United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 08-1655
NATHANIEL ABRAHAM,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
WOODS HOLE OCEANOGRAPHIC INSTITUTE, and MARK E. HAHN,
Defendants, Appellees.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. William G. Young, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Lynch, Chief Judge,
Howard, Circuit Judge,
and Garcia-Gregory,* District Judge.
David C. Gibbs III, with whom Gibbs Law Firm, P.A. and Denise
Minor were on brief for appellant.
Robert M. Hale, with whom Goodwin Procter LLP, and Itia S.
Roth were on brief, for appellees.
January 22, 2009
*
Of the District of Puerto Rico, sitting by designation.
GARCIA-GREGORY, District Judge. Appellant Nathaniel
Abraham (“Dr. Abraham”) appeals the denial of his motion for leave
to file an amended complaint, and the district court’s decision not
to apply equitable tolling principles in granting a motion for
judgment on the pleadings filed by Appellees Woods Hole
Oceanographic Institution (“WHOI”) and Mark E. Hahn (“Dr.
Hahn”)(collectively “Defendants”). For the reasons set forth below,
we find that Dr. Abraham’s appeal lacks merit. Dr. Abraham’s
request to amend is futile. Furthermore, the doctrine of equitable
tolling cannot be applied because Dr. Abraham failed to exercise
diligence in meeting any of the filing deadlines for his employment
discrimination claim. Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is
affirmed.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
As this appeal arises from a dismissal pursuant to a
motion for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 12(c), we recite the facts in the light most favorable to
Dr. Abraham as non-movant, drawing all reasonably supported
inferences in his favor. Perez-Acevedo v. Rivero-Cubano, 520 F.3d
26, 29 (1st Cir. 2008).
On October 12, 2004, Dr. Abraham began employment at WHOI
to work as a Postdoctoral Investigator in Dr. Hahn’s laboratory at
WHOI on a research grant funded by the National Institute of Health
(“NIH”). Dr. Abraham, a citizen of the Republic of India, was
-2-
employed by the WHOI as an expert on zebrafish developmental
biology. His employment consisted of researching the molecular
biological aspect of zebrafish. On October 21, 2004, approximately
one week after his paid employment status began, Dr. Abraham stated
to his supervisor at WHOI, Dr. Hahn, that he was a Christian and
that he did not believe in the theory of evolution. Dr. Abraham’s
disbelief in the theory of evolution created a conflict with Dr.
Hahn’s vision of how Dr. Abraham’s work should be carried out and
interpreted. According to Dr. Hahn, Dr. Abraham’s disbelief in the
theory of evolution was incompatible with the work as proposed to
NIH.
As a result, on November 17, 2004, in a meeting with Dr.
Hahn and WHOI’s Human Resource Manager, Kathleen La Bernz, Dr.
Abraham was asked to resign. On that date, Dr. Hahn also presented
Dr. Abraham with a letter informing him that he could either resign
immediately and accept a severance package or continue working with
WHOI until he found another post doctoral position. The letter
indicated that if Dr. Abraham chose the latter option he could work
until no later than January 31, 2005 at which point he must resign
(hereinafter referred to as the “November 17, 2004 letter”).
On November 19, 2004, Ms. La Bernz provided Dr. Abraham
with a proposed General Release, and encouraged him to sign it in
order to receive the lump sum. Dr. Abraham did not resign the next
day. On November 22, 2004, Ms. La Bernz emailed to Dr. Abraham the
-3-
release document, which included a twenty-one (21) day
consideration period that was not previously mentioned.
Additionally, on that date, Dr. Hahn via email indicated to Dr.
Abraham that there would be no reconsideration of his staying at
WHOI. The parties agreed to meet the next day.
