UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ______________

No. 23-1829 ______________

CEPHIA HAYES, Appellant

v.

NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES ________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (D.C. Civil No. 1-20-cv-17075) District Judge: Honorable Karen M. Williams ________________

Argued on March 6, 2024 Before: JORDAN, PHIPPS, and FREEMAN, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed:July 19, 2024) ________________ David M. Koller [ARGUED] Jordan D. Santo Koller Law 2043 Locust Street Suite 1B Philadelphia, PA 19103 Counsel for Appellant David Coppola James M. Duttera [ARGUED] Office of Attorney General of New Jersey 25 Market Street Richard J. Hughes Justice Complex Trenton, NJ 08625 Counsel for Appellee __________

OPINION OF THE COURT __________

FREEMAN, Circuit Judge.

Cephia Hayes sued her employer for sexual harassment and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The District Court held that Hayes’s suit was time- barred because she filed it more than 90 days after learning that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) would not pursue her claim. To reach this conclusion, the Court determined that Title VII’s 90-day clock started to run when an EEOC staffer emailed Hayes’s lawyer and uploaded a document to the agency’s online portal. Because neither action provided notice sufficient to start the clock, we will vacate and remand.

2 I

Hayes has worked for the New Jersey Department of Human Services (NJDHS) since 2004. She claims that, starting in 2016, her supervisor sexually harassed her and retaliated when she rebuffed him. In October 2019, she filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC and its state counterpart.

The EEOC opted not to pursue the case. On March 11, 2020, an EEOC investigator emailed Hayes’s lawyer and said the agency’s “[r]eview of the available evidence does not establish a violation of [Title VII].” App. 277. Accordingly, the investigator explained that “[the EEOC] will issue you a Dismissal and Notice of Rights [i.e., a right-to-sue letter], which will enable you to file suit in U.S. District Court within 90 days of your receipt of that Notice if you wish to pursue this matter further.” Id. (Hayes’s lawyer received and read the email the day the investigator sent it.) The EEOC says it posted Hayes’s right-to-sue letter to its online portal that same day, and a copy of the letter lists March 11 as the date mailed.

Several months later, on August 27, 2020, Hayes’s lawyer’s office manager emailed the EEOC to request the right-to-sue letter. An EEOC staffer responded that day with a copy of the letter, which he said had been issued to Hayes and her lawyer on March 11 via mail and the online portal. Hayes says she did not receive the letter in the mail or otherwise see

3 the letter until August 27. Her lawyer (through his office manager) says the same.1

Hayes filed her lawsuit against NJDHS on November 24, 2020—more than eight months after the mailing date listed on the EEOC’s letter but fewer than 90 days after Hayes and her lawyer claim to have received it. She brought claims under Title VII and state anti-discrimination law. At the close of discovery, NJDHS moved for summary judgment, arguing that Hayes’s Title VII claims were time-barred. The District Court granted the motion. It held that the EEOC’s March 11 email (or, in the alternative, its March 11 posting of the letter to the portal) provided sufficient notice of the EEOC’s decisi