Dawn Plagianes, a teacher at the Fulton County School District, was on leave without pay in early 2021. In April 2021, the District informed her that she would not be allowed to return to work as scheduled once she received her second COVID-19 vaccine dose. Instead, she was given three options: resign, medically resign, or be terminated. Plagianes chose to medically resign, communicating this decision to the District on April 12, 2021, though her resignation did not become effective until July or August 2021. She filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC on January 5, 2022, alleging employment discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The District moved to dismiss, arguing that Plagianes failed to exhaust her administrative remedies because her EEOC charge was filed more than 180 days after the alleged discriminatory act. The district court adopted a magistrate judge's recommendation to dismiss the ADA claims, and Plagianes appealed.
The Eleventh Circuit applied de novo review to the dismissal, focusing on whether Plagianes timely exhausted her administrative remedies. The court explained that in Georgia, a non-deferral state, an ADA plaintiff must file an EEOC charge within 180 days of the allegedly discriminatory action. The court relied on Supreme Court precedent, specifically National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan and Delaware State College v. Ricks, to establish that termination is a discrete act. The 180-day period begins when the employee receives an unequivocal notice of the final decision to terminate, not when the actual separation occurs. The court noted that the District's April 2021 communication was unequivocal because it clearly stated Plagianes would lose her job regardless of her choice. The court rejected Plagianes's argument that the continuing-violation doctrine applied to her constructive discharge claim. Citing Green v. Brennan, the court clarified that for constructive discharge, the limitations period begins when the employee gives notice of resignation, not when the resignation becomes effective. Since Plagianis notified the District of her resignation on April 12, 2021, the clock started then. The court also addressed the argument for equitable tolling, which Plagianes raised for the first time on appeal. Even assuming the issue was preserved, the court found no grounds for tolling. Equitable tolling requires extraordinary circumstances, such as fraud or deliberate concealment. The court found that the District's offer of resignation or termination did not mislead a reasonable person into believing she could keep her job, especially without any indication of a transfer or alternative position being sought.
This decision reinforces the strict timeline for filing EEOC charges in employment discrimination cases within the Eleventh Circuit. Employers can rely on the date of an unequivocal notice of termination or resignation to calculate the 180-day filing deadline, regardless of when the employment relationship formally ends. Plaintiffs cannot extend the deadline by arguing that the consequences of the discriminatory act were delayed or that the resignation was constructive, unless they can prove the employer misled them into believing they could retain their position. The case is remanded to the district court with instructions to maintain the dismissal of the ADA claims.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download