USCA4 Appeal: 22-1629 Doc: 27 Filed: 04/17/2023 Pg: 1 of 9

PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-1629

MARGARET CHAMBERS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; TIMOTHY RODGERS, in his individual and official capacity; ROBIN PENDERGRAFT, in her individual and official capacity,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., District Judge. (3:22-cv-00037-MOC-DCK)

Argued: March 8, 2023 Decided: April 17, 2023

Before WYNN, HARRIS, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by published opinion. Judge Wynn wrote the opinion, in which Judge Harris and Judge Heytens joined.

ARGUED: Bert Joseph Miano, MIANO LAW PC, Matthews, North Carolina, for Appellant. Tamika Lynn Henderson, Special Deputy Attorney General, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Joshua H. Stein, Attorney General, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. USCA4 Appeal: 22-1629 Doc: 27 Filed: 04/17/2023 Pg: 2 of 9

WYNN, Circuit Judge:

Margaret Chambers brought this wrongful-termination action against her former

employer—the North Carolina Department of Justice—and two former supervisors,

Timothy Rodgers and Robin Pendergraft, in their official and individual capacities. The

district court dismissed some claims as barred by sovereign immunity and dismissed the

entirety of the complaint as time barred. Because we conclude that the district court failed

to apply the correct statute of limitations, we vacate in part and remand for further

proceedings.

I.

Chambers, an African American woman, began working as an investigator with the

Medicaid Investigations Division at the North Carolina Department of Justice in April

2007. In her complaint, she alleges that after participating in an investigation into alleged

misconduct by Rodgers, she was subjected to racially discriminatory and disparate

treatment by Rodgers and Pendergraft.

Chambers’s employment was terminated on November 21, 2017, and, just shy of

four years later, she filed this action on November 19, 2021, alleging wrongful termination

under

pursuant to

. 1 In response, Defendants moved to

dismiss, arguing that the claims were untimely, that certain Defendants enjoyed sovereign

immunity, and that Chambers failed to state a claim upon which she was entitled to relief.

1 Chambers brought additional claims, but she does not appeal the dismissal of those claims.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 22-1629 Doc: 27 Filed: 04/17/2023 Pg: 3 of 9

The district court granted the Defendants’ motion to dismiss, finding that some

claims were barred by sovereign immunity and that, “[i]n any event,” all of her claims were

subject to the three-year statute of limitations found in

(16).

Chambers v. N.C. Dep’t of Just., 3:22-cv-37-MOC-DCK,

, at *2–3

(W.D.N.C. May 6, 2022). The court also found that the North Carolina Department of

Justice was not an appropriate defendant for a § 1983 action. Id. at *3 n.2 (citing Am. Mfrs.

Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan,

, 49–50 (1999)). It did not reach the other issues

raised, including Defendants’ contention that the complaint failed to state a claim. See

at *2–3. Chambers timely appealed.

II.

At oral argument, Chambers conceded that the district court properly dismissed the

North Carolina Department of Justice as a defendant. See

at *3 n.2. She also conceded

that the court properly dismissed, on sovereign-immunity grounds, her claims against

Rodgers and Pendergraft in their official capacities insofar as she requested money

damages rather than prospective relief. See id. at *2.

However, she argues that the district court erroneously dismissed the remainder of

her claims—specifically, her wrongful-termination claim for prospective relief against

Rodgers and Pendergraft in their official capacities and her wrongful-termination claim for

money damages and prospective relief against those Defendants in their individual

capacities—as time barred.

“[W]e review a grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim de novo.”

Weidman v. Exxon Mobil Corp.,

(4th Cir. 2015). Likewise, “[w]e review

3 USCA4 Appeal: 22-1629 Doc: 27 Filed: 04/17/2023 Pg: 4 of 9

the district court’s statute-of-limitations decision de novo.” Parkway 1046, LLC v. U.S.

Home Corp.,

, 307 (4th Cir. 2020) (quoting Gen. Ins. Co. of Am. v. U.S. Fire

Ins. Co.,

(4th Cir.), as amended (Mar. 28, 2018)).

III.

Chambers argues that Defendants wrongfully terminated her in violation of § 1981,

which establishes an equal right to “make and enforce contracts” regardless of race.

(a). 2 She brings this claim pursuant to § 1983, which creates an express right

of action against state actors for the “deprivation of any rights” that are “secured by the

Constitution and [federal] laws,” including § 1981.

