Gascon v. Kaiser Permanente

Background

Karen Gascon sued Kaiser Permanente under Title VII, the federal law that prohibits certain workplace discrimination and retaliation. She alleged that Kaiser hired her in or around November 2012 and that, in May 2016, Rebecca Tran, a Kaiser human-resources consultant, asked her to resign or otherwise be terminated. Gascon said she requested a grievance procedure, but none occurred. She alleged that Tran then verbally promised her a clean record, the ability to use Kaiser as a referral, and the opportunity to return to Kaiser at any time. Relying on that agreement, Gascon resigned.

Gascon alleged that other Kaiser branches later rejected her applications because Kaiser’s records showed that she had been terminated and was not eligible for rehire. She also said she could not use Kaiser as a referral and that her efforts to resolve the matter with human resources failed. She alleged that Kaiser knew about her health issues, placed her under observation for mental disorders, and forced her to resign because of her race, disability, and questions about Kaiser’s procedures.

Gascon filed charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in May 2019. The agency closed the matter as untimely but issued her a notice allowing her to bring a private lawsuit. In a separate order, the court allowed Gascon to proceed without paying the filing fee.

Reasoning

The court explained that federal law requires dismissal of a case filed without paying the filing fee if the case is frivolous, fails to state a claim, or is brought against an immune defendant. The court applied Title VII’s requirement that a claimant generally file a discrimination or retaliation charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission within 180 days of the alleged discriminatory or retaliatory act.

The court held that Gascon’s alleged discriminatory and retaliatory conduct culminated in her resignation in May 2016. Because she did not file her agency charges until May 2019, the court found the claims far outside the 180-day deadline. The court considered whether two doctrines could extend or pause the deadline: equitable estoppel and equitable tolling.

Equitable estoppel can prevent a defendant from relying on a filing deadline when the defendant’s conduct or representations reasonably caused the plaintiff to delay filing. The court found that the alleged promises about rehire and referrals did not conceal the underlying discrimination claim. It also found that Gascon’s reliance became unreasonable once she learned that she could not use Kaiser as a referral and would not be rehired. Although the complaint did not give an exact discovery date, the court read it as showing that Gascon learned of the alleged false promises within a year of resigning. Even using that later point, she still waited about two years to file her agency charges.

Equitable tolling may extend a deadline when, despite due diligence, a plaintiff cannot obtain important information about the existence of a claim. The court found that Gascon’s own allegations showed she knew, or reasonably should have known, about possible discrimination and retaliation around the time of her termination. The court therefore concluded that she did not need to wait three years to determine whether Kaiser would rehire her before filing a charge.

Disposition

The court concluded that neither equitable estoppel nor equitable tolling saved the claims from the filing deadline. It dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The order did not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice, and it did not decide the merits of Gascon’s discrimination or retaliation allegations.