Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against her former employer for sexual harassment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. She alleged harassment during her employment from 1994 to 1995 and filed a charge with the EEOC shortly after her resignation. Her attorney failed to provide an updated address to the EEOC, and she moved without updating her address, leading to a delay in receiving the Notice of Right to Sue. The EEOC sent the notice to her attorney on April 30, 1998, which was returned due to the firm's closure. The plaintiff received the notice in November 1999 and filed her lawsuit shortly thereafter. The district court ruled that the 90-day filing period began when the notice was sent to the attorney, rejecting the plaintiff's arguments regarding constructive receipt and the EEOC's regulatory obligations. The appellate court affirmed this decision, emphasizing the plaintiff's responsibility to maintain updated contact information and the applicability of the constructive receipt doctrine. Consequently, the court upheld the summary judgment in favor of the defendant, ruling the plaintiff's lawsuit untimely.
Legal Issues Addressed
Commencement of the 90-Day Period under Title VIIsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: In this case, the court determined that the 90-day period for filing a lawsuit under Title VII begins when the notice is received by either the plaintiff or their attorney, unless the notice is delayed due to the plaintiff's fault.
Reasoning: Title VII mandates that the EEOC must inform an aggrieved individual of their right to sue, allowing for a civil action to be initiated within ninety days of receiving this notice (42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(f)(1)).
Constructive Receipt of Noticesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court held that constructive receipt occurred when the notice was sent to the attorney representing the plaintiff, despite the attorney's failure to inform the EEOC of his firm's closure.
Reasoning: The Seventh Circuit clarified in Archie v. Chicago Truck Drivers that actual receipt of the notice is necessary to trigger this 90-day period.
Regulatory Requirements for Notice Deliverysubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court confirmed that at the time of the notice, the regulation required that documents be sent only to the attorney, not to both the attorney and the complainant.
Reasoning: However, this language was not in effect in April 1998; the applicable regulation at that time stated that documents should be sent to the attorney only, with time frames for receipt calculated from the attorney's receipt.
Responsibility for Updating Addresssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found that the plaintiff's failure to update her address with the EEOC contributed to the delay in receiving the notice, thus triggering the constructive receipt doctrine.
Reasoning: Reschny moved residences multiple times without updating her address with the EEOC, only contacting them in October 1999.