Elisabeth Serian, a flight attendant for JetBlue Airways, worked during the COVID-19 pandemic when the airline implemented a mandatory mask policy in April 2020. Serian requested an accommodation to not wear a mask based on health reasons supported by a physician's note. JetBlue denied this request in August 2020 and offered her leave or a position reassignment instead. In April 2022, Serian emailed the company's CEO stating she was done complying with the policy and posted the email on a crew Facebook page. She was subsequently suspended and then terminated in April 2022 for violating company policies. On October 4, 2022, Serian filed a charge of disability discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), alleging that JetBlue failed to provide a reasonable accommodation. The EEOC issued a right-to-sue letter but explicitly advised Serian that it did not certify her compliance with any statutes. Serian then sued JetBlue in the Middle District of Florida, but the district court granted summary judgment for JetBlue, ruling that the complaint was untimely because the denial of accommodation occurred in 2020, not 2022.
The Eleventh Circuit reviewed the summary judgment de novo, focusing on the procedural requirement that an ADA plaintiff must file a charge of discrimination with the EEOC within 180 days, or 300 days in a deferral state like Florida, of the alleged unlawful employment practice. The court determined that Serian's claim was untimely because she filed her EEOC charge in October 2022, well past the deadline following the August 2020 denial of her accommodation request. The court addressed three arguments raised by Serian. First, it rejected the idea that the EEOC's right-to-sue letter established timeliness, noting the letter contained no such finding and explicitly stated it did not certify compliance with statutes. Second, the court dismissed the argument for equitable tolling because Serian raised it for the first time on appeal, a procedural error that precludes consideration. Third, the court rejected the continuing violations doctrine, citing Supreme Court precedent that discrete acts of discrimination, such as the denial of an accommodation, are not actionable if not filed within the statutory period. The court clarified that Serian's 2022 email and statements during her investigatory meeting were not new requests for accommodation but rather declarations of non-compliance and discussions of health concerns, which did not constitute new violations that would restart the limitations period. Consequently, the court held that the complaint was untimely and did not reach the merits of the discrimination claim.
This decision reinforces the strict application of statute of limitations deadlines in ADA employment discrimination cases within the Eleventh Circuit. Employers can successfully defend against claims where the plaintiff delays filing an EEOC charge beyond the 180 or 300-day window, even if the employee continues to work for the company or engages in subsequent disputes. The ruling clarifies that the denial of a reasonable accommodation is a discrete act, preventing plaintiffs from using later interactions to argue that the limitations period has not yet expired. The case is remanded with instructions to dismiss the complaint as untimely, and no further litigation on the merits of the accommodation claim is permitted.