On November 23, 2004, Dr. Hahn and Ms. La Bernz met with
Dr. Abraham. At the meeting, Dr. Abraham was given several
“options” all of which provided that his employment would end by no
later than January 31, 2005. Furthermore, Dr. Abraham was read the
release document which specified that he had twenty-one (21) days
to resign in order to receive the severance package. Dr. Abraham
did not resign and on December 14, 2005, WHOI terminated his
employment.1
1
On or about May 27, 2005, Dr. Abraham filed a complaint with
the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (the “MCAD”)
alleging religious discrimination and providing a Queens Village,
New York address. Pursuant to the MCAD’s work-sharing agreement
with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), the MCAD
transmitted a copy of the complaint to the EEOC. On or about June
21, 2006, the MCAD issued a Dismissal and Notification of Rights
(the “MCAD Dismissal Notice”) dismissing the MCAD complaint. The
MCAD Dismissal Notice indicated that the determination would be
forwarded to the EEOC. On November 9, 2006, Dr. Abraham appealed
the MCAD’s determination via a request letter containing a
Lynchburg, Virginia address. Dr. Abraham’s appeal was subsequently
denied.
On November 24, 2006, the EEOC mailed to Dr. Abraham’s address
in New York, a Dismissal and Notification of Rights, which
indicated that the EEOC was adopting the findings of the MCAD and
closing its file on his charge (“EEOC First Dismissal Notice”). On
February 22, 2008, the EEOC mailed a letter to WHOI, Dr. Abraham,
and his counsel informing them that the EEOC First Dismissal Notice
was rescinded and included a new Dismissal and Notice of Rights
(“EEOC Second Dismissal Notice”).
-4-
On December 3, 2007, Dr. Abraham filed before the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts a single
count complaint against Defendants based on Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e (“Title VII”).2 On January
31, 2008, Appellees filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings
arguing that Dr. Abraham’s Title VII claim was time barred because
it was filed more than ninety (90) days after his constructive
receipt of the EEOC First Dismissal Notice and because the doctrine
of equitable tolling did not apply to the case.
On March 11, 2008, Dr. Abraham sought leave to file an
amended complaint asserting the timeliness of his Title VII claim
and adding a claim under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B (“151B”). The
district court denied Dr. Abraham’s request to amend as futile and
granted Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings on the
grounds that Dr. Abraham’s claims were time barred. Furthermore,
the district court granted Defendants’ motion for judgment on the
pleadings with respect to the claims against Dr. Hahn on the basis
of Defendants’ motion that there was no basis for individual
liability under Title VII.3 Dr. Abraham now appeals the district
2
“Title VII is a vehicle through which an individual may seek
recovery for employment discrimination on the grounds of race,
color, religion, gender, or national origin.” Franceschi v. United
States VA, 514 F.3d 81, 85 (1st Cir. 2008).
3
Dr. Abraham’s claims against Dr. Hahn are not at issue here
because Dr. Abraham does not appeal from the district court’s
decision denying his claims against Dr. Hahn. Playboy Enters. v.
Public Serv. Comm’n, 906 F.2d 25, 40 (1st Cir. 1990) (finding that
-5-
court’s denial of his motion to add a 151B claim and its refusal to
apply equitable tolling to his Title VII claim.4
DISCUSSION
I. Request to Amend Complaint
This court will review the district court’s denial of Dr.
Abraham’s motion for leave to amend the complaint for abuse of
discretion. Todisco v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc., 497 F.3d 95, 98 (1st
Cir. 2007). Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
provides in part that leave to amend pleadings “shall be freely
given when justice so requires.” The leave sought should be granted
unless the amendment would be futile or reward undue delay. Adorno
v. Crowley Towing & Transp. Co., 443 F.3d 122, 126 (1st Cir. 2006).
“[I]f the proposed amendment would be futile because, as thus
amended, the complaint still fails to state a claim, the district
court acts within its discretion in denying the motion to amend.”
Boston & Me. Corp. v. Hampton, 987 F.2d 855, 868 (1st Cir. 1993);
see also Glassman v. Computervision Corp., 90 F.3d 617, 623 (1st
an appellant waives any issue which he does not raise in his
initial brief).
