Tenth Circuit Clarifies: DOL Wage Complaints Do Not Toll Discrimination Filing Deadlines; Retaliation Requires Harm Beyond Consequences of a Physician’s Self‑Reporting Duty

Tenth Circuit Clarifies: DOL Wage Complaints Do Not Toll Discrimination Filing Deadlines; Retaliation Requires Harm Beyond Consequences of a Physician’s Self‑Reporting Duty

Introduction

In Saini v. Hospital Care Consultants, No. 24-2162 (10th Cir. Oct. 28, 2025), a Tenth Circuit panel (Judges Bacharach, Carson, and Rossman) affirmed dismissal of a pro se physician’s multi-count employment suit and upheld denial of leave to amend as futile. The case offers clear guidance on several recurring issues:

  • The accrual of Title VII, NMHRA, and § 1981 discrimination and hostile work environment claims and why equitable tolling is rarely available.
  • Why filing a wage complaint with the Department of Labor (DOL) does not toll discrimination filing deadlines or transform a claim into one under the INA by virtue of an inter-agency Memorandum of Understanding.
  • What qualifies as a materially adverse action for retaliation purposes when a physician’s own regulatory self-reporting duty is the operative cause of discipline.
  • The scope of New Mexico’s litigation privilege protecting statements made in administrative proceedings.
  • Why various state law tort and contract theories failed at the pleading stage and could not be salvaged through amendment.

The opinion is issued as an unpublished “Order and Judgment” and is not binding precedent, though it may be cited for its persuasive value under Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.

Case Background

Plaintiff-appellant Dr. Vinay Saini, a physician and native of India, worked for Hospital Care Consultants (HCC) at Gila Regional Medical Center in New Mexico in 2018. He complained about pay and working conditions in early 2018 and alleges management responded with adverse, racially charged comments (e.g., calling him “the complaining Indian doctor”).

On October 5, 2018, HCC terminated Dr. Saini for “material breach” of his employment contract. Under New Mexico regulations, the termination for cause automatically affected his clinical privileges and triggered a duty to self-report to the New Mexico Medical Board (NMMB). Dr. Saini did not report; the NMMB later publicly reprimanded him for that failure.

In July 2019, Dr. Saini filed a wage complaint with the DOL’s Wage and Hour Division, alleging HCC withheld his final paycheck. In May 2022, the DOL found HCC owed back wages and, in October 2022, disclosed its investigative file to Dr. Saini, revealing a December 3, 2019 HCC letter stating he was terminated for patient care reasons.

On July 3, 2023—nearly five years after termination—Dr. Saini filed discrimination charges with the New Mexico Human Rights Bureau (NMHRB) and the EEOC, then sued in federal court asserting eight counts: federal and state discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation; § 1981; various torts (prima facie tort, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, IIED); unjust enrichment; defamation/false light; and indemnification. The district court dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) and denied leave to amend as futile.

Summary of the Opinion

The Tenth Circuit affirmed across the board:

  • Discrimination/Hostile Environment (Title VII, NMHRA, § 1981): Time-barred. Claims accrued at termination (October 5, 2018). Equitable tolling did not apply, and DOL proceedings did not toll filing deadlines. The INA/DOL Memorandum of Understanding did not convert or save the claims.
  • Unjust Enrichment: Time-barred by the four-year statute of limitations.
  • Retaliation (Title VII, § 1981): Failed because the alleged harm—the NMMB reprimand—flowed from Dr. Saini’s own regulatory duty to self-report, not from HCC’s DOL letter; thus no materially adverse action attributable to HCC.
  • State Law Torts (prima facie tort, IIED, negligent misrepresentation, fraud): No causation; futility of amendment.
  • Breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing: No facts plausibly showing HCC intended its manual to create contractual rights; futility of amendment.
  • Defamation/False Light: Statements made in a DOL proceeding were privileged; plaintiff failed to allege actionable harm or falsity; proposed amendments were implausible; futility of amendment.
  • Indemnification (contractual and common law): No third-party tort injury and no causal link to HCC; futility of amendment.

