Plaintiff Ciara Roberts sued defendant BJC Missouri Baptist Medical Center in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, raising claims of religious discrimination, retaliation, failure to accommodate religious beliefs, and disability discrimination under Title VII and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Defendant moved to dismiss plaintiff’s claims under Rule 12(b)(6).
Factual Overview
Plaintiff was hired by BJC Missouri Baptist Medical Center (MoBap) on July 5, 2021. MoBap required employees to either get a COVID-19 vaccine or request a religious or medical exemption. Plaintiff initially requested and received a medical exemption from vaccination. Later, MoBap updated its policy to require unvaccinated employees to undergo nasal pharyngeal testing. Plaintiff requested a medical exemption from testing but was told only religious exemptions would be granted. She then requested a religious exemption on October 22, 2021, which was denied on November 1, 2021. Plaintiff was placed on a 30-day unpaid suspension and ultimately terminated on November 30, 2021, for noncompliance with testing requirements.
Plaintiff filed a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC on August 10, 2022. The EEOC issued a Notice of Right to Sue letter on April 21, 2023, informing Plaintiff she had 90 days to file a lawsuit. On July 20, 2023, the last day of the 90-day period, Plaintiff electronically submitted her Complaint via Missouri Case.Net at 6:19 pm. The Court Clerk returned the filing on July 25, 2023, due to “incorrect or missing filing fees.” The Complaint was not accepted until August 3, 2023, after the proper fees were paid, which was beyond the 90-day filing deadline.
Legal Analysis
Timeliness of Filing
The court addressed whether Plaintiff’s suit was barred for failure to file within the 90-day period after receiving the EEOC’s Notice of Right to Sue. The court examined Missouri’s civil procedural rules and relevant case law to determine if Plaintiff’s electronic submission on July 20, 2023, constituted a timely filing.
The court found that Missouri law distinguishes between submission and acceptance of electronic filings. While Plaintiff submitted her Complaint on the last day of the 90-day period, the court determined that submission alone does not constitute acceptance or filing. The court noted that Missouri Supreme Court Rule 103.06 and relevant case law support this distinction.
Minor Technical Deficiency vs. Prerequisite to Filing
The court rejected Plaintiff’s argument that returning a filing for failure to pay fees constitutes a “minor technical deficiency.” The court distinguished between clerical errors, which may be considered minor deficiencies, and failure to pay filing fees, which it deemed a prerequisite to filing. The court cited Missouri Revised Statute § 488.020, which authorizes clerks to refuse service until court costs are paid, as support for its conclusion that the clerk acted properly in returning Plaintiff’s submission.
Plaintiff’s Response to Rejection
The court considered Plaintiff’s actions following the rejection of her filing. It noted that Plaintiff’s counsel did not promptly correct the error, pay the filing fees, or seek relief from the court regarding the missed deadline. The court found this lack of action further supported its conclusion that the filing was untimely.
The court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss, finding that Plaintiff’s action was untimely filed and thus barred.
Schrag on Law 