Opinion
23-3031
05-28-2024
Elizabeth J. Ziegler, an individual; Nichole L. Dietel Plaintiffs - Appellants v. 3M Company Defendant-Appellee
Unpublished
Submitted: May 7, 2024
Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota
Before COLLOTON, Chief Judge, SHEPHERD and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Elizabeth Ziegler and Nichole Dietel sued 3M, their employer, for pushing them to get vaccinated. The district court dismissed on multiple grounds: filing too late, failing to exhaust, and not stating a claim. They argue on appeal that they have stated a claim, but that still allows us to affirm on one of the other grounds.
The Honorable David S. Doty, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.
One path is particularly clear. The plaintiffs' complaint raises two claims, the first under Title VII and another under the Minnesota Human Rights Act, both of which set a filing deadline. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1) (300 days); Minn. Stat. § 363A.28, subd. 3 (one year). The plaintiffs did not file in time under either one, so the district court dismissed the case. See Hutson v. Wells Dairy, Inc., 578 F.3d 823, 825-27 (8th Cir. 2009) (affirming the dismissal of an untimely Title VII claim).
The plaintiffs have waived any argument otherwise by failing to brief the issue on appeal. See Far E. Aluminium Works Co. v. Viracon, Inc., 27 F.4th 1361, 1367 n.2 (8th Cir. 2022) ("Claims not raised in an opening brief are deemed waived." (citation omitted)). In these circumstances, we affirm on this "independent ground[]." United States v. May, 70 F.4th 1064, 1074 (8th Cir. 2023); see Rivero v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of N.M., 950 F.3d 754, 763 (10th Cir. 2020) ("If the district court states multiple alternative grounds for its ruling and the appellant does not challenge all those grounds in the opening brief, then we may affirm the ruling.")