Detailed Analysis

1) Precedents and Authorities Relied Upon

  • Pleading and Review Standards:
    • Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (plausibility standard).
    • Serna v. Denver Police Dep’t, 58 F.4th 1167, 1169 (10th Cir. 2023) (de novo review of 12(b)(6)).
    • Brooks v. Mentor Worldwide LLC, 985 F.3d 1272, 1281 (10th Cir. 2021) (well-pleaded facts vs. conclusory allegations).
    • Yang v. Archuleta, 525 F.3d 925, 927 n.1 (10th Cir. 2008) (liberal construction for pro se, not advocacy).
  • Accrual and Limitations for Discrimination Claims:
    • Almond v. Unified Sch. Dist. No. 501, 665 F.3d 1174, 1177 (10th Cir. 2011) (claim accrues when adverse action is announced; knowledge of discriminatory motive not required).
    • Hulsey v. Kmart, 43 F.3d 555, 558–59 (10th Cir. 1994) (same principle).
    • 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1) and N.M. Stat. Ann. § 28-1-10(A) (300-day charge filing deadlines under Title VII and NMHRA).
    • EEOC v. Gaddis, 733 F.2d 1373, 1377 (10th Cir. 1984), and N.M. Stat. Ann. § 37-1-8 (three-year personal injury limitations used for § 1981 in this case).
  • Equitable Tolling:
    • Amoco Prod. Co. v. Newton Sheep Co., 85 F.3d 1464, 1471 (10th Cir. 1996) (extraordinary circumstances required).
    • Biester v. Midwest Health Servs., Inc., 77 F.3d 1264, 1267 (10th Cir. 1996) (active deception/being misled).
    • Turgeau v. Admin. Review Bd., 446 F.3d 1052, 1060 (10th Cir. 2006) (no tolling when plaintiff has “separate, distinct, and independent” remedies and sleeps on one).
    • Granger v. Aaron’s, Inc., 636 F.3d 708 (5th Cir. 2011) (distinguished; no assurances from DOL here).
  • Retaliation:
    • Khalik v. United Air Lines, 671 F.3d 1188, 1193 (10th Cir. 2012) (retaliation elements).
    • Somoza v. Univ. of Denver, 513 F.3d 1206, 1211 (10th Cir. 2008) (same test under Title VII and § 1981).
    • Hiatt v. Colorado Seminary, 858 F.3d 1307, 1316 (10th Cir. 2017) (adverse action requirement in discrimination context).
  • Regulatory Self-Reporting (New Mexico):
    • N.M. Admin. Code § 16.10.10.7(B), § 16.10.10.9(A) (physician duty to report actions adversely affecting clinical privileges, including termination for cause, within 30 days).
  • State Law Claims (New Mexico):
    • Wilson v. Berger Briggs Real Estate & Ins., 497 P.3d 654, 661 (N.M. Ct. App. 2021) (creating contractual expectations from manuals/policies).
    • Lind v. Aetna Health, Inc., 466 F.3d 1195, 1199 (10th Cir. 2006) (futility of amendment standard).
    • New Mexico Pub. Schs. Ins. Auth. v. Arthur J. Gallagher & Co., 198 P.3d 342, 349 (N.M. 2008) (indemnification requires liability to an injured third party).
    • Osuagwu v. Gila Regional Medical Center, 938 F. Supp. 2d 1180 (D.N.M. 2013) (distinguished; specific, knowingly false reporting to a national database, unlike plaintiff’s vague allegations here).
    • N.M. Stat. § 37-1-4 (four-year statute for unjust enrichment).
  • INA and Inter-Agency Referrals:
    • 8 U.S.C. § 1324b(d)(3) (180-day filing deadline for INA discrimination claims).
    • 2017 DOJ–DOL Memorandum of Understanding (information sharing/referrals; no compulsory transfer and no tolling mechanism).

