[PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 15 08 6

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 8- cv -0 26 86 -RWS

CRIS TOBAL D. RAMIREZ, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff - App el la nt , vers us SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt- App el le e.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e North ern Dis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J ul y 12 , 20 12 ) Befo re EDMONDSON an d WILSON, Circu itJu dg es , andVINSON, Dis tri ct * Ju dg e. Honora

ble C. Roge r Vinson, United States District Judge f or the Nor

thern District of * Florida , sitti ngby

designation. Case: 10-15086 Date Filed: 07/12/2012 Page: 1 of 29VINSON, Dis tri ctJu dg e:

The pl ai nt iff

in th is Tit le VII em

pl oym en t d is cri m in at io n c as e, Cri st ob al D. Ram ire z, rep res en te d h im se lf i n d is tri ctco urt. He s urvi ve d s umm ary jud gm en t (i n pa rt) an d p ro ceed edto tri al . At th e co nc lu si on of t he pre se nt at io n o f hi s ev id en ce, th e d efen da nt , Secre ta ry

of t he U.S. Departm en t o f Tran sp orta ti on (“ DOT), oral ly
m ov edforjud gm en t as m at te r of law p ur su an t t o R

ul e 5 0( a) o f th e Fed eral Ru le s of Civ il Pro cedur e. The di st ric t co urt g ran te d t he m ot io n o n t he so le gro un d t ha t Ram ire z’s cl ai m

was t im e-b arre d b ecau se he di d n otco nt actanEqu al Em pl oym en t Opp ortu ni ty (“ EEO”) Co un se lo r wit hi n fo rty-fiv e d ay s o f th e al le ge d di sc riminat io n. Ra m ire z, st il l ap pe ari ng in th e cas e p ro se, app eal edto th is co urt, whe re h e was ap po in te d c ou ns el . Upo n re vi ew, an d wi th th e b en efi t o f co un se le d br ie fin g a ndora l ar gu m en t, we re ve rs e. I. The adm in is tra ti ve requi rem en ts an d l eg al st an da rd s fo r m ai nt ai ni ng a Tit le VII cas e fea tu re p ro m in en tl y in th is ap pe al an d o ve rlap the fact s an d p ro cedur al hi st ory of the cas e. The refo re, t o p utth e cas e in it s p ro pe r co nt ex t, we wi ll be gi n by bri efl y di sc us si ng th os e ad m in is tra ti ve requi rem en ts an d l eg al st an da rd s. Tit le VII pr oh ib it s emplo y ers --- i nc lu di ng th e fed eral go ve rn m en t -- - fro m di sc riminat in g a ga in stem pl oyees o n t he ba si s o f rac e o r na ti on al ori gi n. 4 2 U.S.C.

2 Case: 10-15086 Date Filed: 07/12/2012 Page: 2 of 29§ 2 00 0e -1 6( a). Bef or e b rin gi ng a Tit le VII act io n i n c ou rt, afed eral em pl oyee m us t fi rs t s eekrel ie f fro m

th e ag en cy

wher e th e al le ge d d is cri m in at io n o ccu rred
. Bro wn v . Gene ral Serv s. Ad m in ., 42 5 U.S. 8 20 , 83 2, 9 6 S . Ct. 1 96 1, 4 8 L. Ed. 2 d 40 2 (1 97 6) . “ Thi s re qu ire m en t i s n ota te ch ni cal ity ; ‘[r]ath er, i t i s p artan d p arce l of th e co ng res si on al de si gn to ve stin th e fed eral ag en ci es an d o ffi ci al s en ga ge d i n hi rin g andpro m ot in g p ers on ne l p rimary res po ns ib il ity

form ai nt ai ni ng no nd is cri m in at io n i n e m

pl oym en t.’” Grierv. Se cret ary of Arm y , 79 9 F .2d72 1, 72 4 (1 1th C ir. 1 98 6) (qu ot in g Ki zas v. Webs te r, 70 7 F .2d52 4, 5 44 (D.C. Cir
. 19 83 )). Inacco rd an ce wi th th e co ng res si on al de si gn , th e Equ al Em pl oym en t Opp ortu ni ty Com

m is si on (“ EEOC”) h as ad op te d re gu la ti on s s et ti ng forth th e pr oc edur e th atem

pl oyees m

us t fo ll ow i n p res en ti ng di sc riminat io n c la im s t o fed eral ag en ci es . See 2 9 C .F.R. §§ 16 14 .10 1 e t s eq . Thes e reg ul at io ns pro vi de , in te r al ia , th atanag gr ie ve d e m pl oyee m us t “ in it ia te co nt actwith [a n EEO] Co un se lo r wit hi n 4 5 d ay s o f th e d at e o f th e m at te r al le ge d t o b e d is cri m in at ory . . . .” 29 C.F.R. § 16 14 .10 5( a)(1 ). The p ur po se of t hi s co un se lo r-co nt actrequi rem en t is to all ow t he ag en cy

