Summary
The United States District Court for the District of Nebraska conducted an initial review of Janeth Murillo’s in forma pauperis employment-discrimination complaint against the Postmaster General. The court concluded that the claims appeared untimely because the complaint was filed more than three years after the final agency decision, and that the allegations were insufficient to state claims for age or national-origin discrimination, hostile work environment, or retaliation. Rather than dismissing the action immediately, the court granted Murillo leave to amend by March 5, 2026.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the complaint was subject to dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) because it was filed more than ninety days after Plaintiff received a final agency decision.
- Whether the complaint plausibly alleged age discrimination under the ADEA.
- Whether the complaint plausibly alleged race or national-origin discrimination under Title VII.
- Whether the complaint plausibly alleged a hostile work environment based on membership in a protected class.
- Whether the complaint plausibly alleged retaliation for protected EEO or Human Resources complaints.
Holdings
- A federal-sector ADEA action filed more than ninety days after receipt of a final agency decision is untimely unless equitable tolling applies, and the complaint did not allege facts supporting equitable tolling.
- An in forma pauperis complaint must be dismissed when it fails to allege sufficient facts to state a plausible claim for relief, even when the complaint is liberally construed because it was filed pro se.
- The complaint failed to state a plausible age-discrimination claim because, although Plaintiff alleged that she was over forty, qualified, and terminated, she did not allege facts showing that age was a factor in the termination decision.
- The complaint failed to state a plausible Title VII race or national-origin discrimination claim because it did not allege nonconclusory facts giving rise to an inference that the adverse treatment or termination occurred because Plaintiff was Hispanic.
- The complaint failed to state a plausible retaliation claim because it did not allege facts showing that protected activity was the but-for cause of the adverse employment action.
- The complaint failed to state a plausible hostile-work-environment claim because it did not adequately allege a causal nexus between the harassment and Plaintiff's protected status or facts showing that the harassment affected a term, condition, or privilege of employment.
Key quotations
“The essential function of a complaint under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is to give the opposing party ‘fair notice of the nature and basis or grounds for a claim, and a general indication of the type of litigation involved.’”
“A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”
“The line dividing the concepts of “race” and “national origin” is fuzzy at best, and in some contexts, national origin discrimination is so closely related to racial discrimination as to be indistinguishable.”
Factual background
Janeth Murillo, a Hispanic woman who was approximately sixty-four years old during the relevant events, worked for the United States Postal Service in Norfolk, Nebraska, beginning in November 2015. She alleged that supervisors and coworkers yelled at her, changed her duties and schedule, altered overtime opportunities, physically mistreated her, and created a hostile work environment, while younger Caucasian employees allegedly received more favorable treatment. Murillo filed workplace and EEO complaints, was suspended without pay after a January 15, 2021 incident, was discharged on March 2, 2021, received a final agency decision on October 7, 2022, and filed this federal action in November 2025.
Procedural history
Plaintiff filed her complaint on November 21, 2025, and was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The court conducted the required initial review and found that the complaint appeared untimely and failed to state claims for age discrimination, race or national-origin discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation. Rather than dismissing the action immediately, the court granted Plaintiff until March 5, 2026, to file an amended complaint and reserved further review under § 1915(e)(2).