Case Information
*1 ‐ ‐ cv Corp. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
At term Appeals Second Circuit, held Thurgood Marshall Courthouse, Foley Square, York, nd November, two thousand sixteen.
PRESENT: AMALYA KEARSE,
RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,
CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY,
Circuit Judges ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ELSA FREDERICK, ‐ Appellant , No. ‐ cv
JETBLUE AIRWAYS CORPORATION,
Defendant Appellee. ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ FOR PLAINTIFF APPELLANT: Chauncey D. Henry, Henry Group, Baldwin, NY. DEFENDANT APPELLEE: Matthew A. Steinberg, Akerman LLP, York, NY.
Appeal from judgment of the District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Dora Irizarry, Chief Judge ).
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, DECREED judgment District Court appellant Elsa Frederick (“Frederick”) appeals from District Court Eastern District New York (Irizarry, C.J.) entered April 1, 2016, principally dismissing her claims against Corporation (“JetBlue”) as untimely. alleged was victim race and age discrimination in violation Title VII Civil Rights Act 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (“Title VII”), Age Discrimination in Employment Act, U.S.C. § et seq. (“ADEA”), York State Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. § 296(1)(a) (“NYSHRL”), and York Human Rights Law, N.Y.C. Code § 107(1)(a) (“NYCHRL”). On appeal, argues principally District Court erred her Title VII and ADEA as untimely and not subject tolling, and to claims. We assume parties’ familiarity facts record prior proceedings, we refer as necessary explain our decision affirm.
We agree District Title VII ADEA untimely complaint after following Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Sherlock Montefiore Med. Ctr., F.3d (2d Cir. 1996). also when it determined “extraordinary” warranting tolling. Zerilli Edelglass N.Y.C. Transit Auth., 80–81 *3 As an initial matter, that she satisfied first prong tolling test, namely, that she “acted reasonable diligence during time period she seeks tolled.” Id. at 80. Nor did she satisfy second prong, requiring “prove[] that circumstances are so extraordinary that doctrine should apply.” Id. 81. As Supreme recently “reaffirm[ed],” “the prong tolling test met where caused a litigant’s delay both extraordinary beyond its control.” Menominee Indian Tribe Wis. States, S. Ct. (2016). reject Frederick’s argument lack mailing date first dismissal notice caused reasonably misunderstand applied dismissal notice. The first dismissal notice, indisputably received, clearly “lawsuit must be within days . . receipt this notice.” App’x (emphasis added). In event, notice enclosed dated letter EEOC, thereby giving sufficient mailing date.
Furthermore, dismissed before trial, claims, state law prejudice. Kolari York–Presbyterian Hosp., *4 1 considered remaining arguments 2 they merit. For foregoing reasons, 3
4 COURT: Catherine O = Hagan Wolfe, Clerk