anop po rtu ni ty to i nv es ti ga te th e cl ai m in te rn al ly and“ try to in fo rm al ly reso lv e th e m at te r.” See 29 C.F.R. § 16 14 .10 5( a). “ Gen eral ly, whe n t he cl ai m an t d oe s n otin it ia te co nt actwithi n t he 45 -d ay ch arg in g p eri od , th e cl ai m is ba rred
. . . .” Sh iv er v . Che rto ff, 5 49 F.3d13 42 , 13 44 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). Howev er, 3 Case: 10-15086 Date Filed: 07/12/2012 Page: 3 of 29th e 4 5- da y

ti m e li m itis no t ju ris di ct io na l; rathe r, itfun ct io ns li ke a st atut e o f li m it at io ns , and , “ li ke a st atut e o f li m it at io ns , [it ] is subjec t t o wai ve r, es to pp el , an d e qu it ab le to ll in g.” Zip es v. Tran s Worl d Ai rli ne s, In c., 45 5 U.S. 3 85 , 39 3, 1 02 S. Ct . 11 27 , 71 L. Ed. 2d23 4 (1 98 2) . The re gu la ti on s t hu s p ro vi de th atth e 4 5- da y ru le “ sh al l” be ex te nd edif t he em pl oyee “ was no t n ot ifi edof t he ti m e li m it s an d
was no t o th erwi se aware o f th em . . . .” See 2 9 C .F.R. § 1 61 4.1 05 (a)( 2)
. If i nf orm al att em

pt s t o re so lv e th e co m

pl ai ntare u ns uc ces sf

ul , th e em pl oyee m ay fil e a fo rm al co m

pl ai ntwith t he ag en cy . 29 C.F.R. § 16 14 .10 6. If th e ag en cy di sm is se s t he co m

pl ai ntfor fai lu re t o c om

pl y with a ny of th e ti m e li m it s p ro vi de d fo r in th e reg ul at io ns , in cl ud in g t he 45 -d ay rul e [2 9 C .F.R. § 1 61 4.1 07 (a)( 2) ], th e ag en cy wil l i ss ue a fi na l d eci si on an d t ha t d eci si on m ay be ap pe al edto th e EEOC. 29 C.F.R. § 16 14 .11 0( b) . A deci si on by the EEOC onap pe al is fin al un le ss eit he r pa rty fil es a m ot io n fo r rec on si de rat io n wi th in 30 da y s. 2 9 C .F.R. § 1 61 4.4 05 (b ). Thro ug ho utth e ad m in is tra ti ve pro ces s, the em pl oyee m us t p ro vi de all rel ev an t an d
av ai labl e in fo rm at io n s o t he ag en cy an d t he EEOC hav e n ot ic e o f th e cl ai m be in g pu rs ue d a ndcanpro pe rly inv es ti ga te an d c on si de r it . See Cr awfo rdv. Babb it t, 1 86 F.3 d 1 32 2, 1 32 6 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 9)
. An em pl oyee who ha s co m

pl et edth e adm in is tra ti ve pro ces s an d o bt ai ne d a n un fav or ab le fin al de ci si on m ay bri ng a Tit le VII act io n i n d is tri ctco urt, wh ere h e

4 Case: 10-15086 Date Filed: 07/12/2012 Page: 4 of 29is en ti tl edto a de no vo rev ie w of h is co m pl ai nt . See Mo or e v . Devi ne , 78 0 F .2d 15 59 , 15 62 (11 th Cir . 19 86 ). To p rev ai l, the em pl oyee m us t fi rs t es tabl is h apri m a faci e cas e an d s ho w th at(1) he be lo ng s t o apro te ct edcla ss ; (2 ) he su ffer edan adve rs e job act io n; (3) th e em pl oyer tre at edsi m il arl y

si tu at edem

pl oyees (“ co m pa rat or s” ) ou ts id e h is pro te ct edcla ss be tt er; an d (4 ) he was qua li fie d fo r th e job . Hol ifi el d v . Ren o, 1 15 F.3d15 55 , 15 62 (11 th Cir . 19 97 ). II. W e rev ie w th e g ran t o f a Ru le 50 (a) m ot io n fo r jud gm en t as m at te r of law de no vo . Jo hn so n En te rp ris es of J ack so nv il le , Inc . v. FPL Gro up , Inc ., 16 2 F .3d 12 90 , 13 08 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ). Indo in g s o, we v ie w th e ev id en ce i n ali gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e n on -m ov in g p art y , andwe wil l af firm on ly if “ ‘reaso nabl e p eo pl e co ul d n otarri ve at aco nt rary verd ic t.’” See i d. (quo ti ng Pu lt e Hom e Co rp . v. Osm os e WoodPres erv in g, In c., 60 F.3d73 4, 7 39 (11 thCir . 19 95 )). The fol lo win g fa ct s ar e d eri ve d fr om th e ev id en ce ad m it te d dur in g t he tri al
an d fr om Ram ire z’s de po si ti on tes ti m on y . Con si st en t wi th th e fo reg oi ng st an da rd of rev ie w, th es e fac ts are v ie wedin th e li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to Ram ire z. 1 Selected por

tions of Ramirez’s deposition testim ony wer e re fer ence d to, and quoted, by 1 both sides duringtrial, but the transc ript was not ac tually admitted into evidence . We rec ognize that motions for judgme nt as matter of law must be dec ided at trial (a nd revie wed on a

