Tiberio v. Allergy Asthma Immunology of Rochester, 664 F.3d 35

Tiberio, an RN-Infusion Nurse, was terminated from AAIR in May 2010 for alleged improper access and prescription orders.
She filed a disability discrimination charge with NYSDHR and the EEOC, which issued a right-to-sue letter on November 24, 2010.
The right-to-sue letter was mailed to Tiberio and copies were sent to AAIR and to her counsel.
Tiberio filed suit in district court on February 28, 2011, 96 days after the letter was issued.
The district court held the ADA claim untimely under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) 90-day limit and dismissed it.
The court’s ruling centers on when the 90-day period begins to run—receipt by claimant or by counsel.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
When does the 90-day period begin for ADA claims?	Tiberio argues receipt by counsel should control the clock.	AAIR argues the clock starts only upon claimant’s receipt.	Clock begins on receipt by claimant or counsel, whichever earlier.

Ringgold v. Nat’l Maint. Corp., 796 F.2d 769 (5th Cir. 1986) (notice timing for limitations)
Josiah-Faeduwor v. Communications Satellite Corp., 785 F.2d 344 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (concerning notice to counsel)
Jones v. Madison Serv. Corp., 744 F.2d 1309 (7th Cir. 1984) (notice to counsel applies similarly)
Irwin v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 498 U.S. 89 (U.S. 1990) (notice to attorney constitutes notice to client)
Sherlock v. Montefiore Med. Ctr., 84 F.3d 522 (2d Cir. 1996) (presumptions about mailing and receipt)
Baldwin Cnty. Welcome Ctr. v. Brown, 466 U.S. 147 (1984) (mailing presumptions for notices)