“Smith v. General Motors”: Fifth Circuit Re-Affirms Strict Timeliness, Exhaustion, and Limited Continuing-Violation Doctrine under the ADA

Introduction

In Smith v. General Motors, L.L.C., No. 24-10841 (5th Cir. 2025) (unpublished), the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed a pro se employee’s allegations that General Motors (“GM”) violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (“TCHRA”). The district court dismissed the complaint on several independent grounds—untimeliness, failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and failure to state a plausible claim. Ms. Smith appealed, asserting numerous errors, including that GM defaulted by not answering an amended complaint within 21 days.

The Fifth Circuit affirmed in full, issuing a concise but instructive opinion that (1) reiterates the rigorous time-bar and exhaustion requirements in ADA litigation, (2) underscores the “sparingly” invoked nature of the continuing-violation doctrine, and (3) confirms that pro se litigants must still plead plausible facts that satisfy each prima facie element. Though unpublished, the decision provides useful guidance for practitioners, employers, and employees litigating disability-discrimination claims in the Fifth Circuit.

Summary of the Judgment

Timeliness: All alleged discriminatory or retaliatory acts occurring before 22 February 2022 (300 days before Smith’s EEOC charge) are time-barred.
Continuing Violation Doctrine: The doctrine does not rescue discrete acts (failure to accommodate, failure to promote, termination) that happened on identifiable dates.
Exhaustion: Smith’s EEOC charge lacked facts concerning the ADAPT-program denial and failure-to-promote claims, so those theories were unexhausted.
Plausibility (Rule 12(c)): Smith’s wrongful-discharge claim failed because she did not plausibly allege that she could perform essential job functions with or without reasonable accommodation.
Default Judgment: GM’s late answer was excused for good cause; the district court did not abuse its discretion in extending the deadline.
Result: District court’s dismissal and denial of default judgment affirmed.

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

The panel grounded its decision in an array of established Fifth Circuit and Supreme Court authorities:

Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (2002) – The seminal case limiting the continuing-violation doctrine to non-discrete, cumulative hostile-environment claims. The panel, citing Morgan and its own recent decision in Inclusive Louisiana v. St. James Parish (2025), reiterated that equitable doctrines must be applied “sparingly.”
Patton v. Jacobs Eng’g Grp., Inc., 874 F.3d 437 (5th Cir. 2017) – Reaffirmed the 180/300-day charge requirement. The court applied Patton to fix February 22 2022 as the actionable cutoff date.
Simmons-Myers v. Caesars Entm’t Corp., 515 F. App’x 269 (5th Cir. 2013) – Held that an EEOC charge must set forth facts sufficient to launch an investigation into each claim. The panel relied on this to deem Smith’s ADAPT and promotion claims unexhausted.
EEOC v. LHC Group, Inc., 773 F.3d 688 (5th Cir. 2014) & Jenkins v. Cleco Power, LLC, 487 F.3d 309 (5th Cir. 2007) – Articulated the “qualified individual” and “reassignment” standards. The court used these precedents to conclude Smith failed the second prong of the ADA prima facie case.
Adams v. City of Harahan, 95 F.4th 908 (5th Cir. 2024) & Armstrong v. Ashley, 60 F.4th 262 (5th Cir. 2023) – Applied for the pleading-standard equivalence between Rules 12(b)(6) and 12(c).
Taylor v. Books-A-Million, Inc., 296 F.3d 376 (5th Cir. 2002) & Johnson v. Atkins, 999 F.2d 99 (5th Cir. 1993) – Confirm that even a liberally construed pro se complaint cannot rely on conclusory allegations.

Legal Reasoning of the Court

Statute of Limitations – The ADA imports Title VII’s 180/300-day administrative filing period (42 U.S.C. §12117(a)). Because Smith filed on 19 December 2022, discrete acts before 22 February 2022 were untimely.
Continuing Violation Doctrine – Applying Morgan, the court distinguished discrete acts (termination, non-promotions, failures to accommodate) from cumulative hostile-work-environment claims. No allegation suggested an ongoing non-discrete practice; therefore the doctrine was inapplicable.
Administrative Exhaustion – The EEOC charge contained only the bare statement that Smith was “discriminated against because of [her] disability.” Under Simmons-Myers, this was insufficient to alert the agency to promotion-denial or ADAPT-program issues. Consequently, those claims were unexhausted and barred.
Plausibility (Rule 12(c)) – A wrongful-discharge claim requires that the plaintiff be (a) disabled, (b) qualified, and (c) discharged because of disability. Smith’s pleadings showed severe continuing work restrictions and no identification of any vacant position she could perform, so prong (b) failed. Conclusory statements that she was “qualified” were disregarded per Taylor.
Default Judgment – GM sought and obtained an extension to answer; absent willfulness, prejudice, or bad faith, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying default. Fifth Circuit precedent affords “broad discretion” to district judges in docket management (U.S. Bank Tr. v. Walden).

Potential Impact of the Decision

Tightens the window for ADA plaintiffs – The panel’s rigid application of the 300-day look-back underscores that litigants must file EEOC charges promptly and tailor federal complaints to that window.
Signals restrained use of Continuing-Violation doctrine – By labeling traditional accommodation and promotion claims “discrete,” the court narrows opportunities to revive old claims.
Clarifies exhaustion standards post-charge – A bare-bones EEOC charge may doom later-asserted theories. Practitioners should draft detailed charges or supplement before the agency concludes its investigation.
Reinforces plausibility pleading even for pro se litigants – The Fifth Circuit continues to insist that Iqbal / Twombly standards apply to all. Employers can therefore rely on Rule 12(b)(6)/(c) challenges despite a plaintiff’s pro se status.
Dockets and default practice – The opinion reminds parties that routine extensions, when supported by good cause, shield defendants from default.

Complex Concepts Simplified

ADA “Exhaustion”: Before suing in federal court, an employee must first go to the EEOC (or a state equivalent) and describe the alleged discrimination. Only the actions described—or reasonably related—to that charge can later be litigated.
300-Day Look-Back: In deferral states like Texas, the EEOC charge covers only conduct occurring within 300 days before the charge filing date. Anything earlier is time-barred.
Continuing-Violation Doctrine: An exception allowing certain ongoing, cumulative discrimination (e.g., hostile environment) to be challenged in full if the last act occurs within the filing period. Discrete acts (hire, fire, promote) generally do not qualify.
Qualified Individual: A person who can perform a job’s essential functions with or without reasonable accommodation. Essential functions are the fundamental duties, not marginal tasks.
Rule 12(b)(6) vs. Rule 12(c): Both ask whether the complaint states a plausible claim. The difference is timing: 12(b)(6) comes before an answer; 12(c) comes after the pleadings close.
Default Judgment: A binding judgment in favor of the plaintiff when a defendant fails to respond. Courts may set aside defaults or deny them if the defendant shows good cause for delay.

Conclusion

Smith v. General Motors offers a concise refresher on procedural rigor in ADA litigation within the Fifth Circuit. Plaintiffs must (1) act swiftly, (2) exhaust each theory through detailed EEOC charges, and (3) plead concrete facts that demonstrate capability to perform essential job duties. The continuing-violation doctrine remains a narrow refuge, unavailable for discrete acts such as non-promotion or termination. Finally, trial courts retain wide discretion to manage deadlines and forestall default judgments when defendants act with reasonable diligence.

For employers, the case confirms that meticulous record-keeping and timely procedural motions can effectively defend against untimely or insufficiently pleaded claims. For employees and counsel, it underscores that comprehensive administrative filings and fact-rich pleadings are indispensable to surviving early dismissal.