ppeal) “on the evidenc e that has be en admitted.” See Bill J ohnson’s Restaura nts, Inc. v. N.L .R.B., 461 U.S. 731, 745 n.11, 103 S. Ct . 2161, 76 L . Ed. 2d 277 (1983). Thus, to be clea r, we use ce rtain of the fac ts taken fr om Ramirez’s deposition testim ony (but which we re not re fer ence d at trial) mer ely 5 Case: 10-15086 Date Filed: 07/12/2012 Page: 5 of 29Ram ire z is His pa ni c an d was bo rninth e Dom in ic anRep ub li c. He

imm ig rat edto th e Uni te d S ta te s i n o r ab ou t 1 97 7 (a fte r gr adua ti ng fro m hi gh
sc ho ol ) an d jo in edth e Arm y th e sa m e d ay

th athe arri ve d. Whi le inth e Arm y , he
was anin fan trym anan d s erv edsev eral to ur s o ve rs eas . In 1 98 1, af te r su st ai ni ng du ty-rela te d i nju rie s, h e was ass ig ne d t o t he Ro be rt Gra y Arm y Rad ar To wer i n Fo rt Ho od , Texa s, wh ere h e b ecame an ai r tr affi c co nt ro ll er. The Fo rt Ho odto wer is a larg e an d v ery co m

pl ex “ joi nt -u se ” rad ar fa ci li ty tha t h an dl es bo th civ il ia n a nd
m il it ary ai r tr affi c. Afte r be in g h on or ab ly dis ch arg edfro m th e Arm y in Decem

be r 19 85 , Ram ire z was cla ss ifi edas adi sabl edve te ran an d i m m ed ia te ly hire d b y

th e Uni te d S ta te s Dep art m en t o f Defen se (“ DOD”) as a ci vi li anairtra ffi c co nt ro ll er, a po si ti onth athe st il l h ol ds to da y . He was as si gn edto Fo rt Ho od , wher e h e worke d in th e sa m e b ui ld in g a s h e h adin th e m il it ary. Abo utten y ears lat er, i n 1 99 6, h e be ga n t o app ly for ai r tr affi c co nt ro ll er p os it io ns withi n t he Fed eral Avi at io n Adm in is tra ti on (“ FAA”), an ag en cy of t he DOT. H e wan te d apo si ti on in Mi am i s o th athe co ul d b e cl os er t o h is fam il y . InMay 200 0, t he DOT iss ue d a n a nn ou nc em en t t ha t i t was hi rin g a ir traff ic
co nt ro ll ers in Mi am i. Ra m ire z ap pl ie d fo r th e job un de r th is an no un cem en t, wh ic h th e p art ie s h av e ref

erre d t o t hr ou gh ou t t hi s l it ig at io n a s t he “ A21 5 ann ou nc em en t,”
for ba ckground -- - not evidentiar y --- purposes. 6 Case: 10-15086 Date Filed: 07/12/2012 Page: 6 of 29an d h e was pu t o n t he “ se le ct io n l is t.” Atth e ti m e h e ap pl ie d fo r th is job , Ram ire z

was no t awa re tha t t he re was a se pa rat e an no un cem en t fo r es se nt ia ll y th e sa m e ai r tra ffi c co nt ro ll er p os it io n a t t he Mi am i fa ci li ty, whi chha s b eenge ne ral ly referre d to th ro ug ho utth is cas e as th e “ VRA12 an no un cem en t.” 2 Sev eral m on th s p as se d a ndno on e fro m th e DOT con ta ct edRam ire z ab ou t hi s ap pl ic at io n. Aft er wai ti ng m on th s b utge tt in g n o re sp on se , he c al le d t he DOT. He sp ok e wit h s om eo ne th ere wh o t ol d h im th atth ere was a “ hi rin g fr eeze ” whi le th e ag en cy

was “ wait in g o n fu nd in g.” Und et erre d, Ra m ire z co nt in ue d t o c al l t he DOT every

m on th to ch eckon th e st atus of h is ap pl ic at io n a ndpro vi de up da te d pe rfo rm an ce ev al ua ti on s wh enth ey be cam e av ai labl e. InApri l o r May 20 01 , he le arn edfro m

a fri en d wh o wo rk edas atra in er atth e Mi am i fa ci li ty tha t t he re was no hi rin g fr eeze an d, i n fa ct , th atne w em pl oyees wer e b ei ng hi red“ al l t he ti m e.”

