Automated Summary
Key Facts
Plaintiff Yontae Johnson alleges retaliation by SSA Group LLC after reporting a sexual assault by a supervisor. She filed a charge with the Colorado Civil Rights Division (CCRD) in April 2024 and received a Notice of Right to Sue (NRTS) on November 21, 2024. The CADA claim was added to her complaint on April 8, 2025, 138 days after the NRTS letter. The court dismissed the claim as it was filed beyond the 90-day window required under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-34-306, which is a non-claim statute barring jurisdiction after the deadline.
Issues
The court determined that the plaintiff's CADA claim was time-barred because it was filed 138 days after the CCRD issued the Notice of Right to Sue letter, exceeding the 90-day requirement under Colorado law. The court held that the relation back doctrine under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c) does not apply to non-claim statutes, thus dismissing the claim without prejudice.
Holdings
The court granted Defendant SSA Group, LLC's Motion to Partially Dismiss, dismissing Plaintiff's CADA retaliation claim without prejudice. The court held that Colorado Rev. Stat. §24-34-306(2)(b)(I)(C) is a non-claim statute which bars CADA claims not filed within 90 days of the CCRD's dismissal notice. Plaintiff filed her CADA claim 138 days after receiving the November 21, 2024 Notice of Right to Sue letter, exceeding the 90-day jurisdictional deadline. The court found the relation back doctrine inks 15(c) inapplicable to overcome this jurisdictional bar, following the reasoning in Auxier v. McDonald and citing the absolute 90-day filing requirement.
Remedies
Plaintiff's Second Claim for Retaliation in Violation of Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act is DISMISSED without prejudice as the claim was filed more than 90 days after the Notice of Right to Sue letter was issued.
Legal Principles
- The court held that the relation back doctrine under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c) does not apply to claims governed by non-claim statutes (like CADA's 90-day exhaustion requirement). Even if the amended complaint references the same conduct as the original pleading, the jurisdictional deadline cannot be extended retroactively.
- The court determined that Colorado Revised Statutes §24-34-306(2)(b)(I)(C) constitutes a non-claim statute, which imposes a jurisdictional bar on CADA claims not filed within 90 days of the CCRD's dismissal notice. This statute explicitly states that failure to file within the period deprives courts of jurisdiction, and such bars cannot be circumvented by equitable defenses or procedural doctrines like relation back.
Precedent Name
- Littlewood v. Novartis Pharms. Corp.
- Crawford v. Midway Games, Inc.
- UMB Bank, N.A. v. Landmark Towers Ass'n, Inc.
- Brown v. Walker Commercial, Inc.
- Auxier v. McDonald
Cited Statute
Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act
Judge Name
Philip A. Brimmer
Passage Text
- ORDERED that plaintiff's Second Claim, Retaliation in Violation of Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, is DISMISSED without prejudice.
- Accordingly, because plaintiff's CADA claim was brought over 90 days after the CCRD mailed its dismissal of her charge, it is barred by § 24-34-306(2)(b)(I)(C).
- Plaintiff cannot use Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c)(1)(B) to circumvent the jurisdictional bar set out in the statute. See Crawford v. Midway Games, Inc., 2008 WL 11339935, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2008) ('The doctrine of relation back cannot be used to circumvent the clear rule of the statute defining when a claim may be brought.')