424 F. App'x 42
2d Cir.2011Background
- Tompkins, pro se, sued AlliedBarton for Title VII and EPA discrimination in SDNY.
- District court granted AlliedBarton's summary judgment motion on the Title VII and EPA claims.
- The court conducted de novo review to determine there were no genuine issues of material fact.
- Tompkins moved to amend to add an ADA claim; the district court denied as futile due to untimeliness under ADA filing deadlines.
- On appeal, Tompkins also raises a retaliation claim against her supervisor; the court notes generally new issues on appeal are not reviewed.
- The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment for the reasons given in the magistrate judge's report.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment on Title VII and EPA was proper | Tompkins contends there are triable facts precluding judgment | AlliedBarton asserts no genuine issues of material fact and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law | District court properly granted summary judgment; affirmed |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying leave to amend to add an ADA claim | ADA claim should be added; not untimely for equitable reasons | ADA claim untimely; amendment would be futile | Denial of leave to amend affirmed; amendment would have been futile due to timeliness |
| Whether the retaliation claim raised on appeal is reviewable | Retaliation claim was raised on appeal for consideration | New issues on appeal are generally not reviewed | Court declines to consider the retaliation claim raised for the first time on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Wolpoff & Abramson, L.L.P., 321 F.3d 292 (2d Cir. 2003) (de novo review of summary judgment standard)
- Zerilli-Edelglass v. NYC Transit Off., 333 F.3d 74 (2d Cir. 2003) (equitable tolling when appropriate)
- Chavis v. Chappius, 618 F.3d 162 (2d Cir. 2010) (abuse of discretion in denying amendment)
- Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 455 U.S. 385 (U.S. 1982) (filing deadlines not jurisdictional; tolling possible)
- Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106 (U.S. 1976) (limits on raising new issues on appeal)
- Greene v. United States, 13 F.3d 577 (2d Cir. 1994) (exceptional circumstances for reviewing new issues)