Olga J. Fox v. The Eaton Corporation

Supreme Ohio, Court of that court sua CELEBREZZE, Before BAILEY sponte jurisdic held that state lack courts JONES, BROWN and Judges. Circuit tion over Title VII actions. Court of Ohio reversed the BROWN, BAILEY Judge. Circuit decision of the lower court and dismissed appellant, Olga (Fox), The appeals J. Fox Fox’s action for lack of from a of the district court dis- Ohio Court decision was rendered missing her Title VII action based on al- 15, 1976. on December Fox v. Eaton leged sex discrimination. The district court 48 Ohio St.2d 358 N.E.2d 536 held, dismiss, that, on a motion to since Fox February On Fox filed this Title had failed to commence this action in feder- alleging VII action in federal district court ninety days receiving al court within her right-to-sue letter, essentially the same facts that had been the her action must be dis- untimely previous missed as basis of her filed. state action.2 plain- 1. It is unclear in this case not cannot and do not determine whether the from record alleged charge when the tiff filed a discrimination days within 180 act of discrimination alleged act occurred but her discrimi- of discrimination. That also when Fox filed charge nation issue will have to be the district The district the EEOC. determined judge complaint court on remand. took note of the fact that allege charge did not of a thereof, ninety-day EEOC or did not dismiss the date but If the was tolled limitation complaint Accordingly, we on this basis. of the Title VII action in the state claiming deception may toll this motion to dismiss See Cottrell filed a Eaton the action Newspaper Agency Corporation, not commenced that Fox had receiving right-to- ninety days of Trader v. Fiat Distrib within utors, Inc., 2000e- (D.Del.1979). U.S.C. sue letter as court, granting Ea- 5(f)(1). The district Motors Geromette General Cor motion, peri- concluded ton’s (6th 1979), poration, 609 F.2d 1200 Cir. juris- Title VII were established under ods late filing charge which deals with a of a not and therefore could dictional in nature with the the by employer EEOC. Conduct implied be tolled. The district reasonably employee .that which leads the to de subject periods were to even if the time lay pursuing certainly presents in his claim tolling proper would not be tolling, such justifiable the clearest and the most exam circumstances of this case. under the ple of a situation in which Title VII time periods should be tolled. See Smith v. II Lines, Ltd., American President 571 F.2d decision, the district court’s this Since 102, (2d note 12 at 109 Cir. But peri- that the Title VII time court has held courts have not hesitated to at least con jurisdictional in the sense that that ods “are sider and in some to apply circumstances phrase used in relation to statutes of is equitable tolling principles in contexts in equitable principles limitations and should employer’s which the conduct has not apply in circumstances which warrant their employee caused the delay pursuing to University v. of application.” Leake Cin- Chappell his claim. See Emco Machine cinnati, (6th 1979).3 605 F.2d 255 Cir. See Company, (5th Works 601 F.2d 1295 Cir. Corp., also Hart v. J. T. Baker Chemical 589 1979) (Title periods VII time tolled (3rd 1979); Laffey F.2d 829 Cir. v. North- employee when relied on statements of em Airlines, Inc., 185 U.S.App.D.C. west ployee agency of state complaint that (D.C.Cir. 1976); 475 Reeb her, EEOC had been filed for but see dis Atlanta, Inc., Opportunity v. Economic 516 sent at Hart v. J. T. Baker Chemical (5th 1975).4 F.2d 924 Cir. issue (time Corp., supra periods not tolled when presented appeal in this is whether the employee knew basic supporting facts dis justify application facts of this the case of charge crimination at the time of her termi equitable principles tolling. of nation); Smith v. American President Lines, Ltd., Cincinnati, supra, (tolling of University periods In Leake v. of time supra, rep appropriate simply employer this court held that affirmative because statute, employer post, required by resentations which cause failed to as notice employee delay filing VII); employees rights discrimina of under Title charges Page Industries, Inc., EEOC are sufficient v. U. 556 F.2d 346 S. applicable (5th denied, to toll the Title VII 1977), time Cir. cert.

Other courts which have (1978) (Title considered wheth period er the Title VII time filing for period filing complaint VII time for a civil may be tolled have indicated that misleading tolled on the basis of a letter courts, (E.D.Pa.1979). Dunlap this VII action was filed in 610 cites Good- City federal district court. man v. Products 425 F.2d 702 1970), authority proposition for the that Leake, however, clearly 3. This decision in Actually, this time limitation cannot be tolled. presaged by earlier decisions of this court statutory that lan- Goodman holds upon which were cited and relied therein. “may” ninety guage the action be filed directory days mandatory is and not but also cases, In each of these the court held that tolling prop- recognizes possibility under of equitable principles may tolling warrant of anything, equitable If this er circumstances. period filing the time’ for a discrimination period in the nature of a time is more statute charge with the EEOC. We believe that period filing the time for limitations than equally applicable rationale of these cases charge. discrimination commencing a civil action. Contra, Sears, Dunlap Co., Roebuck & Pipe issue. American EEOC); v. Economic class certification Reeb written Utah, Company v. (Title Construction Atlanta, supra VII Opportunity L.Ed.2d filing a discrimination S.Ct. McDonald, Airlines United supporting until facts discrim- charge tolled L.Ed.2d 423 apparent should have been or ination cases, (1977) underly . In each of these employee). categoriz- Without apparent purpose statute of ing circumstances defining various was satisfied tolling of the Title might warrant the re original action in that the defendant periods, we conclude such VII time ceived claim timely notice even in absence tolling appropriate, displayed diligence in as misleading employer, conduct any serting rights. case his or her In neither timely Title VII employee files a when the subjected was the unfairn defendant exists reasona- a court and there action in ess.6 jurisdic- invoking the theory for legal ble that court.5

