Leona Wright v. McCormick & Schmick Restaurant Corp.

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted May 5, 2026*
Decided May 5, 2026
Before
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
AMY J. ST. EVE, Circuit Judge
DORIS L. PRYOR, Circuit Judge
No. 25-2652
LEONA WRIGHT,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
M CCORMICK & SCHMICK
RESTAURANT CORP.,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Southern District of
Indiana, Indianapolis Division.
No. 1:24-cv-02125-JPH-MKK
James Patrick Hanlon,
Judge.
O R D E R
Leona Wright appeals the district court’s judgment dismissing her employment-
discrimination suit as time-barred. We affirm.
* We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the briefs and record
adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral argument would not significantly aid the
court. FED . R. A PP . P. 34(a)(2)(C).
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with F ED. R. APP . P. 32.1

-- 1 of 3 --

No. 25-2652 Page 2
We accept as true the allegations in Wright’s complaint. See Citizens Ins. Co. of
Am. v. Wynndalco Enters., LLC, 70 F.4th 987, 990 (7th Cir. 2023). Wright, who is Black,
was employed by McCormick & Schmick Restaurant Corporation (“McCormick &
Schmick”) from January 2017 until April 2023. During that time, she was subjected to
racial and sexual harassment from coworkers and supervisors. She also was paid less
and disciplined more harshly than her non-Black or non-female coworkers. And
because she reported her concerns to management, she was fired in April 2023.
Wright filed a charge over these allegations with the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission, which issued a right-to-sue letter on August 28, 2024. The
letter informed Wright that she had 90 days from receipt to file a lawsuit. Based on her
allegation that she received the letter in August 2024, the district court accepted August
31, 2024, as the latest possible date of receipt. (Neither party contests that date on
appeal.) If Wright received the letter on August 31, 2024, her 90-day filing period ended
on November 29, 2024. Wright did not file her suit until December 2, 2024.
Three months later, McCormick & Schmick moved for a judgment on the
pleadings based on Wright’s failure to file her suit within 90 days of receiving the
right-to-sue letter. Wright did not respond to the motion. The district court accepted
McCormick & Schmick’s argument and granted the motion. The court added that
equitable tolling may be justified in some circumstances, but Wright had not invoked
the doctrine, and no grounds for tolling were apparent from her filings.
After entry of judgment, Wright moved for reconsideration, contending that her
filing deadline fell over a federal holiday when the courthouse was closed. She cited
Rule 6(a)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which says that if the courthouse is
closed because of a legal holiday, then the due date is extended until the day it reopens.
She asserted that she filed her complaint on the first day that the court reopened,
December 2, 2024.
The district court denied reconsideration. The court acknowledged that
November 28 was Thanksgiving, a legal holiday, but stated that the next business day
would have been Friday, November 29, not Monday, December 2. The court added that
the Southern District of Indiana’s court calendar did not reflect that the court was closed
that Friday. And even if she could show that her filing was within the right-to-sue
period, the court continued, her motion would fail because Rule 59(e) is not a vehicle to
undo her own failure to present this argument to the court before entry of judgment—
specifically, in response to McCormick & Schmick’s motion for judgment on the
pleadings.

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 25-2652 Page 3
Wright appeals, but before we discuss the merits, we must assure ourselves of
our appellate jurisdiction. McCormick & Schmick argues that Wright’s notice of appeal
was untimely because she filed it 31 days after the court signed its order denying
reconsideration. But a notice of appeal is due within 30 days of the order being
“entered.” F ED. R. A PP . P. 4(a)(1)(A), (a)(7)(A); Darne v. Wisconsin, 137 F.3d 484, 486 n.1
(7th Cir. 1998). The court entered its order on August 19, 2025, and Wright filed her
notice of appeal 30 days later, on September 18, so her notice was timely.
As for the merits, Wright maintains that her suit was timely and that the court
made a manifest error of law by applying an incorrect deadline. She asserts that her
90-day deadline fell on Thanksgiving; that the court was closed the following day, a
Friday, and through the ensuing weekend; and that she filed her complaint on the first
day the court reopened after the long weekend, on Monday, December 2.
McCormick & Schmick counters that Wright’s deadline was November 29, and
regardless, her failure to respond to its motion (for judgment on the pleadings) waived
any argument that her complaint was timely. McCormick & Schmick contends further
that Wright, who could and should have raised her argument before the district court
entered judgment, was not permitted to introduce the argument in a Rule 59(e) motion.
The district court was within its discretion to deny reconsideration. We
acknowledge that the federal courthouse in Indianapolis was in fact closed on Friday,
November 29. (The chief judge of the district court issued a general order closing the
court that day and extending any filing deadlines until the following Monday,
December 2. S.D. Ind. Gen. Order 2024-30 (Sept. 23, 2024); see also F ED. R. C IV. P. 6(a)(3).)
But a party generally may not use a Rule 59(e) motion to introduce new evidence or
advance arguments that could and should have been made before entry of judgment.
See A&C Constr. & Installation, Co. WLL v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., 963 F.3d 705, 709 (7th Cir.
2020) (citing cases). Wright passed on the opportunity to make her argument in
response to McCormick & Schmick’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, so the
district court was entitled not to consider it.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --