09
- 25 81
- cv C h erry v . C it y o f N ew Y o rk 

### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR TH E SECOND CI RCUIT SUMMARY ORDER
R ULI NG S BY SUM M AR Y ORDER DO NOT HAVE P RE CE DENT I AL E F F E CT . C I T ATI ON TO A SUM M AR Y O RD ER F I LE D O N O R A FT ER J ANU AR Y 1, 2007, I S P E RMI T T E D AN D I S GOV E RN E D B Y F EDERAL R U LE O F A PP EL LATE P ROCEDU RE 3 2 .1 A N D TH I S C OURT ’ S L OC AL R ULE 32. 1. 1. W H EN CI TI N G A SU M M A RY O RD ER I N A D O CU M EN T FI LED W I TH TH I S C OUR T , A PA RT Y M UST CI TE EI THER THE F EDERAL A PPEND I X O R A N ELECTRONI C D ATAB ASE ( W I T H T HE NOT AT I ON “ SUM M AR Y O RD ER ”). A PARTY CI TI NG A SUM M AR Y O RD ER M UST S ERVE A C OPY O F I T ON A NY PARTY N OT REPRES ENTED BY CO UN SE L . At a stated t erm of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sec ond Circuit, hel d at the Danie l P atr ick

Mo yn ihan C ourth ou se, 50 0 P ear l S tre et, in t he Ci ty o f N ewYo rk, on

the 18 day

th of June, two thousand and ten. PRESENT : W ILFRED FEINB ERG,

ROBER T D. SACK , PETER W . HALL,

Ci rcu it J ud ges .

_______________________________________________ Bernard Cherry, Plaintif f-Appellant , v. 09 -25 81 -cv City of New York, et a l. , De fen da nts -A

pp ellees .

______________________________________________ For Appellant: BERNA RD CHE RRY, pro s e , Bronx, New York. Fo r App ell ees : SC OT T S CH OR R, Ci ty o f N ew York Law Department, New York, New York.2

UP ON DU E C ON SI DE RA TI ON , it is her eby ORDERED , ADJUDGED AND DECRE ED that th e ju dg m ent of the dis tri ct c ourt i s AFFIRMED
. Plaintiff-AppellantBernard Cherry, pro s e , a pp eal s f rom the jud gm ent of

the Un ite d St ate s D istric t C ourt f

or t he Ea ste rn D ist

ric t of Ne w Y ork

(C og an , J .), dis m iss ingAp pe llant’ s employm ent discr imination claims. W e assume the parties ’ familiarity with t he facts and procedural history. W e review deno vo a distri ct court’ s dis missal of a com plaint pur suant to Feder al Rule of Ci vil Pr oc ed

ure 12 (b) (6) , “ co ns tru ingthe co m pla int lib era lly , a cce pti ng all fa ctu al a lle gatio ns in the co m pla int as t rue , and drawi ng all rea so na

ble inf ere nc es i n th e p lai nti ff

' s f av or. ” Ch am be rs
v. Ti meWar

ne r, Inc

. , 282 F.3d 147, 152 (2d Cir. 2002). “[T]he pleadings of pro s e lit igants should be construed libera lly, and should notbe dismissed unless itis clearthat the pl aintiff would not be entit led to rel ief under any set of facts t hat could be pr oved consiste nt with the all eg ati on s. ” Ph ill ips v. Gi rd ich , 4 08 F. 3d

12 4, 12 7 (2 d C ir. 20 05 ) (c itatio ns an d inter na l qu otatio n m ark s o m itt ed ). A litigantmust have filed a timely charge (subj ect to possi ble enlar gement by way of equitable estoppel, waive r, or toll ing) with the Equal Employm ent Opportunit y Commission and
co rre sp on din g s tat e ag en cie s as a co nd iti on pre ced ent to the fi lin g o f an a cti on in f ed era l co urt pursuant to t he Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Am ericans wit h Disabilit ies Act, or Title VII of the Civi l Rights Act. Se e 29 U.S.C. § 626(d); 42 U.S.C. § 12117(a) (adopting t he fi lin g re qu ire m ents o f 4 2 U .S .C . § 20 00 e-( 5)) ; see also Daless andro v. Monk , 864 F.2d 6, 8 (2d Ci r. 1 98 8) ( AD EA ); Fran cis v. Ci ty o f N ew Yo rk, 235 F.3d 763, 766-67 (2d Cir. 2000) ( citing Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, I nc., 45 5 U .S . 3 85 (19 82 ), f or t he pro po sit ion

that a T itl e V II3

claim is time-barred if the pl aintiff fails to file a timely EEOC charge). In New York, where the New York State Division of Human Rights (“NYSDHR ”) address es claims of em ployment discrimination, t he statut e of limitations for filing a cl aim with the EEOC is 300 days. Se e 42 U. S. C. § 2 00 0e -5( e); 29 U. S. C. § 6 26 (d) (2) ; Qu inn v. Green Tree C red it C or p , 159 F.3d 759, 76 5 (2 d C ir. 19 98 ) (T itl e V II) ; Hodge v. N.Y. Coll. of Podiatric M ed. , 1 57 F. 3d