; see Mveng-Whitted

v. Va. State Univ.,

(E.D. Va. 2013). As Chambers notes, § 1983

is the “procedural vehicle” by which she seeks to vindicate her substantive § 1981 rights.

Opening Br. at 12.

Congress initially enacted § 1981 as part of the 1866 Civil Rights Act. “It was

amended in minor respects in 1870 and recodified in 1874, but its basic coverage did not

change prior to 1991.” Jones v. R.R. Donnelley & Sons Co.,

(2004)

(internal citation omitted). In its 1989 decision in Patterson v. McLean Credit Union, the

Supreme Court construed § 1981 as limited to race discrimination in the formation of

contracts and the enforcement of “established contract obligations,” but as not applying “to

2 In relevant part, § 1981 provides: “All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts . . . and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens[.]”

(a).

4 USCA4 Appeal: 22-1629 Doc: 27 Filed: 04/17/2023 Pg: 5 of 9

conduct which occurs after the formation of a contract.” Patterson v. McLean Credit

Union,

(1989) (emphasis added). Shortly thereafter, Congress responded

with the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which superseded Patterson and expanded § 1981 to

prohibit race discrimination post-contract formation, including in the termination of

contracts.

U.S. at 373; see

,

, 1071–

72 (codified at

(b)).

Neither § 1981 nor § 1983 carries an explicit statute of limitations. Typically, in

such cases, “federal courts should select the most appropriate or analogous state statute of

limitations.” Goodman v. Lukens Steel Co.,

(1987). “For § 1983 suits,

that [analogous] cause of action is a personal-injury suit.” Owens v. Balt. City State’s Att’ys

Off.,

(4th Cir. 2014). That is apparently why the district court applied

North Carolina’s three-year limitations period for personal-injury claims, under which it

determined that Chambers’s complaint was untimely. Chambers,

, at *3

(citing

).

But determinative for this case, in 1990 Congress enacted

, which

established a catchall four-year statute of limitations for federal claims “arising under” any

act of Congress that was enacted after December 1, 1990, unless the act provided its own

3 Specifically, the act defined “make and enforce contracts” as “the making, performance, modification, and termination of contracts, and the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of the contractual relationship.”

(b).

5 USCA4 Appeal: 22-1629 Doc: 27 Filed: 04/17/2023 Pg: 6 of 9

statute of limitations.

(a). 4 Where § 1658(a) applies, its four-year statute

of limitations supersedes any analogous state-law limitations period for purposes of claims

brought pursuant to federal law.

Thus, to establish whether § 1658(a)’s four-year statute of limitations applies in this

case, we must determine whether the present action “ar[o]s[e] under” the 1991 amendment

to § 1981. Id. It did. In so concluding, we join the only other circuit to have directly

answered this question. Baker v. Birmingham Bd. of Educ.,

, 1337–38 (11th

Cir. 2008); see also Mveng-Whitted,

(collecting cases and

concluding “[t]he weight of authority around the country supports” the decision in Baker).

Our conclusion, like the Eleventh Circuit’s, comes from a straightforward reading

of the Supreme Court’s 2004 decision in Jones v. R.R. Donnelley & Sons Co. In that case,

the Court held that a cause of action “aris[es] under” an act of Congress enacted after

December 1, 1990, if the plaintiff’s claim was “made possible” by a post-1990 enactment.

Jones,

. Applying that rule, the Court unanimously held that a wrongful-

termination claim brought directly under § 1981 against a private employer was “made

possible” by the 1991 amendment to that section. Id. at 383. Therefore, it was subject to

the four-year statute of limitations set forth in § 1658. Id.

4 In relevant part, § 1658(a) provides: “Except as otherwise provided by law, a civil action arising under an Act of Congress enacted after the date of the enactment of this section [i.e., December 1, 1990] may not be commenced later than 4 years after the cause of action accrues.”

(a). Section 1658 also contains some exceptions that are not applicable here. See

§ 1658(b).

6 USCA4 Appeal: 22-1629 Doc: 27 Filed: 04/17/2023 Pg: 7 of 9

Defendants argue that this action is distinguishable from Jones because it is brought

against state actors and, as such, is governed by § 1983—which was enacted well before

1990 and has not been amended in relevant part since—rather than § 1981. So, Defendants

argue, the three-year limitations period borrowed from North Carolina law applies and

Chambers’s claim is time barred. We disagree.