The distinction betwee n these two a nnounceme nts is a significa nt issue in this case and 2 will be discussed fur

ther infr a. We emphasize her e, howe ver, a s noted in the textabove, that the announce ments were essentially for the sa me job, and they

share d the same “ KG” ( these letter s ref er to the loc ation and ca

ree r leve l/pay

band, re spectively

). Earlier in the ca se -- - most notably , at the summary

judgme nt stag e -- - there was a lot of confusion and disagree ment about whethe r the announc ements we re f or two diffe rent positions. On the first day of trial, the pa

rties told the district court that they

now “a bsolutely” agree d that the announc ements we re just “two ve hicles to ge t to the same plac e” a nd, there fore , “it doesn’t matter which announc ement . . . [Ramirez] would have be en sele cted f rom, [he] would have r ece ived the same position, the air traff ic controller K G position.” The only differ ence in the announce ments appea rs to be that the A215 announce ment (with hig her e x perie nce a nd skills requirements) wa s open to anyone who c hose to apply , wher eas theVRA12 announc ement (w ith essentially entry-leve l skill s require ments) was a Veter ans Readjustment Appointment, but the underly ing positions wer e, ac cordingto the parties, “ the same position.” 7

Case: 10-15086 Date Filed: 07/12/2012 Page: 7 of 29Upo n h eari ng th is , Ram ire z co nt act edth e His pa ni c Co al it io n o f Fed eral Avi at io n

Em pl oyees (“ Co al it io n” ) --- agro up withi n t he FAA th atadvo cat es form in or it ie s atth e ag en cy

--- an d a sk edth em

to ch eckon hi s ap pl ic at io n. Sh ortl y th erea fte r, th e Co al it io n d is cu ss edth e m at te r wit h a ge nc y off ic ia ls du rin g apre vi ou sl y -s ch edul ed So ut he rnReg io n M an ag ers ’ m eet in g i n J un e 2 00 1. Inor abo utSep te m

be r 20 01 , th ree m on th s af te r th e Co al it io n s po ke onhi s be ha lf, the DOT offer edRam ire z anairtra ffi c co nt ro ll er p os it io n i n M iam i, an d h e qu ic kl y acce pt ed . There were a l otof p re-e m pl oym en t fo rm s an d p ap erwo rksen t al on g wi th th e co nt ract , andhe di d n otno ti ce atth e ti m e th atth e o fferwas m ad e un de r th e VRA1 2 a nn ou nc em en t, an d n otth e A21 5 a nn ou nc em en t. No r di d h e real iz e (u nt il sev eral da y s l at er, wh enhe lo ok edm or e cl os el y at t he pape rwo rk ) th atth e sa la ry

was l owe r th anhe ex pe ct ed . Ind eed , th e o fferwas fo r le ss th anhe
was earn in g a t t he DOD. Ram ire z res earc he d t he ap pl ic ab le pa y rul es an d s po ke wit h p eo pl e in th e Fi na nc e Dep art m en t an d Hu m anRes ou rces . Bas edon whathe readan d wh atth ey

to ldhi m , he b ecame con vi nc edth atth e DOT hadin co rrec tl y cal cu la te d h is sal ary. Overth e n ex t s ev eral m on th s -- - be fo re h e st art edth e n ew po si ti on--- h e an d S ta n Way land(th e DOT offi ci al res po ns ib le forpro ces si ng hi s ap pl ic at io n) sp ok e num ero us ti m es ab ou t t he sal ary. Ram ire z rep eat ed ly ask ed (“pr act ic al ly beg g[ ed ]”) W ay la ndto lo okin to th e is su e an d re cal cu la te hi s s al ary, 8 Case: 10-15086 Date Filed: 07/12/2012 Page: 8 of 29bu t Way la ndke pttel li ng hi m “ y ou r pa y

is set ” an d “ th at ’s whaty ou r pa y is go in g to be .” Bec au se he was n otsat is fie d wi th th e p ay , Ram ire z wro te to W ay la ndon Ju ly 12, 2 00 2, d ecl in in g t he po si ti on . 3 Eve n a fte r he tu rn edth e job do wn, Ram ire z co nt in ue d t o re se arch th e p ay ru le s t ha t ap pl ie d t o a ir t raff ic co nt ro ll ers tra ns ferr in g t o t he DOT from th e DOD. InAug us t 2 00 3, ab ou t o ne y ear a fte r he de cl in edth e p os it io n, h e le arn edvi a a Free do m of I nf orm at io n Actin qu iry tha t s ev eral no n- His pa ni c ai r tr affi c co nt ro ll ers who tra ns ferr edfro m th e DOD recei ve d t he hi gh er s al ary th athe was de ni ed . The n ex t m on th , Sep te m be r 20 03 , Ram ire z co nt act edanEEO Cou ns el or an d c om pl ai ne d t ha t h e h adbe endi sc riminat edag ai ns t wi th res pe ctto hi s p ay (th e

“pa y cla im ”). Whenth e in fo rm al gri ev an ce p ro ces s d idno t re so lv e h is cla im , he fil edanoff

ic ia l co m pl ai nt . The DOT di sm is se d t he co m pl ai ntas i t co nc lu de d t ha t Ram ire z d idno t co nt actth e EEO Cou ns el orwithi n 4 5 d ay s o f whe n h e sh ou ld ha ve fir stsu sp ect eddi sc riminat io n, wh ic h t he DOT fou ndwas J ul y 20 02 (i.e ., whe n h e co m

pl ai ne d t o Way la ndab ou t t he pa y an d d ecl in edth e p os it io n)
. Ram ire z ap pe al edto th e EEOC on th e g ro un d t ha t h e d idno t kno w abo utth e 4 5- Ramirez was also unhappy with the job offer

beca use it require d him to attend training 3 classes that he believe d wer e bene ath his experiencelevel. He testified duringtrial that this was another rea son he dec lined the position, because they wer e “se nding me to learn howto become an air traff ic controller , back to the sc hool. Iwas a lrea dy in a ten-spe ed bike, now the y want me to go to a tricycle, ba

by tricycle.” 9 Case: 10-15086 Date Filed: 07/12/2012 Page: 9 of 29da y

ti m e li m it . The EEOC ag reedwith R am ire z. Itex pr es sl y fou ndth atth ere was