2) Legal Reasoning

a) Accrual and the Statute of Limitations for Discrimination/Hostile Environment

The court reaffirmed that discrimination and hostile work environment claims accrue when the adverse employment action (here, termination) is communicated to the plaintiff—not when the plaintiff later discovers evidence of pretext or discriminatory motive. Under Almond and Hulsey, knowledge of discriminatory intent is not required to start the limitations clock. Because Dr. Saini was terminated on October 5, 2018 but did not file NMHRB/EEOC charges until July 3, 2023, his Title VII and NMHRA claims were untimely (outside the 300-day window), and his § 1981 claims were similarly time-barred under the limitations rule applied by the panel.

b) Equitable Tolling: No “Active Deception” and Notice of Potential Discrimination

Equitable tolling is reserved for “extraordinary circumstances,” typically where a plaintiff is actively misled. The panel rejected tolling for two key reasons:

  • HCC’s termination letter citing “material breach” was not inconsistent with later references to patient care problems; such issues can constitute a breach, so there was no deception.
  • Dr. Saini’s own allegations showed he was on notice of possible discrimination at termination (alleged racially charged comments) and by July 2019 (when he complained to DOL about discrimination/retaliation), undercutting any claim he lacked reason to suspect discrimination.

c) No Tolling Based on DOL Wage Proceedings; MOU Does Not Substitute an INA Claim

The panel treated the DOL wage claim as a separate and “distinct, independent” remedy (Turgeau), which does not toll discrimination deadlines. It also rejected the argument that the DOJ–DOL MOU converted the DOL filing into an INA claim or otherwise tolled discrimination deadlines:

  • The MOU does not compel DOL to transfer a discrimination claim to DOJ’s Office of Special Counsel nor does it extend or suspend statutory deadlines.
  • Even if Dr. Saini had initiated an INA claim, the INA’s own 180-day deadline would have applied—and his filing was far outside that limit.

d) Retaliation: No “Materially Adverse Action” Where Harm Was Caused by Self-Reporting Failure

To plead retaliation, a plaintiff must allege a materially adverse action causally linked to protected activity. Dr. Saini identified HCC’s DOL letter as the adverse action and the NMMB reprimand as the harm. The panel held causation was missing: under N.M. Admin. Code § 16.10.10.9(A) and § 16.10.10.7(B), the reprimand resulted from Dr. Saini’s own statutory duty to report termination for cause within 30 days. Because that independent obligation—not HCC’s later DOL communication—produced the reprimand, Dr. Saini failed to allege a materially adverse action attributable to HCC.

e) Unjust Enrichment: Time-Barred

Dr. Saini’s unjust enrichment claim, premised on withholding a final paycheck, accrued in 2018 and was filed in 2024—beyond the four-year statute (N.M. Stat. § 37-1-4). DOL proceedings did not toll the claim for the same reasons discussed above.

f) Tort Theories (Prima Facie Tort, IIED, Negligent Misrepresentation, Fraud): Causation Failure

These claims all attempted to link the NMMB reprimand to HCC’s explanations about patient care. The court held the causal chain fails as a matter of law: the reprimand flowed from the physician’s noncompliance with his own reporting duty, not HCC’s post-termination statements. Without causation, the claims could not proceed, and amendment would be futile (Lind).

g) Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing: No Contractual Expectation from the Manual

Dr. Saini asserted that an HCC manual created an implied contract requiring a complaint resolution process. The panel agreed with the district court that there were insufficient facts to show HCC intended the manual to create contractual rights (Wilson). The proposed amendment still lacked allegations of employer intent to be bound; thus, futility.

h) Defamation and False Light: Litigation Privilege and Implausible Harm

The district court dismissed because statements made in the DOL proceeding are protected by litigation privilege, plaintiff alleged no concrete harm, and did not adequately allege falsity. The proposed amendment vaguely alleged dissemination to others and tied reputational harm to an NMMB investigation that ended in July 2021—before Dr. Saini claims he learned of the DOL letter in October 2022—rendering the causation theory implausible. The panel agreed amendment would be futile and distinguished Osuagwu, which involved a specific, knowingly false report to a public database on a known date.

i) Indemnification (Contractual and Common Law): No Third-Party Tort Injury

New Mexico indemnification requires that the indemnitor and indemnitee be liable to an injured third party in tort (Arthur J. Gallagher). Dr. Saini identified no third party injured by HCC’s conduct; the NMMB was not “injured”—it merely carried out its regulatory function. The claims also failed on causation grounds as above. Amendment was futile.

j) Denial of Leave to Amend: Futility

Applying de novo review to the futility determinations, the panel agreed that the proposed amendments could not cure the legal defects—limitations, causation, privilege, and the absence of facts showing contractual intent—so denial of leave was within the district court’s discretion (Chilcoat; Lind).

