Willman v. Farmington Area Public School District

Background

The Farmington Area Public Schools District employed Mary Willman as a special education teacher from March 2018 until February 2020. The District formally terminated her employment in a letter sent February 11, 2020, effective February 10. Willman had been severely injured by a student in December 2018, and she alleged that the District terminated her instead of attempting to provide required accommodations.

Willman filed a discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on January 31, 2020. The charge asserted disability discrimination and retaliation but did not assert age discrimination. The EEOC closed its file on April 2, 2021, and sent Willman a notice stating that a lawsuit against her employer had to be filed within 90 days.

Willman, initially without a lawyer, filed a state-court complaint on June 30, 2021, asserting five claims against the District and Megan Blazek, the principal of Boeckman Middle School in the District. The case was later removed to federal court. Defendants moved to dismiss the portions of Count 1 and Count 4 alleging disability and age discrimination under the Minnesota Human Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.

Minnesota Human Rights Act claims

The Minnesota Human Rights Act requires a civil action to be brought within one year of the allegedly discriminatory practice. The court concluded that Willman’s claims accrued no later than the District’s February 11, 2020 termination decision, but she did not file her complaint until June 30, 2021.

Willman argued that Minnesota COVID-19 emergency legislation tolled, or paused, the limitations period. The court interpreted the later 2021 law as preventing deadlines from expiring through April 15, 2021, rather than completely tolling the limitations period. Because Willman filed after April 15, 2021, the court held that her Minnesota Human Rights Act claims were untimely. It granted the motion and dismissed her state-law age- and disability-discrimination claims against both defendants.

Americans with Disabilities Act claim

The court next considered Willman’s federal disability-discrimination claim against the District. Because the EEOC issued the right-to-sue notice on April 2, 2021, Willman had to commence the action within 90 days, by July 1, 2021.

For an action first filed in Minnesota state court and later removed, Minnesota rules govern when the action is commenced. The court explained that commencement generally requires both filing and service. A plaintiff may begin the process by delivering the summons and complaint to the county sheriff for service, but the documents must then be served within 60 days. Service on a public school district must be made on a member of the district’s school board or other governing body.

Willman filed her complaint and delivered documents to the sheriff on June 30, 2021, but the sheriff did not serve the District’s school board. The board was not served until September 27, 2021. The court held that this was too late under Minnesota’s 60-day service rule and the 90-day federal right-to-sue period. The court also held that federal removal law did not extend the state-law service period. Although removal law allowed service using new federal process, Willman did not obtain and serve a federal summons. The court therefore granted the motion and dismissed the Americans with Disabilities Act disability-discrimination claim against the District.

Age Discrimination in Employment Act claim

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act requires a plaintiff to file an age-discrimination charge with the EEOC before bringing an age-discrimination lawsuit. Willman’s EEOC charge checked disability and retaliation, did not check age, and did not mention her age. Its narrative described alleged termination because of her need for accommodations and retaliation for opposing discrimination.

The court held that the charge did not exhaust administrative remedies for an age-discrimination claim. It rejected Willman’s argument that equitable doctrines should excuse the omission because she alleged in her complaint that she had been told she was too old for the job, giving her enough information to raise age discrimination with the EEOC. The court granted the motion and dismissed the Age Discrimination in Employment Act age-discrimination claim against both defendants.

Order

The court granted Defendants’ Partial Motion to Dismiss as follows: it dismissed Willman’s Minnesota Human Rights Act age- and disability-discrimination claims against both defendants; dismissed her Age Discrimination in Employment Act age-discrimination claim against both defendants; and dismissed her Americans with Disabilities Act disability-discrimination claim against the District. The opinion did not specify whether any dismissal was with or without prejudice.