A panel of 11th Circuit Court of Appeals judges affirmed that a veteran’s longtime complaint of discrimination is time-barred.
In a Dec. 14 appeal, Adalberto Jordan, Robin Rosenbaum and Peter Fay dismissed an ongoing appeal between plaintiff-appellant and veteran John Wood Jr. against defendant-appellees John Kelly, Lawrence Glick and Stacey Semmel for allegedly conspiring to violate his veteran's rights during his termination at Florida Atlantic University (FAU).
After several attempts and a denial to attain employment with FAU, Wood was eventually hired in 2006 only to be terminated after five months of employment. Wood challenged his termination, arguing he not only suffered discrimination due to his veteran status, but also that FAU denied him veterans’ rights and bureaucratic protection.
Ten years later, Wood resurrected the complaint denied a decade earlier by alleging FAU officials Kelly, Glick and Semmel “created an unlawful pattern and practice of discrimination and retaliation against veterans by failing to implement the requirements of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA), as implemented by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,” according to the appeal.
Furthermore, Wood argued since USERRA requirements were not maintained, he was denied rights by the defendants, and “all of Wood’s claims purportedly traveled under 42 U.S.C. 1983,” according to the appeal, adding “the district court found that Wood’s 1983 claims were time-barred, having accrued over nine years before the court’s decision in May 2017.”
Citing several precedent statute of limitation rulings, the 11th District Court of Appeals specifically noted McNair v. Allen 2008 when deciding that the “district court properly concluded that Wood’s 1983 constitutional claims arising out of FAU’s actions in 2005 and 2006 are time-barred,” according to the appeal.
The 11th District stressed Wood did not state a plausible claim of relief when he intended his complaint to reach past FAU officials actions in 2005 and 2006, and his allegations of conspiracy to violate his constitutional rights were conclusory.
“Plus, nothing indicates that he could state a claim against the defendants for their actions in defending themselves against his lawsuits or against the district judge for her actions in this case,” according to the appeal adding its analysis is based on Bolin v. Story 2000. “We therefore affirm the dismissal with prejudice of Wood’s complaint.”