“ no th in g i n t he reco rdto sh ow t ha t [R am ire z] eithe r kn ew orsh ou ldha ve kn own th e ti m e li m it s fo r in it ia ti ng th e EEO pro ces s fo ll owi ng a di sc riminat ory ev en t.” See R am ire z v . Depa rtment o f Tran sp ., App eal No. 0 1A4 17 93 , 20 04 W L 13 96 96 6, at*2 (E.E.O.C. Jun e 9 , 20 04 ). As thi s was tan ta m ou ntto fin di ng th atth e cl ai m was ti m el y , th e EEOC he ldth atdi sm is sa l “ fo r un ti m el y EEO Cou ns el orco nt act [was ] im pr op er” a nditrem an de d t he cas e to th e DOT for f urth er p ro ceed in gs . Id. The DOT didno t ap pe al th is rul in g o r m ov e fo r rec on si de rat io n; in st ead , itbe ga n anin ve st ig at io n i nt o t he m eri ts of R am ire z’s pay cla im an d fo un d t ha t t he re was no di sc riminat io n. Itwas a t s om e p oi ntdu rin g thi s ad m in is tra ti ve pro ces s t ha t Ram ire z d is co ve redth atth e p os it io n t he DOT hadpre vi ou sl y off eredto hi m

was m ad e u nd er the VRA12 an no un cem en t, an d n otth e A21 5 a nn ou nc em en t. As wil l be furth er d is cu ss edin fra, an d a s i nd ic at edin no te 2, s up ra, the mis un de rs ta nd in g ab ou t the se two po si ti on s i s h ig hl y si gn ifi can t i n t hi s ca se an d l edto co ns id erab le
co nf us io n i n t he di st ric t co urt. Whi le hi s co m

pl ai ntwas o n re m an d, Ra m ire z reque st eda he ari ng be fo re an Adm in is tra ti ve Law Ju dg e (“ ALJ”) , andhe so ug htlea ve to am en d h is co m pl ai ntto in cl ud e a cl ai m

reg ard in g h is no t b ei ng off eredth e p os it io n p ur su an t t o t he A21 5
an no un cem en t (t he “no n- se le ct io n c la im ”). The ALJ g ran te d R am ire z’s reque stfor 10 Case: 10-15086 Date Filed: 07/12/2012 Page: 10 of 29a h eari ng , bu t d en ie d a s u nt im el y th e reque stto am en d h is co m pl ai ntto in cl ud e th e no n- se le ct io n c la im
. Afte r th e h eari ng , th e ALJ co nc lu de d t ha t Ra m ire z h adno t 4
es tabl is he d apri m a fac ie cas e wit h re sp ectto th e p ay cla im . Ram ire z ap pe al edto th e EEOC, whi ch affi rm edth e ALJ i ni ti al ly, in 20 07 , andon reco ns id erat io n, i n 20 08 . See Ra m ire z v . Depa rtment o f Tran sp ., App eal No. 0 12 00 55 30 6, 2 00 7 WL 55 67 89 (E.E.O.C. Feb. 1 5, 2 00 7) , reco ns id erat io n d en ie d b y , No. 0 52 00 70 36 4, 20 08 W L 38 21 92 (E.E.O.C. Feb. 4 , 20 08 ). Ram ire z th erea fte r ti m el y fil eda ci vi l ac ti on ag ai ns t t he DOT in t he Uni te d St at es Dis tri ctCo urt fo r th e Weste rnDis tri ctof Tex as , pro se, a ll eg in g ra ce an d
na ti on al ori gi n d is cri m in at io n. Onth e DOT’ s m ot io n, t he cas e was tra ns ferr edto th e North ern Dis tri ctof Ge or gi a, whe re (af te r di sc ov ery cl os ed ) th e DOT m ov ed fo r su m m ary jud gm en t. Itarg ue d, am on g o th er thi ng s, tha t s umm ary jud gm en t was ap pr op ria te on th e n on -s el ect io n c la im si nc e Ram ire z d idno t co nt actanEEO

The AL J denied Ramire z’s request to amend his c omplaint on the gr ound that Ramirez 4 did not contact an E EO Counselor within forty-five da y s of when he knew or

rea sonably

should have known of the fa ctual basis for his non-selec tion claim. We agree with Ramirez that it was err or for the AL J to apply

the 45-da y rule to his motion to amend. The re gulations provide that, afte r a he aringis requeste d, a complaina nt may move to amend his complaint to include “ issues or cla ims li ke or r elated to those in the c omplaint.” 29 C.F.R. § 1614.106(d). It is now appare nt that the non-sele ction claim was ina rguably related to the pay

claim. The EE OC has explained (and c ase la

w conf irms) that a c laim “like or re lated to” the origina l claim is not subject to the 45-day counselingrequire ment. See, e.g ., Weber v. B attista, 494 F.3d 179, 183 (D .C. Cir. 2007) (explaining that if a

new c laim is related to the origina l claim “‘[t] hereis no require ment that the amendment be subject to counseling ’”) (quotingCore v. B rownlee , Appea l No. 01A34550, 2004 WL189570, at *1 (E.E.O .C. J an. 23, 2004))
. 11

