Taylor v. Alcohol & Drug Recovery Center Inc et al

Filing 38

ORDER Approving and Adopting 35 Recommended Ruling.; granting 16 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Robert N. Chatigny on 9/13/11. (Glynn, T.)

UNITED STATE DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
CHAZ TAYLOR,

:

Plaintiff,

:

v.

:

ALCOHOL & DRUG RECOVERY
CENTER, INC.,

:

Defendant.

Case No. 3:10-CV-319(RNC)

:
RULING AND ORDER

Plaintiff has filed an objection to the Magistrate Judge’s
recommended ruling that the defendant’s motion to dismiss this
action be granted.

For reasons that follow, the recommended

ruling is approved and adopted over the plaintiff’s objection.
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, brings this action against his
former employer alleging racial discrimination and retaliation in
violation of Title VII.

On November 12, 2009, the EEOC issued a

notice of rights to the plaintiff, informing him that he had 90
days from his receipt of the notice in which to file a complaint
in court.

See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1).

Plaintiff states that

he received the notice on November 17, 2009.

Accepting his

statement as true, the deadline for filing his complaint was
February 15, 2010.

The Clerk received plaintiff’s complaint by

mail on February 19, 2010, outside the 90-day period.

The

complaint was not accepted for filing due to defects in the fee
waiver application.

Plaintiff subsequently corrected these

defects and his complaint was filed on March 3, 2010.
Defendant has moved to dismiss the action based on
plaintiff’s failure to file a complaint within the 90-day period
provided by statute.

Judge Martinez has recommended that the

motion to dismiss be granted.

In his objection to the

recommended ruling, plaintiff asks the Court to apply equitable
tolling on the ground that he undertook to file the complaint in
a timely manner by placing it in a mailbox on February 10, 2010.
He alleges that mail pickup and delivery in his neighborhood is
subject to delays.

Alternatively, he asks for a hearing as to

delays in mail service in his neighborhood.
As Judge Martinez’s recommended ruling explains, equitable
tolling may be applied only in “rare and exceptional
circumstances.”
2000).

Smith v. McGinnis, 208 F.3d 13, 17 (2d Cir.

To obtain equitable tolling, plaintiff must show that he

was prevented from filing a timely complaint due to the fault of
another.

See Stephens v. Salvation Army, No. 04 Civ. 1697, 2006

WL 2788245, at *4-5 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 26, 2006).

I agree with

Judge Martinez that plaintiff has not made this showing.
With regard to plaintiff’s request for a hearing, I do not
think a hearing on delays in mail service in plaintiff’s
neighborhood is warranted.

To obtain equitable tolling, it is

not enough for plaintiff to show that others have experienced
delays and complained to the Postal Service.

2

Rather, he must

offer evidence to corroborate his claim that he put the complaint
in the mailbox on February 10, 2010, and the Postal Service
failed to deliver it to the Clerk until nine days later.

There

is no indication that plaintiff has such corroborating evidence.
Plaintiff urges that his complaint should not be dismissed
because his claims against the defendant are valid.

There is a

strong policy favoring adjudicating Title VII claims on the
merits.

When a complaint is filed outside the 90-day statutory

period, however, the law requires that the action be dismissed
unless equitable tolling applies.

As discussed above, equitable

tolling is restricted to “rare and exceptional circumstances.”
This stringent standard requires that the action be dismissed,
even though it means plaintiff’s claims are not adjudicated on
the merits.
Accordingly, the recommended ruling is hereby approved and
adopted and the action is dismissed.
So ordered this 13th day of September 2011.

/s/ RNC
Robert N. Chatigny
United States District Judge

3