tion of obviously This case is distinct in two contexts Supreme Pipe Court has or The from either Burnett American to be tolled dur original of limitations state was dis held statutes that Fox’s an event condition pendency jurisdiction. of missed of We believe the for lack purposes that, of underlying matter, the general which satisfied as the of of limitations. See particular jurisdic statute action in that clearly the a court lacks Agency, Railway Express 421 v. will the Johnson not toll statute of limitations. case, 44 L.Ed.2d jurisdiction 95 S.Ct. inBut this the lack of U.S. J., Thus, (Marshall, dissenting). (1975) Those 295 the state court was far from clear. when a has held that directly the have this Court courts that confronted court with FELA action in a state conflicting files an issue reached conclusions.7 have Airlines, that action proper jurisdiction and subse 20 FEP See Peterson v. Eastern venue, improper the quently (W.D.Texas 1979); dismissed for Bennun Cases 1322 v. during tolled Governors, (D.N. of FELA statute limitations Board of 413 1274 J.1976); of the action. Burnett pendency University state v. Peper the Princeton Company, Trustees, Railroad v. York Central 77 A.2d 465 New Board of N.J. 389 Carrano, (1978); Conn.Sup. 85 S.Ct. v. 31 Va son addition, has (1968). (1974) the held that courts (holding 330 A.2d 98 state Dic jurisdiction). of a class action tolls the commencement have concurrent F.Supp. 43 Chrysler Corp., statute limitations for ev kinson 456 applicable of (E.D.Mich.1978); 48 ery alleged of the class at least Fox Eaton member the Ohio St.2d 358 N.E.2d 536 Lu- such time the court decides until by stipu- that her Court held that VII time was 5. Fox contends Eaton misled pendency grievance lating the state had It that court tolled proceedings. established two cannot cre- We believe both Johnson is well by jurisdiction stipulation. But im- more ate and Electrical Workers are any portantly, alleged it is not that Eaton made in thát in defend- from this case those cases the misrepresentations Fox to file specific which caused ant did receive notice in state That decision her action court. subsequently that was asserted claim consider this her own. we cannot by plaintiff. misleading by involving case to be one conduct employer. consider 7. We need not and therefore do not jurisdic courts whether federal have exclusive Agency, Railway Express su- In Johnson v. VII actions. note that tion over Title We pra, Supreme the statute Court held that one, particularly question easy is not an applicable 42 under to actions any given language stat in the the absence of 1981 was not tolled U.S.C. excluding jurisdiction specifically from the ute proceeding. Union International Title VII Courtney, Dowd Co. v. state courts. See Box Workers, Radio Machine of Electrical and 7 L.Ed.2d Myers, v. Robbins Local 790 229, & (1976), 50 L.Ed.2d Contracting Corp., jurisdictional cas v. Tanner Bros. 10 sonable may theories a court (Arizona 1974) (holding FEP Cases adopt. jurisdiction). courts have exclusive

