Facts
- Lee Williams, a former employee of Tech Mahindra (Americas) Inc. (TMA), alleges he was terminated due to discriminatory practices against non-South Asians. [lines="32-34"]
- In August 2018, another former employee, Roderick Grant, initiated a putative class action against TMA with similar claims. [lines="38-39"]
- Williams filed his own putative class action on April 21, 2020, approximately four years and eight months after his employment ended, alleging disparate treatment based on race. [lines="56-61"]
- TMA moved to dismiss Williams's complaint, claiming it was filed beyond the four-year statute of limitations. [lines="64-66"]
- The District Court held that American Pipe tolling was unavailable and dismissed the case without evaluating the applicability of wrong-forum tolling. [lines="73-76"]
Issues
- Whether a motion for leave to file an amended complaint to add a plaintiff, accompanied by a proposed amended complaint, qualifies as a “filing” sufficient for wrong-forum tolling. [lines="93-95"]
- Whether wrong-forum tolling can apply even if a motion to amend is denied. [lines="95"]
Holdings
- The court held that a proposed amended complaint does constitute a “filing” for the purposes of wrong-forum tolling, even if the motion is ultimately denied. [lines="96"]
- Wrong-forum tolling is available because Williams timely sought to assert his claims within the statute of limitations through his attempt to join the existing action. [lines="238-240"]
OPINION
Case Information
*1 Before D YK , R EYNA , and C HEN , Circuit Judges . P ER C URIAM .
O R D E R
In response to this court’s July 2, 2024 order directing the parties to address this court’s jurisdiction, Quito I. Ne- hemiah moves to transfer the case to district court and the Director of the Office of Personnel Management agrees that transfer is appropriate.
Case: 24-1575 Document: 34 Page: 2 Filed: 09/17/2024
2 NEHEMIAH v. OPM
Mr. Nehemiah appealed his negative suitability deci- sion from the Office of Personnel Management to the Merit Systems Protection Board, asserting, among other things, discrimination based on race and gender. In his filings with this court, Mr. Nehemiah continues to seek review of his discrimination claims.
Federal district courts, not this court, have jurisdiction over “[c]ases of discrimination subject to the provisions of [5 U.S.C. §] 7702,” § 7703(b)(2), which involve an allegation of an action appealable to the Board and an allegation that a basis for the action was covered discrimination, § 7702(a). Perry v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd. , 582 U.S. 420, 437 (2017). Here, Mr. Nehemiah brought a mixed case before the Board and he seeks judicial review of his discrimination claims such that his case belongs in district court. We agree with the Director that transfer to the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico, where it ap- pears Mr. Nehemiah would have worked but for the alleged unlawful employment practice, is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1631. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3).
Upon consideration thereof, I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
The motion to transfer is granted to the extent that this matter and all case filings are transferred to the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico pursu- ant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631.
F OR THE C OURT September 17, 2024 Date