Cheyssial v. Wormuth

Background

Catherine Mary Cheyssial, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Ryan D. McCarthy, identified in the opinion as Secretary of the Army. She alleged age and disability discrimination and retaliation arising from her employment as an Equal Employment Opportunity Specialist at the Army Corps of Engineers, Pacific Region. She alleged that she experienced anxiety, depression, and panic attacks; requested permission to work remotely as a disability accommodation; received a negative performance review related to absences; and was warned about using too much leave while on Family and Medical Leave Act leave. She received a January 6, 2017, letter stating that she would be removed for medical reasons and was later terminated.

Cheyssial pursued administrative proceedings. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission initially found that the agency had not discriminated against her. The Merit Systems Protection Board affirmed that decision on June 19, 2019. After Cheyssial sought review of her discrimination claims, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued a November 13, 2019, decision agreeing with the Merit Systems Protection Board.

Timeliness

McCarthy argued that the lawsuit was untimely. The court explained that, because the case involved a federal employee and a prior Merit Systems Protection Board proceeding, the Civil Service Reform Act required the lawsuit to be filed within 30 days after Cheyssial received notice of the final reviewable decision.

Cheyssial alleged that she did not actually receive the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s decision until January 28, 2020, when the agency sent it in response to her inquiry. She alleged that mail delivery in her rural area was disrupted during October and November 2019. The court treated January 28, 2020, as the date of actual receipt. It then concluded that February 27, 2020, was the 30-day filing deadline.

Although the court docketed the complaint on May 11, 2020, Cheyssial alleged that she mailed it on February 27, 2020, and that the clerk returned it because a required civil cover sheet was incomplete or incorrect. The court held that these allegations were enough, at the pleading stage, to support equitable tolling—the possible extension of a filing deadline when a person diligently pursues her rights but an extraordinary circumstance prevents timely filing.

Failure to State a Claim

McCarthy alternatively argued that the complaint should be dismissed because Cheyssial did not identify a protected category under Title VII. The court acknowledged that Title VII protects against employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, and that age and disability are not Title VII categories.

The court nevertheless noted that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission had analyzed Cheyssial’s claims under Title VII and the Rehabilitation Act. The court explained that the Civil Service Reform Act also allows certain federal-employee discrimination claims to proceed under other laws, including the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the Rehabilitation Act. Because Cheyssial’s factual allegations plausibly supported claims under those laws, the court held that her failure to cite them specifically was not a reason to dismiss the case, particularly given her self-represented status.

Ruling and Next Steps

Judge Orrick denied McCarthy’s motion to dismiss on both grounds: the motion to dismiss the action as untimely was denied, and the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim was denied. The court set a case-management conference for September 14, 2021, and required the joint case-management statement by September 7, 2021.