Gonzalez v. Apttus Corporation

Background

Yanira Gonzalez, proceeding without a lawyer, sued her former employer, Apttus Corporation. Her first amended complaint pursued sex-discrimination theories under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Pay Act. The court understood one claim labeled as an Equal Pay Act claim to actually assert a Title VII sex-discrimination claim, based on its substance. The motion addressed only that Title VII claim; Apttus did not ask the court to dismiss the Equal Pay Act claim.

Gonzalez alleged that Apttus paid her less than male employees who performed substantially similar work under similar conditions. She also alleged that, in 2008, she was not selected for a Director role and that a male external applicant, Troy Walker, was hired instead. The opinion notes conflicting dates for the end of Gonzalez’s employment: her amended complaint stated 2009, while her earlier administrative charge stated 2019. For purposes of Apttus’s timeliness argument, the court considered the 2019 date.

Gonzalez filed a discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on December 8, 2020. Apttus argued that the charge was filed 361 days after Gonzalez’s termination, beyond the 300-day deadline generally applicable where a state has its own enforcement agency. Gonzalez argued in opposition that she had first tried to file in New York and had experienced health problems in 2020, but those facts were not adequately alleged in her amended complaint.

Ruling on the Title VII Claim

The court granted Apttus’s motion to dismiss and dismissed Gonzalez’s Title VII claim with prejudice. It held that the claim was untimely because the administrative charge was filed after the 300-day deadline. The court explained that the filing requirement is not a limit on the federal court’s jurisdiction, but the court must enforce it when properly raised.

The court considered possible exceptions that can extend the deadline, including equitable tolling, which can apply in limited circumstances such as defective pleadings, deception by an opposing party, or inadequate notice from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The court found that Gonzalez had not alleged sufficient facts to support tolling. It also concluded that her statements in briefing could not replace allegations in the complaint, and that another opportunity to amend would be futile. Accordingly, the dismissal was with prejudice.

Other Matters and Disposition

Gonzalez may proceed on her Equal Pay Act claim, which was not at issue in Apttus’s motion. The court separately addressed Gonzalez’s discovery concerns, including alleged failures involving initial disclosures and document requests. It ordered the parties to follow the standing procedure requiring them to meet and confer about those issues and, if they remain unresolved, submit a joint letter.

Judge Joseph C. Spero resolved the motion without oral argument, vacated the scheduled hearing, and continued the case-management conference to later on August 19, 2022.