mla
Resources professional, Lehr, was very negative about the possibility of a favorable outcome for appellant. She repeatedly informed appellant that appellee Bonilla was well-liked by the people at the company and actively encouraged appellant to drop her complaint against appellee Bonilla. Moreover, Lehr was involved in a romantic relationship with appellee Bonilla, which was known to the appellant during the time of the investigation.
While it may seem egregious that appellee U.S.P.S. would allow a human resources professional who was engaged in a romantic relationship with an employee to conduct an investigation into that employee's behavior, the egregious nature of those allegations actually works against appellant's claim of equitable estoppel. If appellee Bonilla had engaged in a secret affair with Lehr, which appellant only uncovered after the limitations period had expired, then estoppel might apply to him. If appellee U.S.P.S. had been aware of the affair, but hidden it from appellant, then estoppel might apply to it. On the contrary, appellant's own allegations suggest that the romantic relationship between Lehr and appellee Bonilla was known during the course of the investigation. Therefore, the Court has to look at whether a reasonable person, under those same circumstances, would have believed that an investigation into appellee Bonilla would have resulted in a favorable outcome for appellant. Clearly, a reasonable person would have had, at the very least, grave misgivings about the outcome of such an investigation and would not have relied upon the fact that an investigation was occurring to prevent her from filing a discrimination claim.
The only other possible source of an estoppel claim is the fact that appellant met with a counselor who failed to file her employment discrimination claim against appellees. Perhaps the facts support a filing of a discrimination claim and the counselor's behavior was inappropriate. Moreover, it is possible that appellant believed that her discussion with the counselor would lead to a claim being filed within the statutory period, although her decision to delay speaking with a counselor until the statutory period had almost expired seems as if she was not protecting her rights. However, the question is whether the appellees engaged in behavior that would have prevented her from filing her claim. Even if the counselor's behavior kept appellant from filing a private lawsuit, there is no reason to believe that appellees were, in any way responsible for the counselor's behavior. They cannot be equitably estopped from bringing a statute of limitations defense by the behavior of a third party who was not under their control.
When examining equitable estoppel, it is also appropriate to look at laches. Laches is the "negligent and unintentional failure to protect one's rights." Elvis Presley Enter., v. Elvisly Yours, Inc., 936 F.2d 889, 894 (6th Cir. 1991). Laches has two elements. First, there must be an unreasonable delay in asserting one's rights and second, there must be prejudice to the defending parties. EEOC v. Watkins Motor Lines, Inc., 463 F.3d 436, 437 (6th Cir. 2006). The Court has specifically held that employers can use a laches defense when faced with discrimination claims; "in addition to other equitable defenses, therefore, an employer may raise a laches defense, which bars a plaintiff from maintaining a suit if he unreasonably delays in filing a suit and as a result harms the defendant." National R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 121-122.
Appellant would like to characterize her request for equitable estoppel in such a way that it appears that she is barred by just a few days from bringing her discrimination claim. In some ways this is true, but she also wants to allege a systemic pattern of discriminatory behavior by appellee Bonilla that goes back for years of employment. She failed to file her claim, either as a lawsuit or with the EEOC during that extended period of harassment. Moreover, she acknowledges that she was only transferred to appellee Bonilla's supervision after an unfavorable review when she was in another position. It certainly appears that her employment behavior for several years would be at issue in the lawsuit and that appellees would need to be able to provide substantiation of their claims about her behavior, particularly claims made in her employment evaluations, as part of their defense. The time delay in bringing suit would make this much more difficult for appellees.
