# Gordon

> District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · November 6, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11198920

## Case

- **Full name:** Monica Christine Gordon v. Paycom Payroll, LLC and Chad Richison
- **Court:** District Court, W.D. Oklahoma
- **Decided:** November 6, 2025
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11198920

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting the same standards and recognizing that a “garden variety claim of excusable neglect” is “unworthy of meriting equitable tolling” (citation omitted)
- holding ninety-day window to file lawsuit commences with receipt of email with right-to-sue notice attached, not when the party first opens attachment or reads notice

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

MONICA CHRISTINE GORDON, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. CIV-25-00669-JD
)
PAYCOM PAYROLL, LLC and )
CHAD RICHISON, )
)
Defendants. )

ORDER

Before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants Paycom Payroll,
LLC and Chad Richison (collectively, “Defendants”) [Doc. No. 7]. Plaintiff Monica
Christine Gordon (“Plaintiff”) filed a Response. [Doc. No. 16]. Defendants filed a Reply.
[Doc. No. 17]. For the reasons outlined below, the Court grants Defendants’ Motion.
Also before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time for Filing
Complaint [Doc. No. 19], which was filed after the briefing had concluded on
Defendants’ Motion. Defendants filed a response in opposition. [Doc. No. 20]. Plaintiff
then filed a response to Defendant’s opposition, which the Court struck as untimely and
in violation of the local civil rules. [Doc. Nos. 21, 22]. For the reasons outlined below,
the Court denies the Motion for Extension of Time for Filing Complaint.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, initiated this lawsuit on June 17, 2025, alleging
violations of Title VII, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), and the
Oklahoma Anti-Discrimination Act (“OADA”). [Doc. No. 1 at 3].1 Plaintiff alleges she
received her Notice of Right to Sue (hereinafter referred to as the right-to-sue letter) on
March 18, 2025, from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). [Id.

at 5; see also Doc. No. 1-3 at 1 (EEOC notice of right to sue issued on March 18, 2025,
stating “your lawsuit must be filed WITHIN 90 days of your receipt of this notice.
. . . Your right to sue based on this charge will be lost if you do not file a lawsuit in court
within 90 days.”) (emphasis in original); id. at 2 (“I filed with the EEOC and received my
Notice and Right to Sue on March 18, 2025 from the EEOC.”)].

In their Motion, Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims because Plaintiff
filed this case more than ninety days after receiving her right-to-sue letter. [Doc. No. 7 at
5]. Defendants assert that Plaintiff has not established any ground entitling her to
equitably toll the deadline. [Id. at 6].
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

A. Standards for pro se litigants
Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court must construe her pleadings
“liberally” and hold them “to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by
lawyers.” Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991) (citing Haines v. Kerner,
404 U.S. 519, 520–21 (1972) (per curiam)). However, the Court may not “assume the

role of advocate for the pro se litigant.” Id. If the Court can “reasonably read the
pleadings to state a valid claim on which the plaintiff could prevail, it should do so

1 In this Order, the Court uses page numbering from the CM/ECF stamp at the top
of the filing on the district court docket.
despite the plaintiff’s failure to cite proper legal authority, his confusion of various legal
theories, his poor syntax and sentence construction, or his unfamiliarity with pleading
requirements.” Id.

Nonetheless, “the court cannot take on the responsibility of serving as the
litigant’s attorney in constructing arguments and searching the record.” Garrett v. Selby
Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005). Nor can the Court “supply
additional factual allegations to round out a plaintiff’s complaint or construct a legal
theory on a plaintiff’s behalf.” Whitney v. New Mexico, 113 F.3d 1170, 1173–74 (10th

Cir. 1997) (citing Hall, 935 F.2d at 1110).
B. Standards for a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)
To survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must contain
“enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff

pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the
defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009). Although a complaint does not need detailed factual assertions, a pleading that
offers only “labels and conclusions” or “pleads facts that are merely consistent with a
defendant’s liability” will not suffice. Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

The burden is on the plaintiff to plead factual allegations that “raise a right to relief above
the speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. In evaluating a Rule 12(b)(6) motion,
the Court accepts all well-pled factual allegations in the complaint as true and views the
allegations in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Peterson v. Grisham, 594
F.3d 723, 727 (10th Cir. 2010).
III. DISCUSSION

