Reported / Citable
Background
Alex Perales worked as a Purchasing Manager for Charlie’s Plumbing, Inc. from February 2024 until his termination on July 12, 2024. In June 2024, Perales suffered multiple medical emergencies related to hypertension, experiencing difficulty concentrating, stress intolerance, disrupted sleep, and anxiety. He later hypothesized these symptoms may have related to undiagnosed ADHD or PTSD. Charlie’s terminated him without stated cause, though the company later told the Texas Workforce Commission that Perales was behind on his work—a claim Perales disputed.
Perales filed an EEOC charge asserting violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Family and Medical Leave Act. The EEOC issued a Notice of Right to Sue on July 9, 2025, which Perales and his counsel accessed on July 10, 2025. Perales filed suit on October 14, 2025—96 days after receiving the NRTS.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss both claims with prejudice. On the ADA claim, the court found it untimely under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1), which requires filing within 90 days of receiving the NRTS. The statute’s clock begins on the date the plaintiff or counsel receives the notice, not when it was issued. Here, the 90-day deadline was October 8, 2025, and Perales filed six days late. The court rejected Perales’s arguments that bad legal advice from counsel, miscounting the days, or mailing the complaint before the deadline provided excuses. Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 3, a civil action is commenced by filing with the court, not by mailing.
On the FMLA claim, the court held Perales was ineligible as a matter of law. FMLA protection requires: (1) employment for at least 12 months, and (2) working at least 1,250 hours during that period. Perales’s own complaint alleged he worked only five months—February through July 2024. Because Perales affirmatively pleaded facts establishing his ineligibility, the court found no facts could be pleaded to change this result.
Key Takeaways
- The 90-day filing deadline for ADA claims under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) is a strict statute of limitations; the clock starts on receipt of the NRTS by the plaintiff or counsel, not the EEOC’s issuance date.
- Attorney error or miscounting days does not excuse late filing; parties bear responsibility for timely filing compliance regardless of counsel’s advice.
- The mailbox rule does not apply to federal employment litigation; filing occurs when the complaint is delivered to the courthouse, not when mailed.
- FMLA eligibility requires both a 12-month employment tenure and 1,250 hours worked; employees cannot proceed with FMLA claims if they fail to meet both statutory requirements.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the Fifth Circuit’s strict application of the 90-day filing deadline for employment discrimination claims. Plaintiffs and their counsel must carefully track the date notice of right to sue is received—not issued—and file within that window to preserve claims. The ruling makes clear that even technical errors, including reliance on counsel’s misinterpretation of the deadline or the absence of a mailing rule, will not extend the statutory deadline. This places responsibility squarely on claimants to ensure timely filing.
The decision also confirms that FMLA eligibility is a threshold matter that courts evaluate on the pleadings. Employees who lack the requisite tenure or hours cannot cure this deficiency through amendment, making early assessment of FMLA eligibility critical for plaintiffs contemplating such claims. Together, these holdings underscore the importance of statutory compliance and eligibility verification before filing employment law suits.