Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Sellars v. Perry
Citations: 80 F.3d 243; 1996 WL 155254Docket: No. 95-3147
Court: Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit; April 3, 1996; Federal Appellate Court
Paul Sellars, a firefighter from Gary, Indiana, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit seeking reinstatement with the Gary Fire Department after being absent due to medical issues for about five months. The appeal centers on whether Sellars was aware or should have been aware of his employment termination, affecting the statute of limitations for his claim, which is two years in Indiana. The district court determined the claim accrued when Sellars received a letter accepting a purported resignation, which Sellars contests as a forgery. Sellars experienced chest pains while on duty on December 13, 1990, and after hospitalization, he received a letter from Fire Chief Benjamin Perry on December 19, 1990, alleging that Sellars was absent without leave and outlining violations of department rules. Despite these allegations, Sellars did not receive any notification of a hearing, which is required for dismissal under department rules. Defendants claim Perry received a resignation letter from Sellars on January 23, 1991, but Sellars argues this letter is forged, and he received no subsequent communication regarding his employment status. Sellars only learned of his termination in May 1991 when he spoke with a department captain, prompting him to file suit on April 26, 1993. The magistrate judge ruled that his action was barred by the statute of limitations. The court reiterated that while the statute of limitations is governed by state law, the accrual of a § 1983 claim is determined by federal law, which states a claim accrues when the plaintiff knows or should know of the injury underlying the claim. The key issue is whether Sellars was aware of his employment termination before April 26, 1991. The appellate court reversed the district court's decision, indicating a need to apply the discovery rule correctly to ascertain the actual accrual date of Sellars' claim. The district court misapplied the legal standard regarding the accrual of Sellars' claim, incorrectly determining it began on January 29, 1991, the date of his termination by the Department. While the court correctly acknowledged that a statute of limitations begins when a defendant's action injures the plaintiff, it failed to consider that the claim also requires the plaintiff to discover the injury. The discovery rule, applicable in federal-question cases, states that a claim does not accrue until the plaintiff is aware of the injury. Sellars did not receive the termination letter on January 29; he only discovered the injury days later. The letters were sent to an incorrect address, and Sellars claimed he never received them, asserting he learned of his termination only during a May discussion. The defendants argued the letters were sent by certified mail, but there was no evidence supporting this claim or explaining the address error. The court must evaluate whether Sellars knew or should have known of his termination, which it did not address, necessitating a remand. Factors for consideration include the unreasonable expectation for Sellars to believe he was employed after five months without pay and his unsuccessful attempts to contact anyone other than Perry about his status. Conversely, if he did not receive the termination letters, his assumption of continued employment based on prior correspondence may be reasonable. The district court's judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded for proper application of the legal standard and further factual inquiry.