Proving job discrimination
Reyes v. Florida A&M University Board of Trustees
In brief
- Where it stands
- Petition Pending
Awaiting an order on the petition
- What it’s about
- Maritza Reyes asks the Supreme Court to review her Title VII workplace-discrimination case against the Florida A&M University Board of Trustees.
- What's at stake
- Reyes’s request for Supreme Court review of the lower courts’ handling of her filing and her Title VII claim remains unresolved.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
She challenges the lower courts’ refusal to accept her corrected response to the Board’s request to end the case without trial (summary judgment), saying sudden illness kept her from completing it, and questions whether the McDonnell Douglas framework remains useful.
Reyes says a sudden, unforeseen illness kept her from filing a complete response by the deadline. She argues the courts should have accepted her corrected filing.
Reyes also asks whether courts should keep using the McDonnell Douglas framework to assess workplace-discrimination claims under Title VII before trial.
Question presented
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).
What happens next
The next step is the Court’s decision on whether to hear the petition. No oral argument or decision date is scheduled while the petition is pending.
Documents
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Brief added: Petition
More questions
- Why does Reyes mention three earlier extensions?
- Her petition asks whether three prior good-cause extensions totaling 18 days automatically show that a party was not diligent when sudden illness prevents a complete response.
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.