Tamra Culton sued Unifi Aviation, LLC, an aviation services contractor, alleging employment discrimination and retaliation under Title VII and Michigan's Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act. Culton claimed she was fired for wearing facemasks depicting the Black Lives Matter logo and the LGBTQ+ pride flag, while the employer stated she was terminated for violating safety and social media policies. The district court granted summary judgment to Unifi on September 27, 2024, dismissing all claims with prejudice. Culton filed a motion for reconsideration under Rule 59(e), which was denied on January 24, 2025. Under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4)(B)(ii), the notice of appeal was due within 30 days of that denial, setting the deadline for February 24, 2025. Culton missed this deadline and moved for an extension on March 7, 2025, arguing that her lead counsel was nine months pregnant and preparing for maternity leave. The district court denied the motion, noting that Culton had four attorneys of record, all of whom received electronic filing notifications, and that the explanation accounted for only one of them. Culton filed a notice of appeal anyway, prompting the Sixth Circuit to first determine its jurisdiction.
The Sixth Circuit reviewed the district court's denial of the extension for abuse of discretion. The court applied the five-factor test from Pioneer Investment Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates Ltd. Partnership to determine if the neglect was excusable. The court emphasized that while all factors are relevant, the reason for the delay carries the greatest weight. Culton argued that her lead counsel's pregnancy was a compelling personal circumstance outside her reasonable control. However, the court found this insufficient because Culton had three other attorneys of record who received CM/ECF notifications alerting them to the deadline. There was no indication that these other attorneys were prevented from filing due to factors outside their control. The court noted that excusable neglect is a strict standard met only in extraordinary cases. While the court acknowledged that Culton did not act in bad faith and the delay was not egregiously long, these factors were not enough to overcome the failure of the legal team to meet the deadline. The court rejected the argument that the employer suffered prejudice from the motion, noting that responding to a motion for extension is a procedural right under the Federal Rules. Ultimately, the court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion because the reason for the delay did not constitute an extraordinary circumstance warranting an extension.
The decision leaves the summary judgment in favor of Unifi Aviation intact and the employment discrimination claims dismissed with prejudice. Culton's appeal of the summary judgment itself is now barred due to the untimely filing. The ruling reinforces the strict application of FRAP 4(a)(5) deadlines, particularly in cases with multiple counsel, where the failure of one attorney to act does not excuse the entire team if others received notice. No remand instructions were issued as the court affirmed the denial of the extension.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download