4
The district court also held that the EEOC Second Dismissal
Notice did not confer any new rights to Dr. Abraham because it was
not issued in conformity with the EEOC regulations. Dr. Abraham did
not appeal the district court’s order finding that the EEOC Second
Dismissal Notice did not confer any new rights. Therefore, this
court need not address whether said order was proper. KPS & Assocs.
v. Designs by FMC, Inc., 318 F.3d 1, 25 (1st Cir. 2003) (noting
that an issue which is not adequately raised in the initial brief
is deemed waived).
-6-
Cir. 1996)(finding that “‘[f]utility’ means that the complaint, as
amended, would fail to state a claim upon which relief could be
granted”).
The law is well settled that a civil action under 151B
must be filed within three years of the alleged unlawful act.
Cuddyer v. Stop & Shop Supermarket Co., 750 N.E.2d 928, 936 n.11
(2001)(citing Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B, § 9). “[T]he proper focus
[for determining when a statute of limitations period commences] is
upon the time of the discriminatory acts, not upon the time at
which the consequences of the acts became most painful.” School
Comm. v. Mass. Comm’n Against Discrimination, 666 N.E.2d 468, 472
n.8 (1996)(citing Delaware State College v. Ricks, 449 U.S. 250,
258 (1980)). Accordingly, in 151B discrimination claims, the three
year statute of limitations period begins to run upon the notice of
an upcoming termination of employment rather than when the
termination occurs. Adamczyk v. Augat, Inc., 755 N.E.2d 824, 828-
829 (2001); see also Ricks, 449 U.S. at 258-259; Williams v.
Raytheon Co., 220 F.3d 16, 20 (1st Cir. 2000); Ching v. Mitre
Corp., 921 F.2d 11, 14-15 (1st Cir. 1990).
Dr. Abraham argues that since his employment was
terminated on December 14, 2004 and because his proposed amendment
would relate back to the filing of his complaint before the
-7-
district court on December 3, 2007,5 his 151B claim falls within
the three year statute of limitations period. According to Dr.
Abraham, he did not believe he would be terminated at any time
prior to December 14 because he thought that he could solve his
problems with Dr. Hahn. Specifically, Dr. Abraham claims that the
termination threats were made to force him to renounce his
religious beliefs in creation and to accept a belief in evolution
as fact rather than theory.6
Essentially, Dr. Abraham argues that the three year
statute of limitations period commenced when he finally
“understood” that he was terminated. However, as mentioned above,
under Ricks the limitation period commences at the time the adverse
employment decision is made and communicated to the employee.
Ricks, 449 U.S. at 258-259. In the present case, the three year
statute of limitations period began to accrue when he was given
notice that he would no longer be working with WHOI. We find that
5
The “relation back doctrine” derives from Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 15(c) whereby amended pleadings may be deemed to
“relate back” for statute of limitations purposes to the date of
the pleading if certain conditions are met. Marcoux v. Shell Oil
Prods. Co. LLC, 524 F.3d 33, 41 (1st Cir. 2008). Pursuant to Rule
15(c)(1)(B), an amended complaint relates back to a prior complaint
where “the amendment asserts a claim or defense that arose out of
the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set out-or attempted to be
set out--in the original pleading.”
6
“Mere continuity of employment, without more, is
insufficient to prolong the life of a cause of action for
employment discrimination.” Ricks, 449 U.S. at 257.
-8-
Dr. Abraham had such notice before December 2004. First, we note
that the November 17, 2004 letter indicated to Dr. Abraham that he
could either resign immediately and receive a severance package or
continue working up to January 31, 2005. In his MCAD complaint, Dr.
