) (limits begin at notice of termination; objective standard)
- Chardon v. Fernandez, 454 U.S. 6 (U.S. 1981) (limits run from discriminatory act, not consequences)
- Amburgey v. Corhart Refractories Corp., 936 F.2d 805 (5th Cir. 1991) (tolling where employer’s conduct suggested ongoing consideration for employment)
- McGregor v. La. State Univ. Bd. of Supervisors, 3 F.3d 850 (5th Cir. 1993) (distinguishes tolling from estoppel; burden on plaintiff to show tolling facts)
- Coke v. General Adjustment Bureau, Inc., 616 F.2d 785 (5th Cir. 1980) (discussion of likelihood of future reinstatement and tolling implications)
- Granger v. Aaron's, Inc., 636 F.3d 708 (5th Cir. 2011) (equitable tolling is narrow and depends on plaintiff showing factors like concealment or mislead)