771 F.3d 1014
7th Cir.2014Background
- Plaintiff is a Chicago professional school-bus driver who sought higher-paying movie/TV courtesy-van work belonging to the Movie/Trade Show Division of Teamsters Local 727.
- Local 727 required submission of a "Referral—Movie" application for such jobs; plaintiff submitted one in March 2010, paid dues, became a member, but received no referrals in 4.5 years.
- Plaintiff repeatedly requested referrals; the union business agent told her to stop calling and that the union would call her, and she alleges the union never included her résumé or referred any woman for Division jobs.
- Plaintiff filed an EEOC charge in October 2011 (timely within the 300-day window via the Illinois agency) and sued under Title VII in December 2013 after receiving a right-to-sue letter.
- The district judge dismissed the complaint with prejudice at the pleading stage, accepting Local 727's statute-of-limitations defense and ruling that "failure to refer" is not actionable under Title VII; the Seventh Circuit reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failures to refer by a union are actionable discrimination under Title VII | Stuart: union's repeated failure to refer her (despite qualifications and requests) is discriminatory and actionable | Local 727: "failure to refer" is not the same as a refusal to hire and thus not actionable; statute of limitations bars claims outside 300-day window | Court: Failure to refer is actionable under §2000e-2(c)(2); plaintiff alleged timely discriminatory acts within 300 days, so dismissal was improper |
| Whether plaintiff's pleading conceded untimeliness by recounting older discrimination | Stuart: allegations of prior discrimination do not bar claims about discrete acts occurring within the limitations period | Local 727: detailed historical allegations show plaintiff knew earlier, so claims are time-barred | Court: A plaintiff need not negate an affirmative defense in the complaint; alleging earlier acts does not eliminate discrete timely claims |
| Whether equitable estoppel precludes defendant from asserting the limitations defense | Stuart: union agent's instruction not to call and promise to notify tolled the limitations period by preventing timely filing | Local 727: no tolling; plaintiff could have filed earlier | Court: Estoppel is a proper equitable theory here; agent's conduct could have prevented timely filing and should not be dismissed at pleading stage |
| Whether dismissal with prejudice at pleading stage was appropriate | Stuart: premature and unfair; no discovery or motions for judgment were held | Local 727: sought dismissal on statute defense in answer | Court: Dismissal with prejudice was improper; case remanded and reassigned to a different district judge |
Key Cases Cited
- Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635 (plaintiff need not negate affirmative defenses in complaint)
- National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (distinguishing timely discrete acts from related earlier acts)
- Lewis v. City of Chicago, 560 U.S. 205 (rejection of rule barring later discrete claims because of earlier acts)
- EEOC v. Metal Service Co., 892 F.2d 341 (failure to apply formally does not bar claim where plaintiff reasonably conveyed interest)
- Mills v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, 634 F.2d 282 (union refused to refer a qualified woman; analogous facts)
- Loyd v. Phillips Bros., Inc., 25 F.3d 518 (failure-to-apply doctrine preserved Title VII claims)
- Babrocky v. Jewel Food Co., 773 F.2d 857 (application-of-failure-to-apply principles in hiring discrimination)