Abraham acknowledged that he received this “notice” when he stated
that he was asked to resign on November 17, 2004. Additionally, on
November 22, 2004, Dr. Hahn informed Dr. Abraham that there would
be no reconsideration of his staying at WHOI. Furthermore, on that
date, Dr. Abraham was given a General Release, which indicated that
he had to voluntarily resign within twenty-one (21) days in order
to receive a severance package. The release document was read to
Dr. Abraham at a meeting on November 23, 2004 and on that date, Dr.
Abraham was also handed a set of options all of which involved
termination from employment no later than January 31, 2005. Thus,
in the month of November 2004, Dr. Abraham received at least four
(4) unequivocal termination notices. An employee in this situation
could not reasonably conclude that WHOI would not go through with
the termination.
Dr. Abraham seeks to convince this court otherwise by
arguing that it was reasonable for him to think that the notices
were bluffs, a mere tactic used to force him to renounce his
religious beliefs in creation and to accept a belief in evolution
as fact rather than theory. However, this argument is unavailing.
-9-
The unequivocal notices of an upcoming termination, which
Dr. Abraham received, leave no doubt that he had knowledge of
Defendant’s alleged discriminatory act prior to December 2004. See
Adamczyk, 755 N.E.2d at 829 (holding that there could be no genuine
issue as to the date of the alleged discriminatory act or as to the
employees’ cognizance of their prospective termination dates
because they received more than one unequivocal notice of
termination).7 Accordingly, we find that the district court did not
abuse its discretion in not allowing Dr. Abraham to amend his
complaint to include a 151B claim because said amendment would be
futile since the claim would be time barred even if it was allowed
to relate back to the filing of the complaint on December 3, 2007.
We now turn our attention to Dr. Abraham’s argument that the
doctrine of equitable tolling should apply to his Title VII claim.
II. Equitable Tolling
In the present case, there can be no doubt that Dr.
Abraham filed an untimely Title VII claim. Before filing a Title
7
Equivocal notices of termination do not trigger the statute
of limitations for a 151B claim. An example of an equivocal notice
of termination can be found in Wheatley v. American Tel. & Tel.
Co., 636 N.E.2d 265, 268-269 (1994), where the Supreme Judicial
Court of Massachusetts held that there was a genuine issue as to
whether the employer knew or should have known that he would be
terminated from his employment. The court found that the notice
received by the employee, which consisted of a single conversation
and a letter stating that he would be terminated if he were unable
to secure another position within the company after ninety (90)
days, was not sufficiently unequivocal to trigger the statute of
limitations for a 151B claim. Id.
-10-
VII claim, an employee must first exhaust administrative remedies,
a process that begins with the filing of an administrative charge
before the EEOC. Franceschi, 514 F.3d at 85. Dr. Abraham satisfied
this first requirement when he filed a complaint with the MCAD,
which was forwarded to the EEOC pursuant to the work sharing
agreement between the two agencies. After filing the administrative
complaint, the employee may sue in federal court only if the EEOC
dismisses the administrative charge or if it does not bring a civil
suit or enter into a conciliation agreement within 180 days of the
filing of the administrative charge. Id. (citing 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-
5(f)(1)). However, the employee must wait for what is known as a
right-to-sue letter. Id. After receiving the right-to-sue letter,
the employee has ninety (90) days to file a complaint in federal
court. Id. (citing 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1)).
Here, the EEOC First Dismissal Notice was issued on
November 24, 2006. Dr. Abraham’s complaint was untimely filed on
December 3, 2007, more than a year after the EEOC First Dismissal
Notice was issued. Rather than claiming that he filed the complaint
in a timely manner, Dr. Abraham argues that he should be entitled
to equitable tolling.8
8
In the case at hand, Defendants and not Dr. Abraham raised
for the first time the equitable tolling argument in their motion
for judgment on the pleadings. Defendants anticipated any argument
as to the applicability of the equitable tolling doctrine to the
case at bar. Dr. Abraham responded to Defendants’ motion and argued
that the doctrine of equitable tolling was applicable. Thus, Dr.