To be sure, § 1983 “is the ‘exclusive federal remedy for violation [by state actors]

of the rights guaranteed in § 1981.’” Dennis v. County of Fairfax,

(4th

Cir. 1995) (quoting Jett v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist.,

(1989)). But § 1983

is merely the procedural vehicle for asserting an underlying claim, and “what matters [for

purposes of determining the applicability of § 1658(a)] is the substance of the plaintiff’s

claim.” Mveng-Whitted,

; accord Jones,

(holding

that a cause of action is subject to § 1658’s four-year statute of limitations “if the plaintiff’s

claim against the defendant was made possible by a post-1990 enactment” (emphasis

added)); see also City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams,

, 123 n.5 (2005)

(stating in dicta that “[s]ince the [§ 1983] claim here rests upon violation of the post-1990

[Act], § 1658 would seem to apply”). In other words, a plaintiff must use § 1983 as a

vehicle to assert a § 1981 claim against a state actor. But what matters for determining the

proper limitations period is the substance of the underlying claim. For an action brought to

vindicate rights established under § 1981, this question turns on whether the claim concerns

discrimination post-contract formation that was not actionable under the original, pre-1990

statute.

7 USCA4 Appeal: 22-1629 Doc: 27 Filed: 04/17/2023 Pg: 8 of 9

Here, Chambers brought a § 1983 action for wrongful termination in violation of

§ 1981. A wrongful-termination claim is based on post-contract-formation conduct. As

Defendants correctly recognized at oral argument, it would not have been possible for

Chambers to bring this action prior to December 1, 1990, because before that date, § 1981

was limited to discrimination in contract formation and enforcement. See Jones,

(citing Patterson,

). In 1991, Congress expanded § 1981 to include

discrimination post-contract formation. Id. Therefore, the 1991 amendment to § 1981

“made possible” this § 1983 action, and the four-year catchall statute of limitations

provided by § 1658 applies. See Baker, 531 F.3d at 1337–38.

Nonetheless, Defendants asserted at oral argument that such a holding would lead

to an “absurd” result because some § 1983 actions would be subject to the federal catchall

statute of limitations while other § 1983 actions would be subject to the analogous state

statute of limitations, even though they seek to redress the same underlying events. Oral

Argument at 15:14–15:45, Chambers v. N.C. Dep’t of Just., No. 22-1629 (4th Cir. March

8, 2023), https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/OAarchive/mp3/22-1629-20230308.mp3.

But there are many instances where different claims that arise from the same

underlying events may have different limitations periods. See, e.g., 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e),

(f)(1) (establishing a tiered limitations period for wrongful-termination claims brought

under Title VII where a charge must first be filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission and then, once a right to sue letter is received, a suit must be brought in a

federal district court within 90 days). And it would be no less anomalous to hold, as

Defendants suggest, that wrongfully terminated employees should face one statute of

8 USCA4 Appeal: 22-1629 Doc: 27 Filed: 04/17/2023 Pg: 9 of 9

limitations for private employers (under § 1981 and § 1658) and another for state

employers (under § 1983, § 1981, and state law)—which in turn would vary by state. Cf.

Jones,

(noting that, where federal courts must look to state law to determine

the statute of limitations for a federal claim, it can be the case that “a plaintiff alleging a

federal claim in State A would find herself barred by the local statute of limitations while

a plaintiff raising precisely the same claim in State B would be permitted to proceed”).

In fact, the Jones test was articulated by the Supreme Court to create more

uniformity and certainty for federal causes of action.

. The practice of

“borrowing” state statutes of limitation for federal causes of action “generate[s] a host of

issues.”

. Thus, “a central purpose of § 1658 was to minimize the occasions for

that practice.” Id. at 380. We therefore decline Defendants’ invitation to apply North

Carolina’s personal-injury statute of limitations to § 1983 actions made possible by an act

of Congress enacted after December 1, 1990.

IV.

In sum, we affirm the uncontested dismissal of the North Carolina Department of

Justice and the uncontested dismissal of the official-capacity claims against the individual

Defendants for money damages. But because the statute of limitations for the remaining

claims is four years and not three years as the district court found, we must otherwise vacate

the district court’s grant of Defendants’ motion to dismiss Rodgers and Pendergraft from

this action. We remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED

9