federal Accordingly, we hold that Fox’s com- At the time Fox filed her action in state mencement of a Title VII action in state court, decision, controlling there was no ninety day was sufficient to toll the particularly no decision period within which she was Ohio, Court of that would indicate that commence a civil action. This result is con- jurisdiction federal courts have exclusive sistent the rationale of the over Title VII actions. Given the absence Court in v. New Burnett York Central Rail- controlling given such decision and Company, supra road Pipe and American conflicting decisions reached other Utah, Company supra. Construction Cer- courts, we do not believe that Fox should be tainly purpose underlying prejudiced having adopted jurisdic- was satisfied.8 Eaton was not tional theory ultimately which the court confronted a stale claim. Nor was it decided accept. not to deprived of an opportunity preserve Appeals Court of for the District of appropriate Throughout evidence. these recently Columbia reached a similar conclu- proceedings, great Fox has exercised dili- analogous sion in an situation. In Bethel v. gence, unartfully, pursuing however Jefferson, U.S.App.D.C. claim. Her only lay misfortune in the selec- (D.C.Cir. 1978), the D.C. Circuit con- inappropriate tion of an forum. That selec- sidered employ- for the first time whether tion, however, was not without a reasonable ees of the District of Columbia were re- circumstances, basis. Under these we think quired procedures to follow the of the Civil the tolling ninety day period of the time procedures Service Commission or the specific consistent not pur- with the though EEOC. Even the court deter- pose of that time but also with the mined that plaintiffs in that general purposes remedial of Title VII. case to file discrimination herein, As pointed many has been out EEOC, charges penalize it did not holding decisions that the Title VII time them having resorted to the Civil Ser- periods are in the nature of statutes of vice Commission. (and limitations and therefore can be tolled [Sjurely hypertechnical, it would be if not Leake, particularly supra), are of recent unrealistic, downright require nonlaw- vintage and were time not available at the yers statute, to study the its legislative Moreover, this action was dismissed. history its interpreta- and administrative complaint herein very unartfully drawn predict accurately tions and which of two supported and at the time the motion to quite reasonable constructions of the un- reasons, presented. dismiss was For these language clear a court adopt. will we can well why understand the district 119, 191 U.S.App.D.C. at 589 F.2d at 642. judge the conclusion that the action reached We believe that it would equally unreal- should be dismissed as time barred. istic equally inappropriate and to force an employee even with the assistance of an Our in this case is not a attorney predict which one of two rea- broad one. We only ninety hold that general purposes 8. The of statutes just of limita- unjust put adversary claim it is not to tions were outlined on notice to defend within of limita- Burnett v. New York Central Compa- Railroad right tion and that the to be free of stale claims ny, supra 380 U.S. at 85 S.Ct. at 1054: prevail right prose- time comes to over the primarily designed Statutes of limitations are Telegraphers cute them.” Order of Railroad to assure fairness to Railway defendants. Such Express Agency, statutes 321 U.S. “promote justice by preventing surprises [, 788], 348-349 88 L.Ed. through the revival of claims Moreover, that have been ought the courts to be relieved of allowed to slumber until evidence has been trying burden plaintiff stale claims when a lost, faded, memories have and witnesses have slept has rights. oh his disappeared. theory is that even if one has jurisdiction competent mistakenly civil but has time limitation day proper civil action within nine- done so in a state court without by filing a is tolled court which Id. 429 at 237 n. at days in a state venue. S.Ct. ty text; subject possessed accompanying Chappel mat- reasonably believed 447 n. 10 and Co., v. Emco Machine Works 601 F.2d ter the ease (5th is reversed and 1302-03 Cir. Smith v. American of the district proceedings. Lines, Ltd., (2d for further 571 F.2d is remanded President 1978). Cir. CELEBREZZE, Judge, dissenting. Circuit record, my reading From I cannot the views of the due deference With present that the case falls within conclude respectfully dissent. I must majority, already instances. As any of the above articulated principles I adhere to above, majority agrees, there stated and University of Cincin- in Leake this court defendant-appellee is no evidence that en- 1979), that nati, Cir. F.2d any conduct which resulted in gaged in jurisdictional are time limitations “Title VII appellant’s filing of her claim in state court. phrase is used in the sense ante n. at 719. Additionally, equi- of limitations relation to statutes record is devoid of evidence which apply in circum- should principles table appellant would lead to the conclusion that I application.” their which warrant stances extraordinary way pre- has in some been majority however, disagree, asserting rights. vented Burnett justifies the exercise present case that the Co., v. New York Central R. tolling' and the equitable power of such 90-day States, Osbourne United Leake, view, context of my the factual (2d appellant Nor has filed tolling of the time justifying the supra, competent her claim in a state court of eminently jurisdiction proper riot did have ven- Leake, we held from the case. Burnett, supra, ue over her claim. by an em- representations that affirmative 426-36, at at 1053-58. S.Ct. delay employee ployer which cause Burnett, In was con- Court charges with the filing his discrimination tolling inquiry regarding fronted with a equitable considera- EEOC are sufficient three-year statute of limitations under periods. tolling of the time justify tions to (FELA). Employers’ Liability Federal Act case, no such “foul present we have In the Burnett, In the court held that where a which should play” employer’sbehalf on the begun FELA is in a state raising preclude him from having jurisdiction, the defendant is defense. process, served with and the case is dis- tolling It is well established venue, improper missed for the FELA time grounds equitable on statutory periods limitation is tolled International usually very much restricted. the state suit. Our case Radio and Machine of Electrical Union from Burnett. The court in Burnett was Workers, Myers, Local 790 v. Robbins & careful to limit its to those instanc- 50 L.Ed.2d clearly where the state court had concur- es v. General Motors Geromette jurisdiction, which does rent a situation Corp., 609 F.2d 1200 light exist in the case. im- Myers, Robbins justifying policy equitable grounds tolling might appropriate only be plied that restricted, very my tolling should be actively the defendant has misled where extended to cover the Burnett should action, plaintiff respecting the cause of instant case. plaintiff extraordinary where has in some basis for the asserting equitable Since I find no way prevented been his tolling 90-day period, I would has raised the rights, or where of the district court. precise statutory claim in issue in a court of affirm

Case Details

Case Name: Olga J. Fox v. The Eaton Corporation

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Date Published: Feb 21, 1980

Citation: 615 F.2d 716

Docket Number: 77-3374

Court Abbreviation: 6th Cir.