The primary issue on appeal considered by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit in this action was whether the district court erred in determining that the Petitioner’s ADEA claims were untimely.
For example, with respect to certain allegations of unlawful discrimination Petitioner's contended that "certain comments allegedly made by school officials about her before she retired ... establish a continuing violation of the ADEA and saves her claims from the statute of limitations."
Noting that in Delaware State College v. Ricks, 449 U.S. 250, the United States Supreme Court held "that the pendency of collateral review of an employment decision does not extend the time to file an EEOC charge under federal law." The Circuit Court opined that Ricks, which it viewed as "directly on point", held that the pendency of a grievance, or some other method of collateral review of an employment decision, does not toll the running of the limitations periods for the purposes of bringing a timely judicial complaint.*
In the words of the court, "The existence of careful procedures to assure fairness in the tenure decision should not obscure the principle that limitations periods normally commence when the employer’s decision is made." Further, said the court, the denial of an administrative appeal "did not restart the clock" for the aggrieved party to bring a timely EEOC charge.
* N.B. As the Appellate Division held in Matter of Cappellino v Town of Somers, 83 AD3d 934, neither does a request for reconsideration of a final administrative decision toll the running of the relevant statute of limitations.
Click HEREto access the Circuit Court's ruling.