Anotta, Et Al. v. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Et Al.

Holding: The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment, holding that the plaintiffs' claims were time-barred and failed to state a valid continuing violation.
Vote: The panel unanimously affirmed the decision without oral argument.
Practical effect: The decision reinforces that plaintiffs must file civil rights claims within the applicable state statute of limitations and cannot rely on the continuing violations doctrine based on isolated incidents of alleged discrimination.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed a summary judgment ruling against plaintiffs alleging racial discrimination by a state environmental agency. The court held that the plaintiffs' claims were barred by the statute of limitations and failed to establish a pattern of discrimination.

Background

Plaintiffs, a Black-owned business and its officer, alleged that the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality required them to obtain an Air Contaminant Discharge Permit while exempting white-owned businesses. They filed claims under Section nineteen eighty-three for Equal Protection and Due Process violations, a Title Six claim, and a state law claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants.

The court’s reasoning

The court applied Oregon’s two-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions to the federal claims. The court found the claims accrued more than two years before the June three, two thousand twenty-two filing date, noting the initial demand for a permit occurred in August two thousand eighteen and a relevant injunction was issued in March two thousand twenty. The court rejected the argument that the plaintiffs only learned of the injunction due to the pandemic, citing an email from the plaintiff stating they were aware of the discrimination one hundred days prior. The court further held that the continuing violations doctrine did not apply because the plaintiffs identified neither a series of related acts nor a discriminatory system, and a single instance of alleged discrimination was insufficient without more.

What it means going forward

The decision reinforces that plaintiffs must file civil rights claims within the applicable state statute of limitations and cannot rely on the continuing violations doctrine based on isolated incidents of alleged discrimination.