EEOC Charge Filing Does Not Toll Statute of Limitations for State Law Tort Claims: Second Circuit | Practical Law

EEOC Charge Filing Does Not Toll Statute of Limitations for State Law Tort Claims: Second Circuit | Practical Law

In Castagna v. Luceno, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that filing a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) alleging claims in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) does not toll the limitations period for state law tort claims, even when the claims arise from the same facts and circumstances.

EEOC Charge Filing Does Not Toll Statute of Limitations for State Law Tort Claims: Second Circuit

by Practical Law Labor & Employment
Published on 07 Mar 2014 • USA (National/Federal)
In Castagna v. Luceno, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that filing a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) alleging claims in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) does not toll the limitations period for state law tort claims, even when the claims arise from the same facts and circumstances.
On March 5, 2014, in Castagna v. Luceno, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit joined the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to hold, as a matter of law, that filing a charge of discrimination with the EEOC does not toll the limitations period of state law tort claims, even when they arise from the same facts and circumstances as the claims alleged in the EEOC filing (No. 13-0796-CV, (2d Cir. March 4, 2014)).

Background

In Castagna, the plaintiff worked for the defendants from 2005 until July 2008, when she resigned after her supervisor allegedly screamed, cursed and shoved a computer monitor at her. Following her resignation, the plaintiff filed a charge with the EEOC alleging discrimination based on sex in violation of Title VII. She received her right to sue letter in August 2009. In November 2009, she filed suit against her employer and her supervisor in federal district court alleging:
  • A hostile work environment and constructive discharge in violation of Title VII and the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL).
  • State law claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress, assault and battery in violation of New York law (state law claims).
The district court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the state law claims for being time-barred because the plaintiff failed to file them within the relevant one-year statute of limitations period. The court rejected the plaintiff's argument that her state law claims were tolled by her EEOC filing alleging discrimination claims based on the same facts and circumstances. The plaintiff appealed to the Second Circuit.

Outcome

The Second Circuit affirmed the district court and held, as a matter of law, that filing a charge of discrimination with the EEOC does not toll the limitations periods of state law tort claims, even when they arise out of the same facts and circumstances.
In reaching this conclusion, the Second Circuit relied on:
  • The US Supreme Court's decision in Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, Inc., in which the Court held that filing a discrimination charge with the EEOC does not toll the limitations period of a Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 action arising from the same facts. (421 U.S. 454 (1975).) Although the Court acknowledged that plaintiffs will likely have to litigate state law discrimination claims before receiving a determination from the EEOC on the related federal discrimination claims, the Court held that the state claim's limitations period was not tolled because the state law and the federal law are two independent statutes that provide for different remedies.
  • The Seventh Circuit's decision following Johnson, holding that an Illinois invasion of privacy claim's limitations period was not tolled by the filing of a related discrimination charge with the EEOC.
  • The Ninth Circuit's holding that the limitations period of a California common law tort claim was not tolled by the pending EEOC filing alleging discrimination claims arising from the same facts.
  • The vast majority of district courts in the Second Circuit that rejected similar arguments about tolling state law tort claims.
The Second Circuit also held the plaintiff forfeited her arguments that state law mandates equitable tolling of her state law claims because she only first raised them on appeal.

Practical Implications

This decision provides clarity for employers in the Second Circuit on the limitations periods for state law tort claims, and indicates how other circuits will likely rule on the issue of tolling the limitations periods of state tort claims when claims arising from the same facts are pending with the EEOC.