Not Clicking “NEXT” in ECF Tanks A Lawsuit on Limitations Grounds, Holds the Seventh Circuit

In Dent v. Charles Schwab & Co., Inc., No. 24-1480 (7th Cir. Nov. 22, 2024) (per curiam), the Seventh Circuit affirms dismissal of a Title VII action on limitations grounds, holding that the action was not timely filed because counsel failed to click through to the last screen in the Electronic Case Filing System (ECF) process when they attempted to file the complaint.

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, after a charging party receives a notice of right to sue from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, they have just 90 days to commence a civil action under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1). Here, because the plaintiff received her notice on April 5, 2023, she (or her counsel) reportedly had until July 5, 2023 to file a complaint. (Ninety days would actually be July 4th, not 5th, but the court may be tacking on a day because of the federal holiday, Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(1)(C) and (6).)

“Her attorney attempted to file her complaint [on ECF] on July 4, 2023, but did not complete the online submission process. More precisely, after paying the filing fee, the attorney failed to take the necessary steps to receive a ‘notice of electronic filing’ for the complaint, the last step in the electronic filing process. The court’s instructions specifically state that, after paying ‘the filing fee, the filer must click the ‘NEXT’ button to ‘commit[ ] this transaction’ and receive’ the notice of filing.”

Only after getting a phone call from a court clerk days later, notifying counsel of the error, did the complaint finally get filed … but by then, it was several days past the 90-day Title VII deadline. The district court granted judgment on the pleadings to the defendant on limitations grounds.

The Seventh Circuit affirms. Given that plaintiff conceded the late filing, the only argument for reversal was equitable tolling. The panel holds that attorney filing error is not the kind of extraordinary circumstance that may support tolling. “Ms. Dent has only demonstrated that her attorney failed to follow the court’s instructions and local rules on submitting complaints . . . . Her attorney’s mistake is thus nothing more than ‘garden variety’ neglect and does not amount to extraordinary circumstances warranting equitable tolling.”