Case: 10-15086 Date Filed: 07/12/2012 Page: 11 of 29Co un se lo r wit hi n 4 5 d ay s o f be in g o n n ot ic e o f a p os si bl e d is cri m in at io n c la im . As

fo r th e p ay

cla im , th e DOT ass um edat t he ti m e th atth e A21 5 a ndVRA12
an no un cem en ts were fo r two di ffer en t jo bs [se e n ot e 2 , supr a]; itbe li ev edth e fo rm er was foranairtra ffi c co nt ro ll er s pe ci al is t p os it io n (wh ic h c arri eda hi gh er sa la ry ), whi le th e la tt er was fora “ de ve lo pm en ta l” po si ti on (whi ch carr ie d alo wer sa la ry ). The DOT th eref

or e in si st edth atth ere was a reas on why Ram ire z was of fere d l es s p ay : “ he was n otanA21 5 s el ect ee, b utrathe r a VRA1 2, de ve lo pm en ta l s el ect ee.” The DOT’ s s umm ary jud gm en t m ot io n was refe rredto th e Ma gi st rat e Ju dg e on th e cas e. The Mag is tra te Ju dg e is su eda 33 -p ag e Rep ort an d R eco m m en da ti on (“ Rep ort” ). The R ep ort re co m m en de d t ha t s umm ary jud gm en t b e d en ie d o n t he
no n- se le ct io n c la im

be cau se th ere wer e d is pu te d i ss ue s o f m at eri al factas t o wh en Ram ire z sh ou ldhave fir stkn own th athe ha d ano n- se le ct io n d is cri m in at io n c la im
un de r th e A21 5 a nn ou nc em en t an d, al so , whethe r he ha d e ve n b eenaware o f th e 45 -d ay rul e. W ith re sp ectto th e p ay cla im , th e Rep ort n ot edth atto th e ex te nt 5 Ram ire z was all eg in g t ha t h is sal ary was in co rrec tl y cal cu la te d b as edon un la wfu l
Although the Report sug g ested that ther e wa s a disputed issue of fa ct as to whe ther 5 Ramirez knew about the 45- day rule, the Ma g istrate Judge quote d direc tly from the EEO C’s rulingwhich had f

ound “‘nothingin the rec ord to show that [he] either knew or should have known the time limits for initiating the EEO proc ess followinga discriminatory event.’ ” 12 Case: 10-15086 Date Filed: 07/12/2012 Page: 12 of 29di sc riminat io n, t he re was no ev id en ce i n the reco rdto supp ort t he cla im . Howev er,

in as m uc h a s R am ire z was all eg in g t ha t h e h adbe ensel ect edforth e lo wer-p ay in g

“ de ve lo pm en ta l” po si ti on du e to hi s ra ce o r na ti on al ori gi n, the Rep ort co nc lu de d

“ he m ay be ab le to est ab li sh a di sc riminat ory pa y cla im .” The Mag is tra te Ju dg e th us reco m

m en de d tha t s umm ary jud gm en t b e g ran te d a ga in stRam ire z o n t he pa y cl ai m , to th e ex te ntth e cl ai m was n ot“ in te rtwi ne d wi th [th e] no n- se le ct io n c la im .” The di st ric t co urt t he reaf

te r ad op te d t he Rep ort, an d t he cas e p ro ceed edto a two da y jury tri al
. As p rev io us ly not ed , by th e ti m e th e cas e g otto tri al , th e p art ie s h adco m e to ag ree t ha t t he A21 5 a ndVRA12 an no un cem en ts were m erel y di ffer en t n ot ic es for th e sa m e p os it io n, an d t he DOT adv is edth e d is tri ctjud ge of t hi s “ ne wly pr es en te d” is su e o n t he fir stm orni ng of t ria l. Th is ap pe ars to have ch an ge d t he
co m pl ex io n o f th e en ti re ca se , as i t i m pa ct edbo thRam ire z’s pr im ary cl ai m (th at th e DOT di d n otoff

er h im th e p art ic ul ar p os it io n t ha t h e h adap pl ie d fo r), an d t he DOT’ s d efen se (th atRam ire z was off eredlo wer p ay

be cau se he was h ire d fo r a

“ de ve lo pm en ta l” po si ti on ). It thu s ca ll edin to qu es ti on th e su m m ary jud gm en t ru li ng , as i t ar gu ab ly und ercu t t he ba si s fo r th e p rio r di sm is sa l o f th e p ay cla im
. Thi s caus edsi gn ifi can t co nf us io n abo utth e cl ai m s tha t s ti ll rem ai ne d v iabl e, pa rti cu la rly in l ig htof s om e la ng ua ge in th e su m m ary jud gm en t o rd er (t ha t t he 13 Case: 10-15086 Date Filed: 07/12/2012 Page: 13 of 29di st ric t co urt co nc ed edwas “ a li tt le va gu e”) wh ic h s ug ge st edth atth e two cla im s

