Talbot v. Murphy
- Susan Nelson
- 0:20-cv-00590
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 7
Talbot v. Murphy: Judge Nelson granted Murphy summary judgment because Talbot filed her discrimination suit after the 90-day deadline.
Monica Mary Margaret Talbot’s discrimination claims against Emily W. Murphy under Title VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Rehabilitation Act were ruled time-barred; the court also noted that related claims had been dismissed in an earlier order.
What happened
In Talbot v. Murphy, Monica Talbot sued Emily Murphy after the General Services Administration terminated her student-trainee employment. Talbot alleged discrimination based on disability, gender, race, and religion under federal employment laws.
The agency sent Talbot its final decision on her administrative complaint, and delivery records showed that she received it on November 20, 2019. She filed this lawsuit on February 24, 2020, more than 90 days later, and did not argue that the deadline should be extended.
Judge Susan Richard Nelson granted Murphy’s converted motion for summary judgment. The court ruled that Talbot’s claims under Title VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Rehabilitation Act were time-barred.
The detailed version
- Talbot v. Murphy · No. 0:20-cv-00590
- Susan Nelson
- Aug. 3, 2021
Background
Monica Mary Margaret Talbot, proceeding without a lawyer, was a former student trainee of the General Services Administration (GSA). Emily W. Murphy was the GSA Administrator while Talbot worked there. The GSA terminated Talbot’s employment on October 1, 2018.
On February 28, 2019, Talbot filed an administrative complaint with the GSA’s Office of Civil Rights, alleging discrimination based on race, sex, religion, and disability. On November 19, 2019, the office issued a final agency decision finding that Talbot had not been discriminated against. The decision informed her that she could file a federal lawsuit within 90 calendar days after receiving it if she did not appeal to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
The Government submitted evidence that the decision was mailed on November 19, 2019, delivered to Talbot’s address, and signed for by her on November 20,
- Talbot filed this lawsuit on February 24,
- Her amended complaint alleged that the GSA discriminated against her when it terminated her, violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Rehabilitation Act of
- She also asserted claims identified as violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act, “Union Rights,” “Labor Laws – PPP,” “Whistleblowing,” and “HIPPA.”
Earlier Proceedings
Murphy initially filed a motion to dismiss. In a June 22, 2021 order, the court granted that motion in part by dismissing the claims concerning the Family and Medical Leave Act, “Union Rights,” “Labor Laws – PPP,” “Whistleblowing,” and “HIPPA” because Talbot had not pleaded supporting facts. The court converted the portion concerning the Title VII, Americans with Disabilities Act, and Rehabilitation Act claims into a motion for summary judgment. Talbot did not respond to that motion.
Legal Standard
Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence shows that there is no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the case and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. The party opposing summary judgment must identify specific evidence creating a genuine issue for trial; unsupported allegations are not enough.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that a federal lawsuit under Title VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act, or the Rehabilitation Act must be filed within 90 days after the plaintiff receives notice of the agency’s final action. Based on the delivery evidence, Talbot received the final agency decision on November 20, 2019. Her 90-day filing period therefore ended on February 18, 2020, but she filed this action on February 24, 2020.
The court noted that the deadline may be subject to equitable tolling, which can extend a filing deadline in limited circumstances. Talbot did not allege or argue that equitable tolling applied, and the court found no basis to extend the deadline. It therefore held that her Title VII, Americans with Disabilities Act, and Rehabilitation Act claims were time-barred.
Disposition
The court ordered that Murphy’s converted motion for summary judgment was GRANTED. The opinion does not state that the motion was granted with or without prejudice.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.