Abraham “squarely and timely raised in the trial court” his
-11-
“Equitable tolling is available ‘in exceptional
circumstances’ to extend the statute of limitations.” Vistamar,
Inc. v. Fagundo-Fagundo, 430 F.3d 66, 71 (1st Cir. 2005). In order
for equitable tolling to apply, the plaintiff must show that
circumstances beyond his or her control precluded a timely filing.
Monrouzeau v. Asociacion Del Hosp. Del Maestro, Inc., 153 Fed.
Appx. 7, 9 (1st Cir. 2005). However, equitable tolling is sparsely
applied and cannot be used to rescue a plaintiff from his or her
lack of diligence. Cao v. Puerto Rico, 525 F.3d 112, 115 (1st Cir.
2008). Thus, an employee is generally not entitled to avail himself
or herself of the doctrine of equitable tolling if the procedural
flaw that prompted the dismissal of his or her claim is of his or
her own making. Jorge v. Rumsfeld, 404 F.3d 556, 565 (1st Cir.
2005).
We review a district court’s ruling rejecting the
application of the doctrine of equitable tolling for abuse of
discretion, always mindful of the “highly deferential” nature of
our oversight. Mr. I. v. Me. Sch. Admin. Dist. No. 55, 480 F.3d 1,
23 (1st Cir. 2007) (noting that a district court’s decision to
award or withhold equitable relief is reviewed for an abuse of that
discretion); see also Donovan v. Maine, 276 F.3d 87, 92 (1st Cir.
argument for the applicability of the doctrine of equitable tolling
to the present case. See Iverson v. City of Boston, 452 F.3d 94,
102 (1st Cir. 2006) (noting that an appellant waives any legal
theory which is not “squarely and timely raised in the trial
court”).
-12-
2002)(citing Delaney v. Matesanz, 264 F.3d 7, 13-14 (1st Cir.
2001)). In the present case, Dr. Abraham attributed his failure to
file a timely complaint before the district court to the fact that
he never received the EEOC First Dismissal Notice because it was
sent to the wrong address. According to Dr. Abraham, he never had
any communication with the EEOC since he filed a complaint in the
MCAD, which communicated to him that pursuant to a work sharing
agreement, the complaint would be forwarded to the EEOC. Further,
Dr. Abraham submits that while acting as a pro se litigant he was
diligent in communicating with MCAD. Moreover, Dr. Abraham states
that he lacked any knowledge of the EEOC’s filing requirements.
However, Dr. Abraham’s allegations do not sway this Court to find
that the district court abused its discretion in not applying the
doctrine of equitable tolling to the present case.
Dr. Abraham never received the EEOC First Dismissal
Notice because before receiving said notice, he moved from Queens,
New York to Lynchburg, Virginia and never filed a change of address
with the EEOC. Dr. Abraham’s lack of diligence in filing a change
of address with the EEOC as required by 29 C.F.R. § 1601.7(b) is
sufficient to reject his equitable tolling claim.9 Pearison v.
9
Dr. Abraham incorrectly argues that this court’s holding in
Mercado v. Ritz-Carlton San Juan Hotel, Spa & Casino, 410 F.3d 41
(1st Cir. 2005), supports his position that the doctrine of
equitable tolling is applicable to his Title VII claim. Mercado
does not deal with a case where an employee failed to comply with
his ninety (90) day filing requirement because of his lack of due
diligence. Specifically, Mercado discusses how the doctrine of
-13-
Pinkerton’s Inc., 90 Fed. Appx. 811, 813 (6th Cir. 2004); Day v.
Lincoln Ins. Agency, Inc., 1 Fed. Appx. 521, 523-524 (7th Cir.
