Reported / Citable
Background
Cameron Burnett filed a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC against Penske Logistics. On August 6, 2024, the EEOC issued Burnett a Notice of Right to Sue letter, which informed him that he had 90 days to file suit in federal court. Burnett claims he received the letter on the same day.
The 90-day deadline fell on November 4, 2024. On that date, Burnett timely filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) accompanied by his complaint. The IFP application was denied on November 27, 2024. Burnett then paid the filing fee and formally filed his complaint on December 3–4, 2024—after the 90-day deadline had expired.
Defendant Penske Logistics moved to dismiss the complaint as untimely under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing that Burnett failed to file within the statutory 90-day window. Burnett responded with a motion for leave to amend the complaint to clarify the timeline.
The Court’s Holding
The court held that Burnett’s lawsuit was timely filed and denied Penske’s motion to dismiss. Under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1), the court explained, the relevant filing date is when the plaintiff files the in forma pauperis application with the complaint, not when the formal complaint is subsequently filed after an IFP denial.
The court applied Fifth Circuit precedent, particularly Robinson v. City of Fairfield, which holds that the timely filing of an IFP application meets the 90-day requirement even if the complaint is not formally docketed until later. The court also cited Baldwin County Welcome Center v. Brown, 466 U.S. 147 (1984), for the principle that equity justifies tolling the statutory period while a motion for IFP is pending. Because Burnett’s IFP application with the complaint was filed on November 4, 2024—within the deadline—the suit was timely.
The court denied Burnett’s initial motion for leave to amend as moot. However, the court granted Burnett’s second motion for leave to amend, which sought to “properly set forth his claims and provide supporting factual detail,” and instructed Burnett to refile his amended complaint as a separate pleading.
Key Takeaways
- Filing an in forma pauperis application with an attached complaint within the 90-day EEOC right-to-sue deadline satisfies § 2000e-5(f)(1), even if the complaint is formally docketed after the deadline expires.
- Courts may toll the statutory period while an IFP motion is pending and being decided.
- Defendants cannot circumvent the statute of limitations by timing a motion to dismiss after an IFP application is denied but before formal docketing.
Why It Matters
This decision protects pro se litigants seeking to pursue EEOC discrimination claims on a limited budget. Many employment discrimination claimants cannot afford filing fees and must proceed in forma pauperis. Without this rule, the administrative hurdle of obtaining IFP approval could unknowingly cause a plaintiff to miss the deadline through no fault of his own, effectively barring meritorious discrimination claims on technicality.
The holding also clarifies that in the Fifth Circuit, the statute of limitations inquiry focuses on the substance of what was filed and when, not merely the formal docketing date—a principle that protects access to justice for low-income claimants navigating federal employment discrimination procedures.