were “ in te rtwi ne d.” The DOT ackno wled ge d t ha t i ts form er p os it io n o n t he job
an no un cem en ts cau se d “ a lo t o f co nf us io n,” an d i t “ ap ol og iz e[d ] fo r th at .” The DOT ask edth e d is tri ctco urt fo r “ so m e ad di ti on al gu id an ce” o n wh atcla im s rem ai ne d i n t he cas e an d wh atth e jury woul d b e as ke d t o d eci de . The d is tri ct jud ge rep li edth atth ro ug ho utth e cas e, an d i n p rep ari ng for tri al , he h adbe en

“ st ru gg li ng ” wit h “ a lo t o f sm ok e” caus edby the co nf us io n o ve r th e an no un cem en ts an d t he ir i m pa cton Ram ire z’s cl ai m s. He th enad dr es se d R am ire z 6 di rect ly: [T]he cl ai m

th atis st il l i n thi s ca se , bas edup on th e ru li ng s tha t h av e b een m ad e to th is po in t, i s a c la im th at y ouwere d en ie d the op po rtu ni ty for thi s p os it io n b as ed up on race or n at io na l o rig in . If th ey sh ow, wh ic h i t ap pe ars we all [no w] ag ree, t ha t you wer e o ffer ed
. . . th atpo si ti on , th enth atde st ro y s an y cla im of di sc riminat io n i n t erm s o f th e o fferof t he po si ti on . * * * So th enwhatitdo es lea ve op enis th e que st io n o f why di d t he y cal cu la te th e p ay

at t hi s ra te in st eadof g iv in g y outh e b en efi t tha t you c on te ndy ou ’re ent it le d t o We understand the district c ourt’s conf usion as the issue is still unclea r, eve n on appea l. 6 On one ha

nd, as noted, the pa

rties expressly

and “a bsolutely” agree d at the outset of tria l that the two announce ments were mere ly differ ent notices for

the same job. On theother ha nd, Ramirez testified on direc t examination that the position advertised unde r the VRA12 a nnounceme nt was “for less money” than the A 215 announce ment, and it require d a conside rable amount of basic trainingat the F AA ac ademy that the A215 announc ement did not.

14 Case: 10-15086 Date Filed: 07/12/2012 Page: 14 of 29co m in g o utof t he Depa rtment o f Defen se ? Didth ey pr op erl y cal cu la te th e p ay

th aty ouwou ldrece iv e in th is po si ti on ba se d o n you r ex pe rie nc e, ba se d upo n t he fact th aty oualr eady

ha d apo si ti on in th e Dep art m en t o f Defen se ? Thatis th e que st io n t ha t i t s eem s t o m e is in y ou r m in d t ha t you’ve be entrying to ge t anan swe r to an d t ha t you a re ar gu in g abo ut , bu t t ha t i s a que st io n tha t is no t an y lo ng er i n t he cas e. Ult im at el y , th e jud ge ex pl ai ne d tha t wh il e h e b el ie ve d t he pa y cla im was n o l on ge r in th e cas e, an d wh il e th e n on -s el ect io n c la im was a ll bu t “ de st ro y [ed ]” becaus e th e p art ie s n ow ag reedth atth e DOT offe redRam ire z th e p os it io n t ha t h e was se ek in g, Ra m ire z h adon e cl ai m lef t: “ The factth atth ey

pa ss edov er y ou , whi le th ey m ay ha ve off eredy outh e job lat er, the y pa ss edov er y ou. . . [an d o ffer ed ] th e po si ti on s t o o th ers wheny oush ou ldha ve go tt enit , th atis th e cas e th atis st il l he re[.]” It was th is ve ry

na rro w andsp eci fic “ de la y in hi rin g” cla im , as t he di st ric t co urt ca ll edit , th atth e jury woul d b e cal le d upo n t o c on si de r. Dur in g t he tri al , Ram ire z in tro du cedsev eral do cu m en ts in to ev id en ce tha t he ha d o bt ai ne d fr om

th e DOT whi ch , he b el ie ve d, s ho wed“ ex act ly wha t happ en edas f

ar as th e p os it io n a ndbe in g o ve rp as se d.” Thes e d oc um en ts refl ect ed th atalt ho ug h R am ire z was in cl ud edon th e o rig in al sel ect io n l is t fo r th e p os it io n un de r th e A21 5 a nn ou nc em en t, h is na m e (an d o nl y hi s n am e) was “ sc rat ch ed ” o ut . The do cu m en ts furth er s ho wedth atth ere wer e se ve ral no n- His pa ni c ap pl ic an ts

