Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Rose Marie BUTTERFLY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BENEFIS HEALTH SYSTEM; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
MEMORANDUM **
Rose Marie Butterfly appeals from the district court's judgment dismissing her employment discrimination action as barred by the applicable statute of limitations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal of an action as time-barred, and for clear error any underlying factual determinations. EEOC v. Dinuba Med. Clinic, 222 F.3d 580, 584-85 (9th Cir. 2000). We vacate and remand.
The district court dismissed Butterfly's Title VII and Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) claims alleging discrimination, retaliation, and a hostile work environment on the basis that the relevant EEOC charges were not filed within 180 days of the alleged unlawful practice, and because Butterfly did not file her complaint within 90 days of receiving her EEOC right to sue letter. However, we are unable to determine from the district court's order whether the district court considered the potential applicability of the alternate 300-day limitation for Butterfly to file her EEOC charges. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1) (Title VII complainant must file EEOC charge no later than 180 days, or authorized state or local charge no later than 300 days, after alleged unlawful practice occurred); Fort Bend County, Texas v. Davis, ––– U.S. ––––, 139 S. Ct. 1843, 1846, 204 L.Ed.2d 116 (2019) (“If the state or local agency has a ‘worksharing’ agreement with the EEOC, a complainant ordinarily need not file separately with federal and state agencies. She may file her charge with one agency, and that agency will then relay the charge to the other.”); Douglas v. Cal. Dep't of Youth Auth., 271 F.3d 812, 823 & n.11 (9th Cir. 2001) (same statute of limitations for ADA claims as Title VII claims).
We are also unable to determine whether the district court considered the fact that Butterfly lodged her complaint with the district court within 90 days when concluding that she failed to meet the required 90-day deadline. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d)(2); Riordan v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 589 F.3d 999, 1004 (9th Cir. 2009) (for purposes of a statute of limitations, a document is considered filed when it is delivered to the clerk or lodged with the court); Payan v. Aramark Mgmt. Servs. Ltd. P'ship, 495 F.3d 1119, 1121 (9th Cir. 2007) (42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) requires a claimant to file a civil lawsuit within 90 days of receiving a right to sue notice from the EEOC).
The district court also dismissed Butterfly's 42 U.S.C. § 1981 claims but failed to consider whether Butterfly timely filed these federal claims within the applicable four-year statute of limitations. See Jones v. R.R. Donnelley & Sons Co., 541 U.S. 369, 382-84, 124 S.Ct. 1836, 158 L.Ed.2d 645 (2004) (because § 1981(a) does not contain a statute of limitations, the four-year “catch all” statute limitations articulated by Congress applies (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1658(a)); Lukovsky v. City & County of San Francisco, 535 F.3d 1044, 1048 (9th Cir. 2008) (under federal law, a claim accrues “when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury which is the basis of the action” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
Contrary to defendants’ contention, Butterfly did not waive her right to challenge the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations because a determination that the applicable statute of limitations bars a claim is a legal conclusion. See Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991) (“[P]arties who do not object to a magistrate's report waive their right to challenge the magistrate's factual findings but retain their right to appeal the magistrate's conclusions of law.”).
In sum, we vacate the district court's judgment, and remand for further consideration as to whether Butterfly's Title VII, ADA, and § 1981 claims are timely.
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, such as whether Butterfly's state law claims were properly dismissed, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
Appellees will bear the costs on appeal.
VACATED and REMANDED.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 20-35257
Decided: February 22, 2021
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)