Kristen Grace v. RTX Corporation

── Kristen Grace v. RTX Corporation ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Date: May 05, 2026 Category: General USCA4 Appeal: 25-2022 Doc: 31 Filed: 05/05/2026 Pg: 1 of 13 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 25-2022 KRISTEN GRACE; ROSSANA HERNANDEZ; MICHAEL HEYSER; LISA LEAKE; CHRISTOPHER STEIN; CHRISTOPHER SUBLETT; LESLIE ZEPEDA, Plaintiffs - Appellants, and FRANCISCO GARZA, Plaintiff, v. RTX CORPORATION, f/k/a Raytheon Technologies Corporation, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:24-cv-02083-CMH-WBP) Submitted: February 23, 2026 Decided: May 5, 2026 Before WYNN, THACKER, and BERNER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. ON BRIEF: E. Scott Lloyd, LLOYD LAW GROUP, PLLC, Front Royal, Virginia, for Appellant. Dawn R. Solowey, Boston, Massachusetts, Samantha L. Brooks, Washington, D.C., Owen R. Wolfe, SEYFARTH SHAW LLP, New York, New York, for Appellee. USCA4 Appeal: 25-2022 Doc: 31 Filed: 05/05/2026 Pg: 2 of 13 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 USCA4 Appeal: 25-2022 Doc: 31 Filed: 05/05/2026 Pg: 3 of 13 PER CURIAM: In September 2022, RTX Corporation, commonly known as Raytheon (“Appellee”), was sued by several former employees in the District Court for the District of Arizona on behalf of themselves and a purported class of similarly situated persons. The former employees (the “Arizona Appellants”) claimed that Appellee had discriminated against them based on their religious objections to wearing face masks as required by Appellee’s pandemic-era workplace safety policy. The District of Arizona court dismissed the individual claims as facially implausible and denied the motion for class certification as moot. Undeterred, in November 2024, the Arizona Appellants sued Appellee again, this time in the District Court for the Eastern District of Virigina. And this time, they were joined by three additional plaintiffs (together with the Arizona Appellants, “Appellants”). In addressing this second suit, the Eastern District of Virginia held that some of the claims were barred by res judicata, but in any event, none of the claims were filed within the applicable statute of limitations. So, this action, too, was dismissed. Appellants appealed. Although Appellants concede that their claims are outside the ordinary statute of limitations, they argue that the rule from American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (1974), saves their case. Briefly, the American Pipe rule tolls the applicable statute of limitations as to any individual cause of action during the pendency of a class action lawsuit for any individual who was or would have been a member of the purported class. 3 USCA4 Appeal: 25-2022 Doc: 31 Filed: 05/05/2026 Pg: 4 of 13 For the reasons detailed below, we disagree with Appellants and affirm the dismissal of the case as untimely. I. In September 2021, during the COVID-19 pandemic, Appellee issued a new internal workplace safety policy. Pursuant to that policy, all employees were required to be