Maritza Reyes v. Florida A&M University Board of Trustees

The Court decided McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (“McDonnell Douglas”) fifty-three years ago. The questions presented are:

1. Whether the McDonnell Douglas framework “remains a workable and useful evidentiary tool” “for evaluating Title VII claims at summary judgment” as Justice Thomas joined by Justice Gorsuch questioned in Hittle v. City of Stockton, 145 S. Ct. 759, 764 (2025) and in Ames v. Ohio Dep’t of Youth Servs., 605 U.S. 303, 326 (2025).

2. Whether the district court and the court of appeals abused their discretion by not allowing Petitioner to submit a corrected, complete response to Respondent’s motion for summary judgment with citations to her record evidence, which was timely filed in the district court, when the reason for Petitioner’s inability to submit a complete response by the deadline was due to “good cause” and “excusable neglect,” namely unforeseen, sudden illness.

3. Whether a pro se party or attorney who asserts that she could not file a complete response to a motion for summary judgment by the deadline due to sudden illness does not demonstrate that she acted diligently, per se, because she received three (3) prior “good cause” extensions (of a total of 18 days).