Hector Arevalo Carrasco v. Ludlow Manufacturing Inc.

25-2776Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit5 de ago. de 2026

Abrir fonte

Texto completo

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted August 4, 2026*
Decided August 5, 2026
Before
DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge
DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge
THOMAS L. KIRSCH II, Circuit Judge
No. 25-2776
HECTOR AREVALO CARRASCO,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
LUDLOW MANUFACTURING INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division.
No. 23-cv-15381
Andrea R. Wood,
Judge.
O R D E R
Almost two years after being fired from his job at Ludlow Manufacturing Inc.,
Hector Arevalo Carrasco filed a disability-discrimination charge with the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), which dismissed it as untimely. The
district judge dismissed the case for the same reason. 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. F ED. 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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION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. 25-2776 Page 2
In September 2021, Arevalo Carrasco was working as a welder at Ludlow when a
fire broke out at his workstation. The next day, after experiencing chest pain, he
underwent open heart surgery. For the next three months, Arevalo Carrasco took short-
term disability leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”). 29 U.S.C.
§ 2601. Ludlow fired Arevalo Carrasco in December 2021.
Nearly two years later, in October 2023, Arevalo Carrasco filed a charge of
disability discrimination with the EEOC alleging that Ludlow fired him for taking
disability leave. The EEOC dismissed the charge as untimely. Arevalo Carrasco then
sued in the district court alleging that Ludlow discriminated against him on the basis of
his disability and retaliated against him. See 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a). In September 2024,
Arevalo Carrasco filed a second EEOC charge alleging that Ludlow discriminated
against him again by refusing to rehire him. The EEOC issued him a notice of right to
sue, and he filed a complaint in state court.
Ludlow moved to dismiss the federal action as untimely. The district judge
granted Ludlow’s motion, reasoning that Arevalo Carrasco did not timely file his
charge with the EEOC. Ludlow fired Arevalo Carrasco in December 2021, but Arevalo
Carrasco did not file a charge with the EEOC until October 2023, well beyond the 300
days permitted under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-
5(e)(1). The judge also explained that while untimeliness of an EEOC charge presents an
affirmative defense that a plaintiff need not anticipate or overcome in his complaint, the
allegations contained in Arevalo Carrasco’s complaint set forth everything needed to
satisfy the affirmative defense. Lastly, the judge held that it would be futile to permit
Arevalo Carrasco leave to file an amended complaint.
Arevalo Carrasco appeals, appearing to argue that his complaint should not have
been dismissed because his EEOC charge was timely.1 Before filing in the district court,
litigants must file a timely charge with the EEOC and receive a notice of right to sue.
See Anderson v. United Airlines, Inc., 140 F.4th 385, 390 (7th Cir. 2025) (citation omitted);
see also 42 U.S.C. § 12117(a) (adopting the enforcement procedures governing actions
under Title VII for plaintiffs alleging discrimination under the ADA). Arevalo Carrasco
contends that he complied with these requirements, but he appears to confuse his
federal complaint with his state-court complaint.
1 Arevalo Carrasco does not challenge the judge’s decision that an amendment
would be futile.

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 25-2776 Page 3
We agree with the district judge that his claim was untimely. Arevalo Carrasco
did not file with the EEOC until almost two years after he was fired by Ludlow—well
outside the 300-day window. See § 2000e-5(e)(1). Accordingly, Arevalo Carrasco cannot
maintain his federal suit.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --

Continue sua pesquisa no ChatGPT ou Claude

Conecte o Omnilex para pesquisar o corpus jurídico pelo seu assistente de IA.