To assert either a Title VII, an ADEA claim, or an OADA claim, a plaintiff must
file suit “within [ninety] days” of receiving a right-to-sue letter from the EEOC. 42
U.S.C. § 2000e–5(f)(1) (Title VII); 29 U.S.C. § 626(e) (ADEA); see also 25 Okla. Stat.
§ 1350(I) (OADA) (“No action may be filed . . . more than ninety (90) days after
receiving a Notice of a Right to Sue . . . .”). Accordingly, the time to bring suit is

mandated by statute, and the Court does not have discretion to allow suit outside of the
ninety-day time-period. See Noe v. Ward, 754 F.2d 890, 892 (10th Cir. 1985) (“The right
to sue provided in § 2000e–5(f)(1) did not exist at common law but rather was
specifically created by Congress. It must be obeyed.”).
Plaintiff’s receipt of the EEOC right-to-sue letter triggers the beginning of the

ninety-day period. Biester v. Midwest Health Servs., Inc., 77 F.3d 1264, 1267 (10th Cir.
1996). “It is well settled that the [ninety]-day period for filing a civil lawsuit after final
disposition of a complaint by the EEOC is ‘a requirement that, like a statute of
limitations, is subject to waiver, estoppel, and equitable tolling.’” Id. (quoting Zipes v.
Trans World Airlines, Inc., 455 U.S. 385, 393 (1982)). Because the Court treats the

ninety-day period like a statute of limitations, it is an affirmative defense that the Court
may consider upon a motion to dismiss “[i]f the defense appears plainly on the face of the
complaint itself.” Miller v. Shell Oil Co., 345 F.2d 891, 893 (10th Cir. 1965).
Here, Plaintiff undisputedly filed this case outside of the ninety-day window.

Plaintiff’s complaint states that she received her EEOC right-to-sue letter on March 18,
2025.2 [Doc. No. 1 at 5]. Accordingly, the last day of the ninety-day statutory period to
file suit was June 16, 2025. Plaintiff filed her complaint on June 17, 2025. [Id. at 1].
Plaintiff concedes her complaint was untimely. [See Doc. No. 16]. Plaintiff asks the
Court to toll the deadline because May 26, 2025,3 was a federal holiday; she had a family

emergency six days before receiving the EEOC right-to-sue letter; and a friend, upon
whom Plaintiff was relying for legal advice, died during the ninety-day period. [Id. at 1–
3].
Although the Court does not have discretion to excuse compliance with the
statutory time-period for filing suit, the Court may equitably toll the deadline in limited

circumstances. Biester, 77 F.3d at 1267 (“Courts have narrowly construed equitable
exceptions to the time limitations set out in Title VII.”). The Court may toll the statutory
period in circumstances that “‘rise to the level of active deception which might invoke the

2 In her complaint, Plaintiff alleges that she received her right-to-sue letter on
March 18, 2025. [Doc. No. 1 at 5]. In her Motion for Extension of Time for Filing
Complaint, Plaintiff states that she did not actually see the letter until March 24, 2025,
although it was available on the EEOC portal on March 18, 2025. [Doc. No. 19 ¶ 1]. The
Court must base its determination of Defendants’ Motion on facts pled in Plaintiff’s
complaint and accordingly cannot consider these additional facts in Plaintiff’s Motion for
Extension of Time.

3 Although Plaintiff references May 25, 2025 [see Doc. No. 16 at 1], the correct
federal holiday for Memorial Day was Monday, May 26, 2025.
powers of equity to toll the limitations period.’” Id. (quoting Cottrell v. Newspaper
Agency Corp., 590 F.2d 836, 838–39 (10th Cir. 1979)). Such circumstances include when
a plaintiff has been “lulled into inaction by her past employer, state or federal agencies,

or the courts,” or when “a plaintiff is actively misled, or has in some extraordinary way
been prevented from asserting his or her rights.” Id. (internal quotation marks and
citations omitted); see also Montoya v. Chao, 296 F.3d 952, 957–58 (10th Cir. 2002)
(noting the same standards and recognizing that a “garden variety claim of excusable
neglect” is “unworthy of meriting equitable tolling” (citation omitted)).

Plaintiff’s circumstances, although regrettable, do not amount to the circumstances
described above. See Baldwin Cnty. Welcome Ctr. v. Brown, 466 U.S. 147, 152 (1984)
(“Procedural requirements established by Congress for gaining access to the federal
courts are not to be disregarded by courts out of a vague sympathy for particular litigants.
. . . ‘[I]n the long run, experience teaches that strict adherence to the procedural

requirements specified by the legislature is the best guarantee of evenhanded
administration of the law.’” (quoting Mohasco Corp. v. Silver, 447 U.S. 807, 826 (1980)).
The Court, therefore, does not toll the statutory period for filing suit for Title VII, ADEA,
and OADA claims.
Plaintiff also seeks an extension of time to file her complaint under Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1). [Doc. No. 19 at 4]. Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension
essentially restates her arguments for the Court to equitably toll the statutory deadline,
which the Court declines to do for the reasons stated above.4 Additionally, in her Motion
for Extension, Plaintiff contends that she did not read the EEOC’s right-to-sue letter until
March 24, 2025, a fact she did not plead in her complaint. [Doc. No. 19 ¶ 1]. This is

different from what Plaintiff pled in her complaint, and the Court looks to the facts pled
in the complaint on a motion to dismiss. See Kay v. Bemis, 500 F.3d 1214, 1217–18 (10th
Cir. 2007) (limiting review to facts alleged in the complaint).5 The Court therefore denies
Plaintiff’s Motion.
IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons outlined above, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to
Dismiss [Doc. No. 7] and dismisses Plaintiff’s claims with prejudice because they are

4 Plaintiff suggests that Juneteenth National Independence Day was on Monday,
June 16, 2025, [see Doc. No. 19 ¶ 5], but the federal holiday was Thursday, June 19,
2025. See U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Federal Holidays, 2025 Holiday
Schedule, https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/federal-
holidays/#url=2025 (last visited Nov. 6, 2025).

5 Alternatively, even if the Court were to consider this additional fact that is not
pled, the deadline for filing a lawsuit is calculated from the date the right-to-sue letter
was received in Plaintiff’s inbox, not from the date Plaintiff read it. See McDonald v. St.
Louis Univ., 109 F.4th 1068, 1071 (8th Cir. 2024) (deciding ninety-day period began
when EEOC emailed plaintiff’s counsel that right-to-sue notice was available on EEOC
Public Portal); Lax v. Mayorkas, 20 F.4th 1178, 1182 (7th Cir. 2021) (holding ninety-day
window to file lawsuit commences with receipt of email with right-to-sue notice attached,
not when the party first opens attachment or reads notice); cf. Harvey v. City of New Bern
Police Dep’t, 813 F.2d 652, 654 (4th Cir. 1987) (holding that the plaintiff’s Title VII
lawsuit was untimely where he filed his complaint “ninety-one days” after his wife
received the right-to-sue letter; plaintiff “knew of the right to sue letter within six days of
its arrival and this left him eighty-four days to file his complaint” and “[t]here had been
no showing that this was not sufficient time within which to act”).
time-barred.° The Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time for Filing
Complaint. [Doc. No. 19].
IT IS SO ORDERED this 6th day of November 2025.
ei W. DISHMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6 Given the claims are time-barred, any amendment would be futile. See, e.g.,
Chase v. Divine, 543 F. App’x 767, 769 (10th Cir. 2013) (unpublished) (“Because the
claims are time-barred, we conclude that amendment would be futile. If a complaint fails
to state a claim and amendment would be futile, dismissal with prejudice is
appropriate.”); Edwards v. Bay State Milling Co., 519 F. App’x 746, 749 & n.4 (3d Cir.
2013) (unpublished) (concluding that the district court “properly granted” the company’s
motion to dismiss and dismissed the complaint with prejudice where the employment
claims were not timely filed, as no “amendment to [the plaintiff's pro se] complaint
would save his claims”); Champaign v. CenturyLink Commc’ns, Case No. 22-CV-232
KG/SCY, 2023 WL 2308246, at *5—6 & n.6 (D.N.M. Mar. 1, 2023) (concluding that the
pro se plaintiffs Title VII religious discrimination claim filed after the ninety-day limit
was time-barred and noting dismissal with prejudice is appropriate for time-barred
claims).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11198920. Public record. Not legal advice.