306 P.3d 524
N.M. Ct. App.2013Background
- Slusser worked for Vantage Builders from 2002 to February 16, 2006 as a manager in the accounting department.
- In November 2005 her performance review indicated strengths with some attitude-related deficiencies; she was terminated with a letter stating her role was eliminated due to department restructuring.
- She was 41 at termination.
- During depositions in a prior federal FLSA suit, it was revealed a younger employee, Trahan, took over some of Slusser's duties after termination.
- Slusser asserted in an October 2007 NMHRA/EEOC action that she was discriminated against due to age and that a younger person replaced her.
- The district court granted summary judgment, holding the claim time-barred and not tollable; Slusser appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When the limitations period begins for age discrimination claims | Slusser argues discovery rule should delay accrual until she learned of replacement by a younger person. | Vantage argues accrual occurs at the adverse action, the termination date. | Accrual began at termination; discovery rule not applicable. |
| Equitable tolling of the statute of limitations | Slusser contends tolling should apply due to concealment of discriminatory intent. | Vantage contends no tolling facts shown; no extraordinary circumstance or due diligence shown. | Equitable tolling does not apply; insufficient diligent pursuit facts. |
| Equitable estoppel | Slusser argues defendant’s inconsistent termination explanations amount to concealment delaying suit. | Vantage contends inconsistent reasons do not amount to fraudulent concealment to toll the statute. | Equitable estoppel does not apply. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cada v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 920 F.2d 446 (7th Cir. 1990) (equitable tolling may not be used to bypass limitations when concealment is not shown)
- Sturniolo v. Sheaffer, Eaton, Inc., 15 F.3d 1023 (11th Cir. 1994) (tolling considerations discussed in discrimination cases)
- Rhodes v. Guiberson Oil Tools Div., 927 F.2d 876 (5th Cir. 1991) (early accrual date with possible tolling for misstatements)
- Meyer v. Riegel Prods. Corp., 720 F.2d 303 (3d Cir. 1983) (accrual from adverse act; discovery not required for start of period)
- Chapman v. Homco, Inc., 886 F.2d 756 (5th Cir. 1989) (accrual upon discharge, not discovery of discriminatory intent)
- Rotella v. Wood, 528 U.S. 549 (U.S. 2000) (equitable tolling considerations when information is difficult to obtain)