16 4, 16 6 (2 d C ir. 1998) (ADEA). Here, the most recent al leged discr iminatory action, i.e
. , Appellant’s termination,
oc curre d o n M arc h 1 5, 20 07 , and he learne d o f t

he ter m inatio n o n M arc h 2 2, 20 07 . B eca us e Appellant’s NYSDH R com plaint was notfiled until a year lat er in Mar ch 2008, it was unti mely. Se e V an Za nt v . K

LM Ro ya l D utc h A irl ine

s , 8 0 F .3 d 7 08 , 7 13 (2d

Ci r. 1 99 6) ( ho ldi ng that tim eli ne ss i s m eas ure d f

rom the date the em

plo ye e re cei ve s n oti ce o f t he dis cri m inator

y de cis ion ). A

pp ell ant as ser

ts that hi s N YS DH R c harge wa s ti m ely be cau se h e h ad

su bm itt ed
co m pla int s throu ghbo th t

he int ern al D ep artm ent of Co rre cti on s (“ DO C” ) gr iev an ce p roc ed ure s
an d throu ghhis un ion . T hat ar gum ent is un av ail ing , h ow ev er, as “ the pe nd en cyof a g rie vanc e, or some other method of collateral r eview of an employm ent decisi on, does not toll the running of the lim itatio ns pe rio ds .” De l. S tate C oll. v . R ick

s , 4 49 U. S. 25 0, 26 1 (1 98 0); seeals o Int ’l Un ion of Elec ., Ra dio an d Ma ch . Wo rke rs, AFL -C IO , L oc al 7 90v. Ro bb ins & My ers , In c. , 429 U.S. 229, 234-36 (1976) (holdi ng that the fil ing deadline is not tol led during t he pendency of gri ev an ce o r ar

bit rat ion pro ced ure s). Finally, Appell ant appears to assertthat he was misled into wai ting for completion of the DOC’s investigati on, and he argues t hat we should excuse his untimely complaint because t he delay was not his fault. This argument, however, was not pre sented before the distri ct court.4

The well establ ished genera l rule i s that a cour t of appeals will not consideran issue ra ised for the first t ime on appeal. Se e S ingleton v. Wul

ff , 4 28 U. S. 10 6, 12 0-2 1 (1 97 6); seeals o V irg ili o v . Ci ty o f N ew Yo rk, 407 F.3d 105, 116 (2d Cir. 2005) (ci ting Wes tingh ou se C red it C or p. v. D' Ur so , 3 71 F. 3d

96 , 1 03 (2d

Ci r. 2 00 4)) . T he rul e is no t an ab so lut e b ar t o ra isi ng ne w i ssu es on appeal, and the Court may in its discre tion disr egard it when nec essary to r emedy m anifest or obvious injust ice. See Thomas E. Hoar, Inc. v. Sara Lee Corp. , 9 00 F. 2d 52 2, 52 7 (2 d C ir. 1990). Appellant, none theless, doe s not explai n why he did not asser t this ar gument before the dis tri ct c ourt, an d h e h as n ot e sta bli sh ed m an if est or o bv iou s in

jus tic e su ff

ici ent f or u s to
ex erc ise our di scr eti on

to c on sid er the iss ue . Ad dit ion all y, ev enif

we we re t o c on sid er the arg um ent, i t is wi tho ut m eri t. E qu ita ble tol lin g is on ly a

pp rop riate i n “ rar e an d e xc ep tio na l ci rcum stanc e[ s] ,” su chas whe n a party“is pre ve nte d in

so m e ex tra ord inary w ayfr om ex erc isi ng his rig hts .” Ze ril li-Ed elg las s v. Ne w Y

or k City Transit Auth. , 333 F.3d 74, 80 (quoting Sm ith v. McG inn is , 2 08 F. 3d 13 , 1 7 (2 d C ir. 20 00 ), and Johnson v. Nyack Hosp. , 86 F.3d 8, 12 (2d Cir. 1996)). I n determining if equitabl e tolli ng sh ou ld a pp ly, the co urt

sh ou ld c on sid er whe the r th e p lai nti ff (1) ha s ac ted

wi th r eas on ab le dil ige nc e d

uri ng the tim e p eri od

he see ks to h av e to lle d and (2) ha s p rov ed

ex tra ord inary circumstances just ifying applicat ion of the doctri ne. Id. at 8 0-8 1. Ap pe llant’ s o nly arg um ent in favo r of eq uit ab le t oll ingis that he wa s m isl ed byhis un ion

an d/o r D OC . Whil e th e d oc um ents that App ell ant ha s su

bm itt ed ind icate that he wa s d ili ge nt i n s eek ingres olutio n o f h is d isp ute thr ou ghDO C and

his un ion , h e h as n ot a sse rte d, m uc h le ss e sta

bli sh ed , th at e xtr ao rdi nary circumstances just ify applicati on of the equitable tolling doc trine. See id. Mo reo ve r, n oth ingin5

the rec ord

su pp ort s App ell ant’s cla im

of a co ns pir acy

or s ho ws that th ere ex ist ed ex cep tio na l circumstances sufficient t o excuse his del ay. Id. W e have revie wed Appellant’s r emaining arguments and find them to be without m erit. For the reas ons stated above, the judgment of the distri ct court i s AFFIRMED. FO R T HE CO UR T: Cathe rin e O ’H ag anW olf e, Cl erk