Golden v. Verizon

Background

Timothy J. Golden, proceeding without a lawyer, sued his former employer, Verizon New York Inc. He alleged that a serious November 2009 workplace injury prevented him from returning to full-duty work and that Verizon failed to accommodate his disability or reassign him to suitable work. He also alleged that Verizon induced him to accept an early-retirement settlement by offering a lump-sum payment and saying it would assist him in obtaining Social Security disability benefits.

Golden filed an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charge in 2014 and received a right-to-sue letter on June 9, 2015. He did not file a federal lawsuit within the required 90-day period. After Verizon rejected a later grievance, Golden filed another EEOC charge in 2021, received a second right-to-sue letter on April 7, 2022, and filed this lawsuit 89 days later.

Issues and analysis

Golden asserted claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) for failure to accommodate and intentional disability discrimination. He also asserted claims under the New York State Human Rights Law and potentially state-law claims for promissory estoppel and fraudulent inducement.

The court applied the standard for a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, under which the complaint must contain enough factual allegations to make a claim plausible. Verizon argued that Golden’s claims were barred by filing deadlines and failed to state a claim.

The court held that Golden’s federal claims were time-barred. An ADA plaintiff generally must file an EEOC charge within 300 days of the alleged discriminatory act and must file suit within 90 days after receiving the EEOC’s right-to-sue notice. The court could not determine from the complaint whether the 2014 EEOC charge was filed within the 300-day period because Golden did not identify when Verizon rejected his accommodation request. But even assuming that charge was timely, Golden admitted that he did not sue within 90 days after receiving the 2015 right-to-sue letter.

The court also found that the 2021 EEOC charge was untimely. Golden did not plausibly allege a discriminatory act occurring within the 300 days before that charge, and he had not been an employee of Verizon since retiring in January 2018.

The court considered equitable tolling and equitable estoppel. Equitable tolling can extend a deadline in rare circumstances when a person pursued rights diligently but an extraordinary obstacle prevented timely filing. The court found that Golden had acted with reasonable diligence, but concluded that he had not shown an extraordinary obstacle. His lack of legal knowledge, inability to obtain a lawyer, union grievances, and delay after learning that he was ineligible for Social Security disability benefits did not justify extending the deadlines.

Equitable estoppel can prevent a defendant from relying on a deadline when the defendant’s misleading conduct caused a plaintiff to delay filing. The court found that Golden plausibly alleged Verizon made a misrepresentation and that he relied on it in accepting retirement. But he did not allege that Verizon knew he was ineligible for the benefits, and he waited at least 600 days after learning of the alleged misrepresentation before filing the 2021 EEOC charge. The court therefore concluded that equitable estoppel did not apply.

Ruling and disposition

The court held that all of Golden’s federal claims were time-barred and dismissed them. Because no federal claims remained, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the authority to hear related state-law claims—in light of the early stage of the case and considerations of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness. The opinion stated that Golden may pursue his state-law claims in state court.

The court granted Verizon’s motion to dismiss. It did not state that the motion or any dismissal was with or without prejudice. The court scheduled an in-person conference to discuss whether Golden should be granted leave to amend and recommended that he consult with the New York Legal Assistance Group about possible assistance at that conference.