Tamra Culton v. Unifi Aviation, LLC

── Tamra Culton v. Unifi Aviation, LLC ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Date: April 14, 2026 Category: General NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 26a0165n.06 No. 25-1277 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED Apr 14, 2026 FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT KELLY L. STEPHENS, Clerk TAMRA CULTON, ) ) Plaintiff-Appellant, ) ON APPEAL FROM UNITED ) STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR v. ) THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ) MICHIGAN UNIFI AVIATION, LLC, ) Defendant-Appellee. ) OPINION Before: SUTTON, Chief Judge; CLAY and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. CLAY, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff Tamra Culton appeals from the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Defendant Unifi Aviation, LLC and denial of her motion for an extension of time to file her notice of appeal in this employment discrimination action brought pursuant to Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., and Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, MCL 37.2101, et seq. For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM the district court. I. BACKGROUND Tamra Culton sued Unifi Aviation, LLC, an aviation services contractor, after it terminated her employment with the company. Unifi says it fired Culton, who worked as gate agent on a Unifi contract with Delta Airlines, because she repeatedly violated Delta’s facemask policy and Unifi’s social media policy. Culton claims that Unifi actually fired her because she wore facemasks depicting the Black Lives Matter logo and the LGBTQ+ pride flag. Her complaint alleged discrimination, retaliation, and a hostile work environment under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., and Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, MCL 37.2101, et seq. No. 25-1277, Culton v. Unifi Aviation The district court entered summary judgment for Unifi on September 27, 2024, dismissing all of Culton’s claims with prejudice. Culton then timely filed a Rule 59(e) motion for reconsideration on October 25, 2024, which the district court denied on January 24, 2025. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4)(B)(ii), any notice of appeal was due within 30 days of the court’s disposition of the motion of reconsideration. That meant that Culton’s notice of appeal was due by February 24, 2025. Culton, however, missed the February 24, 2025, deadline. Instead, on March 7, 2025, she moved for an extension of time to notice her appeal under FRAP 4(a)(5), claiming that her failure to file within the 30-day limit resulted from “excusable neglect” on the part of lead counsel, who was nine months pregnant and preparing for maternity leave. Mot., R.64, PageID #1184. The district court denied the motion, reasoning that Culton’s explanation for her tardiness “account[ed] for only one of Plaintiff’s attorneys,” when there were “four attorneys representing [her] in this matter—all of whom receive[d] filing notifications as counsel of record.” Ord., R.67, PageID #1198 (emphasis in original). Despite being denied an extension, Culton nonetheless filed her notice of appeal of the district court’s summary judgment order, its denial of her motion for reconsideration, and its denial of her motion for an extension of time to file the notice of appeal. A prior panel