N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT
W AYNE R OM ANS,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. INC LINE VILLAGE GENER AL IM PR O VEM ENT DISTR IC T,

De fe nda n t-Appe l le e . No. 14-16590 D.C . No. 3:10-c v-00403-R C J-VPC
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ne v a da R obe rt C live Jone s, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d July

5, 2016 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : B ER

Z ON, a nd N.R . SM ITH, C i rc uit Judge s, a nd ZOUHAR

Y, * * Distric t Judge
. 

# FIL ED
JUL 26 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S

. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3. ** The Honora

ble Ja c k Zouha

ry , Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Northe rn Distric t of Ohio, sitting by de signa t ion.The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in c onc luding tha t W ayne R om ans wa s ba

rre d by la c he s from

se e king re lie f unde r the Am e ric ans with Disa bilitie s Ac t

(“ A DA” ) a ga inst Inc line Villa ge Ge ne ra l Im prove m e n t Distric t (“ IVGID” ). 1 B e c a

use n o ne of the distric t c ourt’ s c onc lusions we re “ [1] illogic a l, [2] im pla usible , or [3] without support in infe re nc e s tha t m ay be drawn from

the

1 B e c a use R om ans did not re c e i ve a right to sue

le tte r, the nine ty -day

sta tute of lim ita tions wa s ne ve r trigge re d. Se e 42 U.S.C
. § 2000e -5(f)(1); Missirlian v

. Huntington Me

m’l Hosp. , 662 F.2d 546, 549-50 (9th C ir. 1981). Ne va da is a “ de fe rra l sta

te ,” m e anign it ha s a

“ sta te a ge nc y [, the Ne va da

Equa l R ights C om m ission’ s (“

NER C ” ),] tha

t e nforc e s its own discrim ination la ws.” Laquaglia v . Rio Hote l & C

asino, Inc
. , 186 F.3d 1172, 1174 (9th C ir. 1999). The re fore , R om ans file d his c om

pla int with NER

C , rathe r tha

n the fe de ra l Equa l Em ploy m e nt Opportunity

C om m ission (“ EEOC ” ). Se e 29 U.S.C . § 633; 42 U.S.C
. § 2000-e 5(e )(1). NER C doe s not se e m

to c om ply with there quire m e nts of the fe de ra l sy ste m . In this c a se , NER C se e m ingly did not re la

y R om a ns’ s c om pla int to the

EEOC , de spite NER C ’ s sta

te d polic y tha t “ [a ] ll e m

ploy m e nt c a se s with fe de ra l jurisdic tion are d ua l-file d with NERC and with thefe de ra l [EEOC ] ,” and its dire c t ive tha t a ggrie ve d e m

ploy e e s “ DO NOT ne e d

to file a se pa rate c om pla int with EEOC .” Ne va da Equa l R i g hts C om

m ission, Fa c t She e t

& Fre que ntly

Aske d Que stions, http://www.nvdetr.org/ne rc /Fa c tShe e t.PDF (la st visite d July 14, 2016). B e c a

use of NER C ’ s fa ilure to re la

y R om ans’ s c la i m

to the EEOC , the EEOC ne ve r issue d a right to suele tte r. Furthe r, unlikethe EEOC , NER C doe s not provide a “ right to sue le tte r.” Se e id. (“ The re is no Sta te R ight to Suele tte r. . . . No Sta te R ight to Sue will be issue d.” ). Ac c ording to the NER C we bsite , onc e a

c a s e is a dm inistra

tive ly c lose d , a n a pplic ant c an re que s t a

“ R i ght to Sue ” le tte r from the EEOC , or he or she “ m ay use [the ] c losure le tte r to file into sta te c ourt, illustra

ting that [he or she ] e xha

uste d a ll [his or he r] a d

m inistra t ive re m e die s.” Id. NER C ’ s fa ilure to follow its own polic ie s a nd its re fusa l to issue

right to sue

le tte rs c re ate s am biguity with re g ard to whe n c om pla ints m ust be file d in fe de ra l c o urt. 2fa c t s in the re c ord,” Unite d State s v . Hink son , 585 F.3d 1247, 1263 (9th C ir. 2009) (e n ba nc ), we a ffirm
.

“ Unde r la c he s . . . ‘ [IVGID] first m ust m ake a

prim a fa c ie showing of pre j udic e [.] If [it] m e e ts tha t burde n, the burde n of produc tion of e v ide nc e the n shifts to [Rom ans] to show e i the r that [IVGID] a c tua lly wa s not pre

judic e d or tha

t [he ] e xe rc ise d re a s ona

ble dilige nc e in filing the

c la im .” U

nite d State

s v . Rie dl , 496 F.3d 1003, 1008 (9th C ir. 2007) (quoting Te link , Inc
. v . Unite d State

s , 24 F.3d 42, 47 (9th C ir. 1994)). IVGID m a de a prim a fa c ie showing tha

t it wa s pre

j udic e d a s a
re sult of Rom ans’ s de la

y . The re fore , R o m ans ha s the burde n to show tha

t e ithe r he
e xe rc ise d re a sona

ble dilige nc e in filing his c o m pla int or IVGID wa s not pre j udic e d. Se e id. The distric t c ourt’ s disc re tiona ry c onc lusions tha

t R om ans’ s de la y wa s both unre a sona

ble and pre

judic ia l to IVGID a

re supporte d in the re c ord. R om ans fa ile d to m e e t his burde n of proof tha t the de la y in filing the

la wsuit
wa s re a sona

ble
. S e e id. The unre a sona

ble de la y “ e le m e nt of la c he s is
. . . sa t isfie d,” whe n pla intiff “ ha s offe re d no via ble justific ation for thede l ay .” Danjaq LLC v . Sony

