Potts v. Marley Engineered Products
4:23-cv-04875
D.S.C.Apr 14, 2025Background
- Daniel Thadd Potts, Jr., proceeding pro se, sued Marley Engineered Products and SPX Technologies alleging employment discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
- Before suing under the ADA, plaintiffs must file a charge with the EEOC and bring suit within 90 days of receiving a right-to-sue letter.
- Potts filed his complaint against Defendants more than 90 days after receiving his EEOC right-to-sue letter.
- Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing the complaint was untimely and SPX claims were unexhausted.
- Potts argued for equitable tolling due to difficulty finding a lawyer, personal hardships, and misunderstanding about the filing deadline.
- The Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal; the District Court adopted this recommendation, dismissing all claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Plaintiff’s complaint was timely filed after EEOC right-to-sue letter | Believed filing date should be based on mailing date, and was unaware of precise requirements | Filing was untimely—complaint was filed more than 90 days after receipt of right-to-sue letter | Complaint untimely; dismissal granted |
| Whether equitable tolling should apply to excuse late filing | Sought lawyers diligently, faced personal hardships due to disability, misunderstood filing rules | Equitable tolling not justified by pro se status, lack of understanding, or efforts to find counsel | Equitable tolling not warranted |
| Whether pro se status or lack of counsel excuses failure to meet deadline | Unfamiliarity with process and lack of representation should excuse deadline miss | Pro se litigants are subject to same deadlines as others | Pro se status does not justify tolling or excuse |
| Whether claims against SPX Technologies were administratively exhausted | Not addressed by Plaintiff | Not exhausted; Plaintiff failed to follow procedures | Not decided—the untimeliness was dispositive |
Key Cases Cited
- Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (review standard for magistrate judge recommendations)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard on motions to dismiss)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for complaint)
- Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408 (equitable tolling standard: diligence and extraordinary circumstances)
- Baldwin Cnty. Welcome Ctr. v. Brown, 466 U.S. 147 (procedural requirements strictly enforced even for pro se litigants)
- Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93 (pro se litigants are subject to the same deadlines as represented litigants)