Jump To

Top Caption Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 17, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Elisabeth Serian v. JetBlue Airways Corporation

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 25-12433
• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Nature of Suit: NEW

• Opinion

• Authorities (5)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (1.9K)

• PDF

Combined Opinion

USCA11 Case: 25-12433 Document: 23-1 Date Filed: 03/17/2026 Page: 1 of 5

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit

No. 25-12433
Non-Argument Calendar

ELISABETH SERIAN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus

JETBLUE AIRWAYS CORPORATION,
Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 6:23-cv-02471-JSS-LHP

Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and ROSENBAUM and GRANT,
Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
USCA11 Case: 25-12433 Document: 23-1 Date Filed: 03/17/2026 Page: 2 of 5

2 Opinion of the Court 25-12433

Elisabeth Serian appeals the summary judgment in favor of
JetBlue Airways Corporation and against her complaint of disabil-
ity discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act. See 42
U.S.C. § 12112 (a). Because Serian’s complaint is untimely, we af-
firm.
I. BACKGROUND
Serian was a flight attendant for JetBlue. In April 2020, Jet-
Blue adopted a mandatory mask policy for its crewmembers in re-
sponse to the COVID-19 pandemic. Serian requested an accommo-
dation supported by a physician’s note stating that she could not
wear a mask for health reasons. JetBlue denied the request in Au-
gust 2020 and offered Serian leave or a position reassignment in-
stead.
In April 2022, Serian emailed JetBlue’s chief executive officer
and stated that she was “done complying to tyranny” and would
“no longer be wearing [her] mask on board.” She posted her email
on a Facebook page for JetBlue’s crewmembers and encouraged
others to join her. JetBlue suspended Serian pending an investiga-
tion. During an investigatory meeting on April 18, 2022, Serian pre-
sented research on the “adverse effects of prolonged mask usage”
and a detailed account of her specific health concerns. JetBlue ter-
minated Serian on April 26, 2022, for violating company polices.
On October 4, 2022, Serian filed a charge of disability dis-
crimination under the Act with the Equal Employment Oppor-
tunity Commission in Florida. Serian alleged that JetBlue violated
USCA11 Case: 25-12433 Document: 23-1 Date Filed: 03/17/2026 Page: 3 of 5

25-12433 Opinion of the Court 3

the Americans with Disabilities Act by failing to provide her a rea-
sonable accommodation. See 42 U.S.C. § 12112 (a), (b)(5). The
Commission issued a right-to-sue letter that advised Serian that it
did not certify her compliance with any statutes.
Serian sued JetBlue in the district court. JetBlue moved for
summary judgment on the ground that Serian’s complaint was un-
timely because the denial of her requested accommodation oc-
curred in 2020, but Serian did not file her charge until 2022. The
district court granted summary judgment for JetBlue because the
complaint was untimely.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review a summary judgment de novo and view the evi-
dence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant. Albert v. Ass’n
of Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialists, LLC, 130 F.4th 1322,
1326 n.2 (11th Cir. 2025). Summary judgment is appropriate when
“‘there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant
is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’” Id. (quoting FED. R.
CIV. P. 56(a)).
III. DISCUSSION
The Americans with Disabilities Act requires a plaintiff to
“comply with the same procedural requirements to sue as exist un-
der Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,” Zillyette v. Cap. One
Fin. Corp., 179 F.3d 1337, 1339 (11th Cir. 1999), including the timely
filing of a charge of disability discrimination, Maynard v. Pneumatic
Prods. Corp., 256 F.3d 1259, 1262 (11th Cir. 2001). A claimant must
file a charge of discrimination with the Commission within 180
USCA11 Case: 25-12433 Document: 23-1 Date Filed: 03/17/2026 Page: 4 of 5

4 Opinion of the Court 25-12433

days of an unlawful employment practice or 300 days if the com-
plainant first files with an agency in a deferral state, such as Florida.
See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1); Maynard, 256 F.3d at 1262. Filing a
timely charge is a prerequisite to filing a lawsuit under the Act.
Maynard, 256 F.3d at 1262.
Serian’s complaint is untimely. JetBlue denied her request in
August 2020. Because Serian did not file her charge with the Com-
mission until October 2022—more than two years later—she failed
to timely file a charge of discrimination. See 42 U.S.C.
§ 2000e-5(e)(1); Zillyette, 179 F.3d at 1339; Maynard, 256 F.3d at
1262.
Serian raises three arguments. She contends that the Com-
mission’s right-to-sue letter constitutes prima facie evidence of the
timeliness of her claim, that her claim is otherwise timely under the
doctrines of equitable tolling and continuing violations, and that
JetBlue violated the Act by refusing to provide her a reasonable ac-
commodation. These arguments fail.
First, the Commission’s letter does not establish timeliness.
It contained no such finding and explicitly advised Serian that it did
not certify her compliance with any statutes. In any event, even if
the Commission had made a finding of timeliness, the district court
would not have been bound by it. See, e.g., Moore v. Devine, 780 F.2d
1559, 1564 (11th Cir. 1986) (“[W]here, as here, the employee files a
complaint asking the district court to consider the case on the mer-
its . . . of the very claims resolved by the [Commission], he or she
USCA11 Case: 25-12433 Document: 23-1 Date Filed: 03/17/2026 Page: 5 of 5

25-12433 Opinion of the Court 5

cannot complain when the district court independently resolves
the claims on the merits.”).
Second, because Serian raised equitable tolling for the first
time on appeal, that argument is not properly before us. Access
Now, Inc. v. Sw. Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324, 1331 (11th Cir. 2004)
(“This Court has repeatedly held that an issue not raised in the dis-
trict court and raised for the first time in an appeal will not be con-
sidered by this court.” (citations and internal quotation marks omit-
ted)). And the doctrine of continuing violations does not cover dis-
crete acts of discrimination, such as the denial of an accommoda-
tion. See Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 114
(2002). JetBlue’s denial of Serian’s request for an accommodation
in 2020 was a discrete act for which any claim of discrimination ac-
crued.
Serian failed to establish that any new violation occurred in
April 2022 to make her complaint timely. Her email to JetBlue’s
chief executive officer was not a request for an accommodation; it
was instead a declaration that she was “done complying to tyr-
anny.” And her statements during the investigatory meeting about
her research on mask usage and her personal health concerns were
not a request for an accommodation. Because Serian’s complaint is
untimely, we do not reach the merits of it.
IV. CONCLUSION
We AFFIRM the summary judgment in favor of JetBlue.