Yvonne Reed v. Cognizant Technology Solutions
This text of Yvonne Reed v. Cognizant Technology Solutions (Yvonne Reed v. Cognizant Technology Solutions) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 1 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YVONNE REED, No. 20-16379
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:20-cv-00061-SMB
v. MEMORANDUM* COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Susan M. Brnovich, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 18, 2021**
Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
Yvonne Reed appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing her
Title VII employment discrimination action. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Doughtery v. City of Covina, 654 F.3d 892,
897 (9th Cir. 2011) (dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6));
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). O’Donnell v. Vencor Inc., 466 F.3d 1104, 1109 (9th Cir. 2006) (dismissal on the
basis of the applicable statute of limitations). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Reed’s action as time-barred because
Reed filed this action after the applicable statute of limitations had run and failed
to show extraordinary circumstances beyond her control that justified equitable
tolling. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) (setting forth 90-day period in which Title
VII complainant may bring a civil action); Payan v. Aramark Mgmt. Servs. Ltd.
P’ship, 495 F.3d 1119, 1121-22 (9th Cir. 2007) (90-day period operates as a
limitations period; if a litigant does not file suit within 90 days of receipt of the
notice of right to sue, the action is time-barred); Stoll v. Runyon, 165 F.3d 1238,
1242 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining that equitable tolling is warranted “when
extraordinary circumstances beyond the plaintiff’s control made it impossible to
file a claim on time”).
AFFIRMED.
2 20-16379
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Yvonne Reed v. Cognizant Technology Solutions, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/yvonne-reed-v-cognizant-technology-solutions-ca9-2021.