Bereket Kahsai, an individual v. Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, U.S. Postal Service

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-1257
___________________________
Bereket Kahsai, an individual
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant
v.
Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, U.S. Postal Service
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of Minnesota
____________
Submitted: August 9, 2024
Filed: August 14, 2024
[Unpublished]
____________
Before KELLY, STRAS, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.

-- 1 of 2 --

Bereket Kahsai appeals the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment
in his employment discrimination against the Postmaster General of the United States
Postal Service. Upon careful review, we affirm.
We agree with the district court that Kahsai’s suit was untimely, as there was
no genuine dispute that he received the Notice of Final Action (NOFA) by June 17,
2019, and he did not file the instant suit until May 1, 2020, which is beyond the 90-
day deadline. See Hallgren v. United States DOE, 331 F.3d 588, 589 (8th Cir. 2003)
(grant of summary judgment is reviewed de novo; whether suit is time-barred is
question of law, which may be resolved by summary judgment provided there are no
genuine issues of material fact in dispute; failure to file suit within 90 days of
receiving NOFA renders action untimely).
We conclude that Kahsai’s prior lawsuit, which was dismissed without
prejudice for failure to prosecute, did not toll the filing deadline, see Garfield v. J.C.
Nichols Real Estate, 57 F.3d 662, 666 (8th Cir. 1995) (“A dismissal without prejudice
does not toll a statute of limitation.”); the continuing violation doctrine is
inapplicable, see Scott v. St. Paul Postal Service, 720 F.2d 524, 525 (8th Cir. 1983)
(claim of continuing discrimination does not in any way affect complainant’s
obligation to file action in district court within filing deadline); and Kahsai did not
demonstrate that he was otherwise entitled to equitable tolling or estoppel, see
English v. United States, 840 F.3d 957, 958 (8th Cir. 2016) (party seeking equitable
tolling must establish that some extraordinary circumstance prevented timely filing).
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We also deny
Kahsai’s request on appeal to unseal records.
______________________________
1The Honorable John R. Tunheim, United States District Judge for the District
of Minnesota.
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --