Dewayne Vesey v. Midwest Janitorial Services, No. 16-2891 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Wollman, Arnold and Gruender, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Employment discrimination. Plaintiff failed to file this Title VII action within 90 days of receiving his right-to-sue letter, and the district court did not err in finding there were no grounds for equitable tolling of the limitations period. [ October 27, 2016
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 16-2891 ___________________________ Dewayne Vesey lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Midwest Janitorial Services, Inc. lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Davenport ____________ Submitted: October 25, 2016 Filed: October 28, 2016 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, ARNOLD, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Dewayne Vesey appeals the district court’s1 dismissal of his pro se Title VII complaint against his former employer. The district court based the dismissal on 1 The Honorable John A. Jarvey, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. Vesey’s failure to bring his action within 90 days after receiving a right-to-sue letter. On appeal, Vesey suggests that equitable tolling should have applied. Upon careful review, we conclude that the dismissal was proper, and that equitable tolling was not warranted. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) (90-day requirement); Richter v. Advance Auto Parts, Inc., 686 F.3d 847, 851 (8th Cir. 2012) (in Title VII action, if agency dismisses charge and notifies complainant of right to sue, then complainant has 90 days to bring civil action in federal court); see also Baldwin Cty. Welcome Ctr. v. Brown, 466 U.S. 147, 148 & n.1 (1984) (per curiam) (claimant was presumed to have received notice 3 days after its issuance); Hallgren v. U.S. Dep’t of Energy, 331 F.3d 588, 590 (8th Cir. 2003) (discussing grounds for equitable tolling). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