3) Doctrinal Impact and Practical Significance

  • Limitations Accrual Reaffirmed: The opinion reinforces that discrimination claims accrue at the time of the adverse action, not when evidence of pretext emerges. Plaintiffs should not bank on later-discovered documents to restart the clock.
  • No Tolling via DOL Wage Proceedings: Filing a wage or overtime complaint with DOL’s Wage and Hour Division does not toll Title VII, NMHRA, or § 1981 deadlines. These are distinct remedies; sleeping on one is not excused by pursuing another.
  • INA/DOL MOU Limits: The inter-agency MOU does not itself create an INA claim, compel transfer, or toll statutory deadlines. Foreign workers must independently and timely file under the appropriate statute, mindful that the INA carries a much shorter 180-day deadline.
  • Retaliation Causation in Regulated Professions: For licensed professionals subject to self-reporting rules, discipline stemming from the professional’s own reporting obligations will generally break the causal chain for employer-retaliation claims premised on later employer communications.
  • Litigation Privilege in Administrative Proceedings: Communications made in the course of DOL proceedings are protected under New Mexico’s litigation privilege, limiting the viability of defamation/false light claims based on such statements.
  • Employee Manuals and Contract Theories: To transform a policy manual into an enforceable contract, New Mexico law requires facts showing employer intent to be bound; bare references to procedures do not suffice.
  • Indemnification’s Third-Party Injury Requirement: Regulatory action (like a reprimand) is not a “third-party tort injury,” foreclosing indemnification theories premised on agency enforcement outcomes.

Complex Concepts Simplified

  • Accrual: The clock on your discrimination claim starts when your employer tells you about the adverse action (e.g., firing), not when you later discover why it happened.
  • Equitable Tolling: A rare exception that pauses deadlines when you’ve been actively misled or prevented from filing; simply not knowing the employer’s motive is not enough.
  • Separate Remedies: Wage claims and discrimination claims are different legal tracks. Filing one does not automatically protect your rights on the other.
  • INA vs. Title VII: Some immigration-related discrimination claims go to DOJ under the INA with a short 180-day deadline; Title VII claims go to the EEOC/NMHRB with a 300-day deadline. One does not automatically substitute for the other.
  • Materially Adverse Action (Retaliation): The employer must have done something that would dissuade a reasonable person from complaining. If your harm stems from your own duty (like a regulatory self-reporting requirement), the link to employer retaliation may be missing.
  • Litigation Privilege: Statements made in or related to official proceedings (including certain agency investigations) are typically immune from defamation suits to encourage candid participation.
  • Implied Contract from Manuals: Policies can sometimes create contractual rights, but only when the employer’s intent to be bound is clear. Many manuals expressly disclaim contractual intent.
  • Indemnification: Usually shifts liability when both indemnitor and indemnitee are liable to a third party in tort. Regulatory sanctions are not the same as a third-party tort injury.

Conclusion

The Tenth Circuit’s decision in Saini v. Hospital Care Consultants delivers a pointed reminder about the primacy of limitations and causation in employment cases:

  • Discrimination and hostile work environment claims accrue at the time of the adverse action, and equitable tolling is exceptional—later revelations of pretext are not enough.
  • Pursuing wage claims with the DOL does not toll or substitute for timely discrimination filing. The INA’s distinct framework and deadline are not silently triggered by a DOL wage complaint.
  • Retaliation requires a materially adverse action caused by the employer, not by the employee’s independent regulatory obligations.
  • Statements made in agency proceedings are shielded by litigation privilege, and defamation/false light claims require concrete, plausible allegations of falsity and harm.
  • Contract and tort theories must satisfy New Mexico’s specific standards for intent, causation, and third-party injury; otherwise, amendment is futile.

Although unpublished, the opinion is a persuasive, practical road map for litigants and counsel navigating the overlap among wage enforcement, anti-discrimination regimes, and regulated-profession reporting duties. Its throughline is simple but decisive: know your deadlines, understand your independent obligations, and plead causation with precision.

Case Details

Year: 2025
Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Comments