Talbot v. Murphy
- Susan Nelson
- 0:20-cv-00590
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 8
In Talbot v. Murphy, U.S. District Judge Nelson converted part of the dismissal motion to summary judgment and granted dismissal of Talbot’s remaining claims.
Monica Mary Margaret Talbot’s Title VII, Americans with Disabilities Act, and Rehabilitation Act claims remained pending for further briefing, while her other listed claims were dismissed. Emily W. Murphy received dismissal of those remaining claims.
What happened
In Talbot v. Murphy, Monica Mary Margaret Talbot sued Emily W. Murphy after the General Services Administration ended her student-trainee employment. Talbot alleged discrimination based on disability, gender, race, and religion under federal employment laws, along with other claims.
Murphy argued that Talbot’s discrimination claims were filed too late because Talbot started the lawsuit more than 90 days after receiving the agency’s final decision. Murphy also argued that Talbot’s other claims should be dismissed because the amended complaint did not include supporting facts. Talbot did not respond to the dismissal motion.
Judge Susan Richard Nelson converted the part of Murphy’s motion concerning the discrimination claims into a motion for summary judgment, allowing Talbot 21 days to respond. The judge granted Murphy’s motion to dismiss the remaining claims, including those invoking the Family and Medical Leave Act, union rights, labor laws, whistleblowing, and “HIPPA.”
The detailed version
- Talbot v. Murphy · No. 0:20-cv-00590
- Susan Nelson
- June 22, 2021
Background
Monica Mary Margaret Talbot, representing herself, was a former student trainee of the General Services Administration (GSA). The GSA terminated her employment on October 1, 2018. On February 28, 2019, she filed an administrative complaint alleging discrimination based on race, sex, religion, and disability.
The GSA’s Office of Civil Rights issued a final agency decision on November 19, 2019, finding that Talbot had not been discriminated against on those grounds. The decision stated that she could file a federal civil action within 90 days after receiving it if she had not appealed to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Evidence submitted by Murphy indicated that Talbot received the decision on November 20, 2019. Talbot filed this lawsuit on February 24, 2020, but did not state in her filings when she received the decision.
In her amended complaint, Talbot alleged that the GSA discriminated against her based on disability, gender, race, and religion, violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Rehabilitation Act. She also listed claims under the Family and Medical Leave Act, “Union Rights,” “Labor Laws – PPP,” “Whistleblowing,” and “HIPPA.” The opinion states that she did not include factual allegations supporting those additional claims.
Motion and analysis
Murphy moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Rule 12(b)(1) concerns the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, while Rule 12(b)(6) concerns whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. Murphy argued that the Title VII, Americans with Disabilities Act, and Rehabilitation Act claims were time-barred and that the remaining claims failed to state a claim.
The court explained that the 90-day filing period applies to federal lawsuits under Title VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Rehabilitation Act after receipt of an agency’s final action notice. Murphy relied on a declaration and a delivery record outside the pleadings to show that Talbot received the final agency decision on November 20, 2019. Murphy therefore argued that the filing period ended on February 18, 2020, six days before Talbot filed this case.
The court noted that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit had not expressly decided whether this limitations period is jurisdictional in cases against the government. Because the court might need to consider evidence outside the pleadings and because of that uncertainty, it did not decide the timeliness issue at this stage. Instead, under Rule 12(d), it converted the portion of the motion concerning the Title VII, Americans with Disabilities Act, and Rehabilitation Act claims into a motion for summary judgment. Summary judgment is a decision based on evidence showing whether a claim can proceed without a trial. The court treated Murphy’s existing briefing and supporting materials as her initial submission and gave Talbot an opportunity to respond.
As to the remaining claims, the court concluded that Talbot had listed legal categories without alleging facts supporting them. The court therefore dismissed those claims under Rule 12(b)(6).
Order
Judge Susan Richard Nelson ordered that the portion of Murphy’s motion seeking dismissal of the Title VII, Americans with Disabilities Act, and Rehabilitation Act claims be converted into a motion for summary judgment. Talbot was ordered to file a response within 21 days, by July 13, 2021, and Murphy could file a reply within seven days after Talbot’s response.
The court granted Murphy’s motion to dismiss as to the remaining claims. The opinion did not decide whether Talbot’s discrimination claims were timely or whether they ultimately succeeded on their merits.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.