Carr v. Sherwin Williams Manufacturing

── Carr v. Sherwin Williams Manufacturing ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Date: May 28, 2026 Category: General Appellate Case: 25-3130 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 05/28/2026 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT May 28, 2026 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court DEBRA ANN CARR, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. No. 25-3130 (D.C. No. 6:25-CV-01040-EFM-GEB) SHERWIN WILLIAMS (D. Kan.) MANUFACTURING, Defendant - Appellee. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________ Before MATHESON, MORITZ, and FEDERICO, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ Debra Ann Carr, proceeding pro se, 1 appeals the district court’s screening dismissal of her employment discrimination complaint. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We reverse and remand. After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined * unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. We construe pro se pleadings liberally, meaning we may excuse “failure to 1 cite proper legal authority,” “confusion of various legal theories,” “poor syntax and sentence construction,” and “unfamiliarity with pleading requirements,” but we do not “assume the role of advocate for the pro se litigant.” Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991).  Appellate Case: 25-3130 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 05/28/2026 Page: 2 I. BACKGROUND & PROCEDURAL HISTORY Carr filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, accusing her former employer, Sherwin Williams Manufacturing, of various forms of employment discrimination (sex, race, color, and disability) along with retaliation for reporting discrimination. Because Carr moved to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), the court screened her complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (requiring the court to “dismiss [any IFP] case at any time if the court determines that,” among other things, the plaintiff “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted”). A magistrate judge recommended dismissing the complaint for failure to state a claim because it wasn’t timely filed. Specifically, Carr had ninety days from the date she received her EEOC right-to-sue letter to file her lawsuit. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1). Carr’s EEOC right-to-sue letter (attached to her complaint) was dated August 23, 2024, but she didn’t file this lawsuit until March 5, 2025. The magistrate judge acknowledged that the ninety-day requirement “functions as a statute of limitations on the suit, [and] is subject to equitable principles of waiver or equitable tolling,” R. at 139, but concluded that Carr’s “pleadings do not raise any issues relevant to equitably tolling the statute of limitations for this employment discrimination suit,” R. at 140. Thus, the magistrate judge recommended dismissal. Carr timely objected to