Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02135/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02135-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 

---

1

The Honorable James M. Moody, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Arkansas. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-2135

___________

John P. Conville, Jr., *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

Emerson Electric, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: April 6, 2007

Filed: April 11, 2007

___________

Before SMITH, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

John P. Conville, Jr. appeals from the district court’s1

 dismissal of his Title VII

and Americans with Disabilities Act complaint. Upon de novo review, see Farm

Credit Servs. of Am. v. Am. State Bank, 339 F.3d 764, 767 (8th Cir. 2003), we affirm.

Emerson Electric Company (Emerson) employed Conville until 1993. In 1992,

he suffered a stroke. Based upon his resulting medical restrictions, Emerson

informed him that it did not have a position available for him, and terminated his

Appellate Case: 06-2135 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/11/2007 Entry ID: 3297534
-2-

employment in March 1993. In 2005, Conville filed a pro se charge of discrimination

with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which determined that the

charge was untimely. Using a Title VII pro se complaint form, Conville alleged that

Emerson violated his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

Whether under Title VII or the ADA, Conville’s charge was filed well outside

of the 180-day statute of limitations period. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-5(e)(1)

(establishing 180-day statute of limitations for Title VII actions), 12117(a) (adopting

Title VII procedures); Diaz v. Swift-Eckrich, Inc., 318 F.3d 796, 798 (8th Cir. 2003)

(applying 180-day statute of limitations to Title VII action); Douglas v. Cal. Dep’t of

Youth Auth., 271 F.3d 812, 823 n.12 (9th Cir. 2001) (noting 180-day statute of

limitations applies to ADA actions). The district court properly rejected Conville’s

argument that the statute of limitations was subject to equitable tolling. Conville was

aware of the relevant facts at the time of his termination, yet waited twelve years to

bring a formal charge of discrimination. See Dring v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 58

F.3d 1323, 1329 (8th Cir. 1995) (permitting equitable tolling only “when a reasonable

person in the plaintiff’s situation would not be expected to know of the . . . violation”).

Having dismissed Conville’s suit for failing to satisfy the statute of limitations, the

district court properly denied as moot Conville’s motion to amend his complaint,

which sought to add allegations that Emerson failed to provide him with a reasonable

accommodation. 

Conville’s unopposed motion to place correspondence from Emerson’s counsel

into the record is granted. We have reviewed this correspondence and conclude that

it does not affect the merits of the appeal. 

The judgment of the district court is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-2135 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/11/2007 Entry ID: 3297534