A New York court has ruled in favor of a former employee, Lessa Edholm, allowing her to file a late notice of claim against the Board of Cooperative Educational Services Erie 1 BOCES. This decision, made by the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court on October 9, 2026, is significant for individuals facing employment discrimination claims, as it clarifies the rules surrounding the timely filing of such claims.
The case arose when Edholm, who was terminated from her position at BOCES, sought to challenge her dismissal through a notice of claim. Initially, a lower court denied her request to file this notice late, which would have barred her from pursuing her discrimination claim. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, allowing her to proceed with her case.
Edholm was the claimant in this case, while the respondents included the Board of Cooperative Educational Services Erie 1 BOCES and Eileen Fleming, the Human Resources Director at BOCES. The dispute centered on Edholm's termination and her allegations of employment discrimination. The case reached the Appellate Division after the Supreme Court of Erie County denied her application for leave to file a late notice of claim on May 5, 2025.
The court's ruling clarified that Edholm's claim began when she was informed of her termination, not when she received the written response to her grievance against that termination. The court stated, "An employment discrimination claim accrues on the date that an adverse employment determination is made and communicated to the plaintiff." This ruling emphasized that the 90-day window for filing a notice of claim starts at the time of termination.
Despite Edholm's failure to file her notice of claim within the required timeframe, the appellate court exercised its discretion to allow the late filing. The judges noted that while Edholm did not provide a reasonable excuse for her delay, the respondents had actual knowledge of the facts surrounding her claim within the necessary period. The court stated, "[A] court's decision to grant or deny a motion to serve a late notice of claim is purely a discretionary one."
The judges involved in this decision included Lindley, Curran, Ogden, Delconte, and Hannah. They unanimously agreed to grant Edholm's application to serve a late notice of claim, deeming it timely served retroactively.
This ruling has important implications for future cases involving late notice of claims in employment discrimination matters. It allows claimants like Edholm to pursue their cases even if they miss the initial filing deadline, provided that they can demonstrate that the respondents were aware of the claim's facts and that the delay would not cause them substantial prejudice.
Going forward, this decision may encourage more individuals to come forward with claims of employment discrimination, knowing that there may be some flexibility in the filing deadlines. It also reinforces the importance of timely communication between employers and employees regarding employment decisions.
Details were not available in the court filing regarding whether this case could be appealed further. However, the ruling sets a precedent that future courts may reference when dealing with similar cases of late notice of claims.