Kahsai v. Dejoy
- John Tunheim
- 0:20-cv-01060
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 13
In Kahsai v. Dejoy, Judge Tunheim granted summary judgment because Kahsai’s EEOC claims were untimely and no tolling doctrine applied.
Bereket Kahsai’s remaining EEOC claims against Postmaster General Louis Dejoy were held untimely, and the court granted the Postmaster General’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the action.
What happened
Kahsai v. Dejoy involved Bereket Kahsai’s claims that the U.S. Postal Service discriminated against him based on race, color, and national origin. The court limited the case to claims Kahsai had presented to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
The Postmaster General argued that Kahsai filed too late. The court found that Kahsai received the agency’s final decision by June 17, 2019, giving him 90 days to sue. His current case, filed on April 30, 2020, was late, and his earlier case did not preserve the deadline because it had been dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute.
Judge Tunheim ruled that continuing violation, equitable estoppel, and equitable tolling did not apply. He granted the Postmaster General’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the action.
The detailed version
- Kahsai v. Dejoy · No. 0:20-cv-01060
- John Tunheim
- Jan. 10, 2024
Background
Bereket Kahsai, an employee of the U.S. Postal Service, alleged discrimination based on race, color, and national origin, among other claims. He alleged that supervisors discriminated against him from approximately May through August 2016, including by issuing two Letters of Warning, denying promotions or advancement, and taking other employment actions.
Kahsai filed a discrimination complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. On May 8, 2019, an EEOC Administrative Judge granted summary judgment to USPS. USPS issued a Notice of Final Action on May 16, 2019. The notice stated that Kahsai could file a civil action in federal court within 90 calendar days after receiving it.
Kahsai said he did not receive the notice. The court considered USPS delivery tracking, which showed delivery to Kahsai’s mailing address on May 20, 2019; an email in which Kahsai referred to the notice; and Kahsai’s discovery responses admitting that he received it by mail, at the latest, by June 17, 2019.
Procedural History
Kahsai filed an earlier related action on August 6, 2019. That action was dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute after he repeatedly failed to properly serve the named defendants. Kahsai filed this case on April 30, 2020, and later asserted claims involving race and national-origin discrimination presented to the EEOC, Title VII retaliation, disability discrimination and failure to promote under the Americans with Disabilities Act, and claims under the Minnesota Human Rights Act.
The court previously granted in part and denied in part the Postmaster General’s motion to dismiss. It dismissed all claims except the claims Kahsai had brought to the EEOC, leaving the timeliness of those claims unresolved. The court then divided discovery into a first phase addressing timeliness and a second phase addressing the merits. After the first phase, the Postmaster General moved for summary judgment on timeliness.
Timeliness Analysis
Title VII requires a federal civil action to be filed within 90 days after the plaintiff receives notice of final agency action. The court found that Kahsai received the Notice of Final Action by June 17, 2019, at the latest. The last day to file was therefore September 17, 2019. Because Kahsai filed this case on April 30, 2020, his EEOC claims were untimely.
Although Kahsai’s earlier action was filed within the 90-day period, the court held that it did not preserve the deadline for this case. Under the law applied by the court, a case dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute does not toll the limitations period; once dismissed, it is treated as though no action had been filed for that purpose.
Tolling Arguments
Kahsai argued that three doctrines should extend the filing deadline.
- Continuing violation: The court rejected this argument because the claims arose from discrete employment actions, including the two Letters of Warning, rather than an ongoing violation. The court also noted that Kahsai had not asserted a hostile-work-environment claim, the type of claim for which the doctrine may allow older conduct to be considered. - Equitable estoppel: The court found no evidence that the Postmaster General deliberately caused Kahsai to delay filing or tricked or misled him about pursuing his rights. The Notice of Final Action informed him of his options. - Equitable tolling: The court found no evidence that Kahsai could not obtain vital information about his claims or that circumstances beyond his control caused the delay. The court also held that pro se status and the absence of prejudice to the Postmaster General did not independently justify tolling.
Disposition
The court concluded that Kahsai’s EEOC claims were time-barred and that no tolling doctrine applied. Judge John R. Tunheim granted the Postmaster General’s Motion for Summary Judgment and ordered that judgment be entered. The opinion states that the action would be dismissed, and it expressly notes that the court did not address the merits of Kahsai’s EEOC discrimination claims in this order.
Read the full 13-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.