C o rp. , 263 F.3d 942, 955 (9th C ir. 2001). In Fe brua ry 2009, NER C c onduc te d a

te le phone inte rvie w with R om ans, inform i ng R om ans tha t he ha d no via

ble e m ploy m e nt c la i m s. NER C se nt a follow-up le tte r m e m oria l iz ing the c onve rsation. NERC c onc lude d tha t R om a n s’ s c la im s we re (1) untim e ly
3be c a

use the y we re outsideof the 300-da y window or (2) outside

the jurisdic tion of NER C be c a

use the y we re worke r’ s c om

pe nsation c la im s . The NER C le tte r
a dvise d R om an s to c o nsult a n attorne y an d a lso sta

t e d tha t he ha d e xha

uste d his
c la im s be fore the a ge nc y , y e t R om ans fa ile d to a c t for sixte e n m o nths. Rom ans ha s provide d no e xpla

nat ion wha

te ve r a s to why

he fa ile d to file his c la i m for sixte e n m onths; heonly

a sse rts tha

t he tim e ly

file d his c la im

within the

sta tute of lim ita tions. Thus, it is not “

illogic a l, im

p la usible , or without support in infe re nc e s that m a y be drawn from

the fa c ts in the re c ord,” Hink son , 585 F.3d a

t 1263, tha

t R om ans fa ile d to show tha t he e xe rc ise d re a sona

ble dilige nc e in filing his c la im
. Although the issue is c lose r, the distric t c ourt a lso did not a buse its disc re tion in de te rm ining tha t R om ans fa ile d to m e e t

his burde n of proof to show that IVGID wa s not pre

judic e d by

the de la y . Se e Rie dl , 496 F.3d a

t 1008; s e e also Boone v . Me c h. Spe c ialtie

s C o. , 609 F.2d 956, 958 (9th C ir. 1979) (“ The ba re fa c t of de la y c re a te s a re butta ble pre sum

ption of pre

j udic e .” (c ita

tion omitte d)). “ The pre j udic e tha t the doc trine of la c he s is de signe d to pre ve nt oc c urs whe n a de fe nda n t, by re a son of a

pla intiff’ s de la

y , is or will be

worse off tha

n he would have be e n if the pla intiff ha d e nforc e d his rights in a tim e ly fa shion.” TransW

orld Airline s, Inc . v . Am. C

oupon Ex c h., Inc

. , 913 F.2d 676, 696 (9th C ir. 1990); se e also Ev e r gre e n Safe ty

C ounc il v . RSA N

e t w o rk Inc
. , 697 F.3d 1221, 1227 (9th C ir.
42012). “ C ourts ha ve re c ogniz e d two c hie f form s of pre judic e in the la c he s
c onte xt— e vide ntia

ry and e xpe c tations-ba se d.” Danjaq , 263 F.3d a t 955. He re , the p artie s a ddre sse d only e vide ntia ry pre judic e , whic h “ inc lude s suc h things a s lost, sta le , or de gra d e d e vide nc e , or witne sse s whose m e m orie s ha ve fa de d or who have die d.” Id. (c ita

tions omitte d). The distric t c ourt found tha t the “ de struc tion of NER C re c ords be fore [IVGID] ha d a n opportunity

to re que st the m

in disc o ve ry ”
wa s “ c ritic a l to [IVGID’ s] de fe nse on a dispositive issue , i.e ., whe the r [R om ans] file d his c om p la i nt with the NER C within 300 da y s of the la st disc rim inatory a c t.” IVGID’ s prim ary argum e n t be fore the distric t c ourt wa s tha t R om ans did not
e xha ust his a dm i nistra

tive re m e die s re ga

rding the te rm ination c la im by filing a tim e ly an d suffic ie n t c ha

rge re lating to his te

rm ination. If R om ans did not e xha ust the A DA te rm ination c la im found in his c om

pla i nt, the distric t c ourt m ay not
c onside r the c la im
. Se e Fre e man v . Oak land Unified Sc h. Dist. , 291 F.3d 632, 636 (9th C ir. 2002). As a

re sult of this possible

loss of e vide nc e , the distric t c ourt’ s
c onc lusion tha

t the phy sic a l file , if a

ny , or tim e l y

te stim o ny from

the a ge nc y

inta ke inte rvie we r would ha

ve be e n be ne fic ia l to IVGID in m ounting a de fe nse a ga inst R om ans’ s ADA c la im

wa s not “ illogic a l, im

pla usible , or without support in

5infe re n c e s tha t m ay be drawn from

the fa c ts in there c ord.” 2 H ink s on , 585 F.3d a

t 1263. AFFIRM E D.

2 Although weare le ft to spe c ulate a s to wha t doc um e nts the phy sic a l file c onta ine d a

nd whe the r R om an s a sse rte d the pre se nt ADA fa ilure to a c c om m odate c la im , we know tha

t NER C ’ s re m a ining doc um e nts only re fe rre d to a hostilework e nvironm e nt be twe e n

June 2006 a

n d July 2007 a nd non-jurisdic tiona l worke r’ s c om pe nsation c la im s. The distric t c o urt’ s c o nc lusion tha t the de stroy e d re c ord like ly c onta ine d date s a

nd a lle ge d disc rim inatory a c ts is not a n unre a sona

ble a ssum ption. 6