Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-06297/USCOURTS-ca10-91-06297-0/pdf.json

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

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

FI LED 

Voiced States C.O~rt ~f Appeals 

Tenth C1rcu1r 

JUL 2 ~ 1992 

:ROBERT L. HOECKER 

GLORIA MATHES, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

) Clerk 

) 

) 

) 

v. ) No. 91-6297 

) (D.C. No. CIV-90-684-R) 

DONALD B. RICE, Secretary, Department 

of the Air Force, 

) (W.D. Okla.) 

) 

) 

Defendant-Appellee. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MOORE, BARRETT, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The case is therefore ordered 

Plaintiff appeals the district court's Order granting 

Defendant's motion for summary judgment as to her claim alleging 

nonpromotion due to sexual discrimination. We affirm. 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 91-6297 Document: 010110275129 Date Filed: 07/29/1992 Page: 1
Plaintiff, a female, civilian employee at Tinker Air Force 

Base, commenced an action in the district court, alleging sex 

discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 

42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17. Specifically, she contended that 

(1) she had been suspended as a result of sex discrimination and 

(2) she was denied promotion from deputy comptroller to the 

position of comptroller of the base in July, 1989, due to a policy 

of sex discrimination and her nonpromotion was a continuing 

violation of Title VII. Defendant filed a motion for summary 

judgment contending, inter alia, that Plaintiff failed to timely 

file her failure to promote claim. The district court granted 

summary judgment on the untimeliness of the nonpromotion claim, 

determining that Plaintiff failed to bring the claim to the 

attention of the Equal Employment Opportunity Counselor within 

thirty days of the date of nonpromotion. In addition, the 

district court rejected Plaintiff's allegation that the 

discriminatory conduct concerning nonpromotion was a continuing 

violation. The district court entered an Order of Certification 

Pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

permitting this appeal. 

Plaintiff appeals from the grant of summary judgment. Our 

review is de novo, and we apply the same legal standard used by 

the district court in reviewing the summary judgment motion. See 

Thomas v. Wichita Coca-Cola Bottling Co., F.2d __ , Nos. 

91-1274, 91-1342, slip op. at 4 (10th Cir. July 1, 1992). We will 

affirm the district court if, viewing the facts in the light most 

favorable to Plaintiff, there is no genuine issue of material fact 

2 

Appellate Case: 91-6297 Document: 010110275129 Date Filed: 07/29/1992 Page: 2
and Defendant should prevail as a matter of law. See Millensifer 

v. Retirement Plan for Salaried Employees of Cotter Corp., __ 

F.2d , No. 90-1304, slip. op. at 5 (10th Cir. June 26, 1992); 

see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). 

Plaintiff argues that the district court erred in determining 

that her failure to promote claim was untimely. The parties agree 

that the comptroller position was last filled on July 9, 1989. 

Plaintiff first raised her failure to promote claim on January 24, 

1990, when she filed her formal administrative complaint. Thus, 

Plaintiff did not bring her failure to promote claim to the 

attention of the Equal Employment Opportunity Counselor within 

thirty days of the last date the position was filled. See 29 

C.F.R. § 1613.214(a)(l)(i); Johnson v. Orr, 747 F.2d 1352, 1357 

(10th Cir. 1984); see also Bayer v. United States Dep't of 

Treasury, 956 F.2d 330, 332 (D.C. Cir. 1992)(timely filing of 

administrative complaint required before filing Title VII 

complaint). 

Plaintiff argues that Defendant has a continuing policy of 

not promoting women to the position of comptroller, and, 

therefore, she could avoid the thirty-day time period and bring 

this claim as long as the violation continued. The district court 

rejected this argument. The court stated "Plaintiff has offered 

no evidence of any women other than herself who have been denied 

promotion to Comptroller, or of any women other than herself who 

are qualified to hold the position of 

Comptroller .... Plaintiff's evidence shows one failure to 

promote one employee to one position on one occasion." 

3 

Appellate Case: 91-6297 Document: 010110275129 Date Filed: 07/29/1992 Page: 3
Appellant's App. at 77, 78. According to Plaintiff, the district 

court misapplied continuing violation law by requiring her to 

prove that other women have not been promoted in order to show a 

continuing violation. She further submits that the district court 

improperly intertwined a continuing violation with disparate 

impact issues. 

Generally, an employee is notified of an adverse employment 

decision when a particular decision is announced. Gray v. 

Phillips Petroleum Co., 858 F.2d 610, 614 (10th Cir. 1988). Even 

after the employment decision, however, the employee may be 

affected by a continuing policy maintained by the employer that 

may discriminate against the employee. Id. A discriminatory 

failure to promote may be a continuing violation under Title VII 

filing requirements if the plaintiff is alleging nonpromotion over 

a period of time. Higgins v. State of Okla. ex rel. Okla. 

Employment Sec. Comm'n, 642 F.2d 1199, 1200 n.2 (10th Cir. 1981); 

Rich v. Martin Marietta Corp., 522 F.2d 333, 348 n.15 (10th Cir. 

1975). "[D]iscriminatory incidents which occur beyond the 

limitations period are actionable 'where a 

plaintiff ... challenges not just one incident of [unlawful] 

conduct ... but an unlawful practice that continues into the 

limitations period, [in such cases] the complaint is timely when 

it is filed within [thirty] days of the last asserted occurrence 

of that practice.'" Haithcock v. Frank, 958 F.2d 671, 677 (6th 

Cir. 1992)(quoting Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363, 

380-81 (1982)). "Thus, where there is an ongoing, continuous 

series of discriminatory acts, they may be challenged in their 

4 

Appellate Case: 91-6297 Document: 010110275129 Date Filed: 07/29/1992 Page: 4
entirety as long as one of those discriminatory acts falls within 

the limitations period." Id. Such a continuing violation could 

toll the thirty-day time period for filing charges. Nealon v. 

Stone, 958 F.2d 584, 590 n.4 (4th Cir. 1992). 

For a continuing violation, however, a plaintiff must allege 

more than a mere isolated incident of discrimination. Gray, 858 

F.2d at 614; EEOC v. Penton Indus. Publishing Co., 851 F.2d 835, 

838 (6th Cir. 1988). Plaintiff alleges only an isolated incident 

of discrimination, which is insufficient to prove a continuing 

violation. As the district court found, she offered no evidence 

of women other than herself who allegedly were qualified to be 

comptroller, but who were denied promotion. Because Plaintiff 

failed to present allegations from which a continuing 

discriminatory policy can be inferred, she failed to prove a 

continuing violation. 

Because she did not prove a continuing violation, Plaintiff 

did not file a timely discrimination claim. The district court 

did not err in granting summary judgment for Defendant. 

Accordingly, the judgment of the United States District Court for 

the Western District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court 

John P. Moore 

Circuit Judge 

5 

Appellate Case: 91-6297 Document: 010110275129 Date Filed: 07/29/1992 Page: 5