A 42-year-old, African American Missouri medical technician, fired by her employer, tried to charge the employer with race, age, and sex discrimination plus retaliation. She offered a date when she had filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), but that date was disputed, and judges wrestled with what to do.

What happened. “Bowers” joined Midwest Heart Group in January 2006 as a cardiac sonographer. On April 23, 2007, Midwest fired her, for reasons not addressed in the court opinion. Bowers alleged she filed simultaneous charges with the Missouri Commission of Human Rights (MCHR) and EEOC on May 10, 2007, but Midwest disagreed.

Eventually, EEOC disclosed an information form that Bowers had signed and dated on May 10, but it bore an official EEOC date stamp of January 28, 2010. At another point, Bowers and her attorney, having complained to their Congressman, wrangled from EEOC a statement that it had received the information form on May 23, 2007, but had thereafter been unable to schedule an appointment with Bowers. EEOC also said it had received Bowers’ attorney’s request for Bowers’ file in June 2009 but had long since destroyed the file.

Bowers finally sued Midwest in federal district court in May 2010, attaching her right-to-sue letter from MCHR. The judge chose to accept the findings of Midwest and EEOC that she had not filed her charge by the 300-day deadline after her termination. Midwest asked the judge to issue a summary judgment against Bowers, but the judge instead dismissed her case. She appealed to the 8th Circuit, which covers Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota.

What the court said. Appellate judges firmly overturned the district court’s ruling. They decided the judge had “prejudiced” Bowers’ case against her by choosing to dismiss rather than issue a summary judgment in Midwest’s favor. Further, he had violated the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and deprived Bowers of the right to present further evidence in her favor where questions of material fact existed. Brooks v. Midwest Heart Group, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit, No. 10-3712 (2011).

Point to remember: The district judge had “gone outside” the evidence Bowers and her attorney presented to him, going to Midwest for its opinion of when her EEOC charge had been filed. That was the main reason he had violated the federal rules and was overruled by appellate judges. A civil rights plaintiff must file a timely EEOC charge to “exhaust his or her administrative remedies” before suing. Bowers will have another chance in court, perhaps before the same district judge.