Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, PROCEDURE—1st Cir.: Emails from EEOC in discrimination case did not trigger 90-day filing timeline, (Apr 25, 2025)

By Jason Albright, J.D.

The court noted at the outset that there is no dispute that the EEOC may issue right-to-sue letters via email.

Two separate emails received by a claimant from the EEOC did not provide notice of her right to sue such that the 90-day filing timeline was triggered in her case, the First Circuit found, reversing the contrary finding of a federal district court and reviving her Title VII and ADA discrimination claims. Although there is no dispute that the EEOC may issue right-to-sue letters via email, the two emails at issue—indicating the availability of a new document in the case and then an “important document” regarding a decision from the EEOC—did not provide notice of the plaintiff’s right to sue, according to the appeals court (García-Gesualdo v. Honeywell Aerospace of Puerto Rico, Inc., No. 23-1921 (1st Cir. Apr. 24, 2025)).

2021 EEOC claim. In 2021, the plaintiff filed a discrimination claim against Honeywell, her former employer, with the EEOC. The EEOC investigated the charge but, in 2022, decided to “not proceed further” with the investigation. Thereafter, on March 29, 2022, the EEOC closed her case and posted a document to the agency’s online portal detailing its decision and explaining her rights (the “right-to-sue letter”).

Right-to-sue letter. The right-to-sue letter provided that “[t]he EEOC [would] not proceed further with its investigation” and that the EEOC had “ma[de] no determination about whether further investigation would establish violations of the statute.” The letter also explained, “This is official notice from the EEOC of the dismissal of your charge and of your right to sue. If you choose to file a lawsuit against the respondent(s) on this charge under federal law in federal or state court, your lawsuit must be filed WITHIN 90 DAYS of your receipt of this notice. Receipt generally occurs on the date that you (or your representative) view this document.” Finally, the letter noted that it was “[i]ssued [o]n” March 29, 2022.

First email. Also on March 29, the EEOC emailed the plaintiff’s attorney. The subject line of the March 29 email read: “Document Added to [[plaintiff’s]] EEOC Charge.” The body of the email provided: “A new document was added to [[plaintiff’s] EEOC case]. To view it, sign-in to the EEOC Public Portal.” The email included a hyperlink to the EEOC's online portal.

Second email. Then, on April 6 at 11:00 p.m., the EEOC sent the attorney a second email, this time with the subject “REMINDER: Important Document Available for [[plaintiff’s]] EEOC Charge.” That email provided: the “EEOC has made a decision regarding [[plaintiff’s]] charge.... It is very important that you download and retain a copy of this document. You may review this decision by logging into the EEOC Public Portal.” The email also included a hyperlink to the EEOC's online portal.

Where’s the decision? At 9:12 the next morning, the attorney emailed the EEOC investigator on the plaintiff’s case. He explained that, even though he “was notified by email that a decision ha[d] been issued in the case,” he had “accessed the EEOC's public portal several times since then to see the decision, but the system indicate[d] that there [wa]s an error every time [he] click[ed] on the case.” After explaining the issue in more detail, he asked the investigator to send him a copy of the decision by email because he “urgently need[ed] to have access to the decision so that [he] [could] discuss it with [his] client.”

Right-to-sue letter received April 11. The same day, after hearing from the agency’s Digital Support department, the attorney sent a follow-up email to the EEOC investigator explaining that he had followed Digital Support's instructions and was still unable to access the decision. On April 11, the investigator responded to the attorney, attaching a PDF copy of the right-to-sue letter.

Lawsuit. The plaintiff initiated her lawsuit on July 7, 2022, which was 100 days after the March 29 email, 92 days after the April 6 email, and 87 days after the April 11 email. She alleged that Honeywell had discriminated against her in violation of Title VII and the ADA. In her complaint, she also averred that she had exhausted her administrative remedies before the EEOC and that she “received” notice of her right to sue on April 11, 2022.

The federal district court in the case granted Honeywell’s motion to dismiss, however, noting that the plaintiff’s counsel “received [the March 29] email,” indicating that a new document was added to her EEOC case and that “[i]t seem[ed] that counsel did not... attempt to access the EEOC's Public Portal to review that document” on that date. The district court then noted that “the EEOC sent another email to counsel” on April 6 and that “counsel [then] attempted to access the EEOC's Public Portal for the first time.” Without directly addressing which of the first two emails provided notice, the district court seemed to conclude, observed the First Circuit, that the plaintiff received notice on April 6, and it and went on to explain that equitable tolling did not apply. The district court then granted the motion to dismiss as to the Title VII and ADA claims.

Following denial of the plaintiff’s motion to amend the judgment, she timely appealed.

Exhaustion of administrative remedies. On appeal, the First Circuit reversed and remanded. Although there was no dispute that the EEOC may issue right-to-sue letters via email, and the parties did not dispute that the right-to-sue letter here itself provided sufficient information to effectuate notice of the EEOC's decision and the plaintiff’s rights, the appeals court agreed with the plaintiff that the EEOC's first two emails did not provide her such notice.

“[W]ithout ambiguity.” Notice that triggers the 90-day period under Title VII or the ADA, the appeals court observed, is not notice of any EEOC action, but notice that the EEOC has either “dismissed the charge or... failed to address the employee's grievance (by reaching a negotiated settlement or by commencing litigation on her behalf).” And, “[a]s a general rule, only a written notice by the EEOC that indicates without ambiguity that its processes have been terminated will suffice to commence the running of the ninety-day period.” In sum, observed the appeals court “in order for an email that does not attach the right-to-sue letter itself to provide notice, it must ‘indicate[] without ambiguity’ that the EEOC has reached a final decision and that the claimant has ninety days to bring suit if they so wish.”

And here, even though the April 6 email indicated that “the EEOC has reached a decision” (emphasis added), there are important, non-final EEOC decisions that would not trigger a 90-day filing period, such as a decision to file suit on behalf of an aggrieved person or to issue “a determination that reasonable cause exists to believe that an unlawful employment practice has occurred or is occurring.” Given the range of EEOC decision types, the First Circuit observed, “we do not view the April 6 email as providing [the plaintiff] any indication that the EEOC's processes had been terminated.”

The appeals court accordingly held that untimeliness was not apparent from the face of the plaintiff’s pleadings or submitted documents.

The case is No. 23-1921.

Judge: Montecalvo, L.

Attorneys: Rafael A. Ortiz Mendoza (Ortiz Mendoza & Farinacci Fernós) for Leika Joanna García-Gesualdo. Shiara L. Diloné-Fernández (Schuster) for Honeywell Aerospace of Puerto Rico, Inc.

Companies: Honeywell Aerospace of Puerto Rico, Inc.

Cases: Procedure Discrimination DisabilityDiscrimination MaineNews MassachusettsNews NewHampshireNews PuertoRicoNews RhodeIslandNews