Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01575/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01575-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

The Honorable J. Leon Holmes, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Eastern District of Arkansas. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-1575

___________

Elvin E. Carroll, Sr., *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

John E. Potter, Postmaster General of *

the United States of America, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: January 27, 2006

Filed: February 3, 2006

___________

Before ARNOLD, BYE, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Elvin E. Carroll, Sr., appeals the district court’s1

 dismissal of his employmentdiscrimination lawsuit for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Carroll sued

John E. Potter, United States Postmaster General, under the Americans with

Disabilities Act (ADA), Title VII, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act

Appellate Case: 05-1575 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/03/2006 Entry ID: 2005587
2

He has abandoned the remaining claims he raised in his complaint. See Shade

v. City of Farmington, Minn., 309 F.3d 1054, 1058 n.6 (8th Cir. 2002). 

-2-

(ADEA), the Rehabilitation Act, and 38 U.S.C. § 4212 (Veterans’ employment

emphasis under federal contracts).2

 We affirm. 

Specifically, we agree with the district court that Carroll could not file suit

under the ADA to redress alleged discrimination occurring during his tenure as a

federal employee, see Calero-Cerezo v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 355 F.3d 6, 11

n.1 (1st Cir. 2004); and we find no basis for a claim under 38 U.S.C. § 4212. As to

his other claims, the evidence is undisputed that Carroll failed to contact an Equal

Employment Opportunity (EEO) counselor within forty-five days of his March 8,

2002 alleged constructive discharge, the first step in the requisite administrativeexhaustion process. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.105 (2005); Coons v. Mineta, 410 F.3d

1036, 1039-40 (8th Cir. 2005) (discussing § 1614.105 requirements). We agree with

the district court that Carroll did not demonstrate a basis for relief from the forty-five

day requirement under section 1614.105, see 29 C.F.R. § 1614.105(a)(2) (2005)

(forty-five day deadline may be excused if, inter alia, employee shows that despite

due diligence he was prevented by circumstances beyond his control from contacting

EEO counselor within time limits), or under the equitable-tolling doctrine, see Briley

v. Carlin, 172 F.3d 567, 570 (8th Cir. 1999) (equitable tolling is remedy reserved for

circumstances truly beyond plaintiff’s control). To the extent Carroll is arguing for

reversal based on ineffective assistance of counsel, his argument is unavailing. See

Bettis v. Delo, 14 F.3d 22, 24 (8th Cir. 1994) (declining to consider ineffectiveassistance claim because appellant in civil case was not constitutionally entitled to

representation). 

Accordingly, we affirm. We deny as moot appellee’s motion to strike. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-1575 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/03/2006 Entry ID: 2005587