2001); Nelmida v. Shelly Eurocars, Inc., 112 F.3d 380, 385 (9th
Cir. 1997). Furthermore, the fact that Dr. Abraham originally filed
his complaint with the MCAD and had no initial communication with
the EEOC does not excuse his failure to provide a change of address
to the EEOC because the MCAD Dismissal Notice informed him that his
Title VII claim was to be reviewed by the EEOC and informed him of
the location of the EEOC office. The MCAD became aware on November
9, 2006 that Dr. Abraham had a change of address when he appealed
the MCAD’s determination through a request letter. Even though the
EEOC First Dismissal Notice was issued thereafter, on November 24,
2006, the MCAD’s actions in not forwarding this address to the EEOC
cannot serve as an excuse for Dr. Abraham’s failure to provide the
Virginia address to the EEOC. Ball v. Abbott Advertising, Inc., 864
F.2d 419, 421 (6th Cir. 1988) (holding that even if a petitioner
notifies the state agency of his or her change of address, this
equitable tolling applies in cases where the employer may have
violated the EEOC posting requirements and the employee had no
other actual or constructive knowledge of the complaint procedures.
Id. at 46-48. In such cases, this Court generally should weigh five
factors in considering whether to allow the application of the
equitable toling doctrine: “‘(1) lack of actual notice of the
filing requirement; (2) lack of constructive knowledge of the
filing requirement; (3) diligence in pursuing one’s rights; (4)
absence of prejudice to the defendant; and (5) a plaintiff’s
reasonableness in remaining ignorant of the [filing] requirement.’”
Id. at 48 (citing Kelley v. N.L.R.B., 79 F.3d 1238, 1248 (1st Cir.
1996)).
-14-
does not constitute notice to the EEOC); St. Louis v. Alverno
College, 744 F.2d 1314, 1316-1317 (7th Cir. 1984) (noting that the
burden of providing the EEOC with changes of address is minimal
and, as such, it would be unreasonable to expect the EEOC to pore
over its files, and those of state administrative agencies, in an
effort to ascertain which of the addresses contained therein is
correct).
Finally, Dr. Abraham attempts to excuse his lack of
diligence by arguing that he proceeded on a pro se status in
dealing with the MCAD. First, Dr. Abraham’s allegation that he
proceeded in a pro se status is not entirely accurate since he had
assistance of counsel well before the ninety (90) day right to sue
period had expired.10 Moreover, being pro se does not excuse a
petitioner from complying with the EEOC’s change of address
requirements. Howard v. Boatmen’s Nat’l Bank, No. 99-3416, 2000
U.S. App. LEXIS 24492, at *2-3 (8th Cir. Sept. 29, 2000)(finding
10
On November 24, 2006, the EEOC First Dismissal Notice was
issued and on January 11, 2007, Dr. Abraham’s counsel appeared on
his behalf in an oral argument at the MCAD. Even before this date,
on September 8, 2005, Dr. Abraham was being represented by J.
Michael Johnson of the Alliance Defense Fund. Although the record
does not indicate whether Dr. Abraham received the right to sue
letter, assuming that he received it three days after it was issued
and excluding Saturdays and Sundays, the ninety (90) day right to
sue period commenced on November 30, 2006, the day after receipt.
McGill v. United States Express Truck Co., No. 08-1101, 2008 U.S.
App. LEXIS 20687, at *2 n.1 (1st Cir. Sept. 3, 2008) (citing Fed.
R. Civ. P. 6(a), (d)). Thus, the limitation period expired on
February 28, 2007. Accordingly, Dr. Abraham was represented by
counsel before the ninety (90) day period expired.
-15-
that the doctrine of equitable tolling did not apply to a
petitioner proceeding pro se that had failed to notify the EEOC of
her change of address). As such, Dr. Abraham may not benefit from
the doctrine of equitable tolling.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, we find that the district
court did not abuse its discretion in denying Dr. Abraham’s futile
request to amend the complaint to include a 151B claim.
Furthermore, this court holds that the district court’s decision
denying Dr. Abraham’s equitable tolling request was not an abuse of
discretion. Dr. Abraham’s lack of diligence bars the application of
the doctrine of equitable tolling to the case at bar. Accordingly,
the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
-16-