15 Case: 10-15086 Date Filed: 07/12/2012 Page: 15 of 29who were l eftoff th e o rig in al sel ect io n l is t an d n otreco m m en de d fo r hi re sp eci fic al ly becau se th ey lac ke d t he ne ces sa ry

qu al ifi cat io ns an d e xp eri en ce (p art ic ul arl y

with ra da r). Andy et , th ey were al l h ire d b efo re Ram ire z. At the co nc lu si on of R am ire z’s cas e, th e DOT ora ll y m ov edforjud gm en t as a m atte r of

law u nd er Ru le 50 (a). As gro un ds forth e m ot io n, the DOT m ad e th ree arg um en ts : (1 ) Ram ire z d idno t es tabl is h apri m a fac ie cas e o n t he “ de la y in hi rin g” (as th e d is tri ctjud ge ha d c ha ract eri zedit ) cl ai m be cau se he “ ha s n ot of fere d a ny com

parat or s” ; (2 ) he fai le d t o a de qu at el y ex haus t h is adm in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s o n t he “ de la y

in hi rin g” cla im

as t he re was no ev id en ce “ th at[cl ai m ] was rev ie wedor i nv es ti ga te d b el ow atth e EEO”; an d (3 ) hi s co nt actwith the EEO Co un se lo r in Sep te m

be r 20 03 was “ well ou ts id e th e 4 5- da y pe rio d,” as h e kne w or reas on ab ly sho ul d h av e kno wn o f th e d is cri m in at io n b ackin 20 01
. Inco ns id eri ng th e DOT’ s fi rs t ar gu m en t, the di st ric t ju dg e ref eren cedth e ev id en ce attri al whi ch sh owe d t ha t ce rta inof t he ap pl ic an ts who were s el ect ed ah eadof R am ire z “ co ul dn ’t pas s t he tra in in g b ecau se th ey ha d n ev er ev enbe en aro un d ra da r be fo re.” Th e Ru le 50 (a) m ot io n was th us de ni edon th e fi rs t g ro un d be cau se , as the di st ric t ju dg e ex pl ai ne d, “ [t]he re’s ev id en ce h ere t ha t t he re were pe op le who were g ro ss ly unqua li fie d wh o wer e th ensel ect edah eadof h im , [th ey ]
co ul dn ’t pas s the tra in in g b ecau se th ey di dn ’t hav e th e b ack gr ou ndth ey ne ed ed , 16 Case: 10-15086 Date Filed: 07/12/2012 Page: 16 of 29an d [t he re i s] evi de nc e th atth ey were wh it e [o r] non -His pa ni c.” Th e d is tri ctjud ge pr oc eed edto co ns id er an d re ject the DOT’ s s eco ndarg um en t as well , fin di ng th at Ram ire z ad equa te ly exh au st edhi s ad m in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s as “ [i]t i s my vi ew th at th e cl ai m of f ai lu re t o h ire is bro aden ou gh to have pu t the de fen se on no ti ce o f a de la y in hi rin g c la im .” Afte r st at in g t ha t “ th e p ro bl em is ti m in g,” th e d is tri ctjud ge th enco ns id eredth e DOT’ s t hi rdan d fi na l ar gu m en t. He t ol d R am ire z fro m th e be nc h: [Y]ou we re o n n ot ic e [i n 2 00 1] th athi rin g was tak in g

pl ace - -- tha t you h adbe enm is le d b y so m eo ne . You were o n n ot ic e th atit ’s ti m e to in qu ire . Som eo ne ha s t ol d y outh ere’s a h iri ng free ze. Yo ur bu dd y tel ls y ou , th ere i s no hi rin g fr eeze , th ey ’re hi rin g fo lk s l eftan d ri gh t . . . [y et ] y oudi d n otfil e a cl ai m un ti l 2 00 3. Yo u’re supp os edto fil e wit hi n 4 5 d ay s. Th at ’s no t a t im el y cl ai m . The di st ric t co urt t hu s g ran te d t he DOT’ s m ot io n a nden te redjud gm en t as m at te r of law i n i ts fav or , so le ly andex cl us iv el y “ on a ti m el in es s b as is .” III. Ram ire z ap pe al s t he di st ric t co urt’s jud gm en t. He co nt en ds th athe was n ot aware of t he 45 -d ay

rul e atth e o ut se t o f th e ad m in is tra ti ve pro ces s, as th e EEOC pr ev io us ly fou nd ; an d s in ce the DOT didno t ch al le ng e th e EEOC’s fin di ng on th at po in t ei th er fa ctua ll y

or l eg al ly, th e DOT was b ou ndby tha t fi nd in g a ndwaiv ed

17 Case: 10-15086 Date Filed: 07/12/2012 Page: 17 of 29th e ri gh t t o a rg ue un ti m el in es s. Befo re ad dr es si ng th is arg um en t, h owe ve r, we 7
m us t co ns id er the DOT’ s re qu es t t ha t we n otreac h i t b ecau se Ram ire z d idno t rai se th e arg um en t b efo re the tri al jud ge inres po ns e to th e DOT’ s o ral Ru le 50 (a)
m ot io n. Th e DOT is ess en ti al ly argu in g t ha t Ra m ire z h as “waiv edth is waiv er arg um en t.” A. W ai ver Rul e It i s wel l-s et tl edth atwe wil l g en eral ly refus e to co ns id er ar gu m en ts rai se d fo r th e fi rs t t im e o n app eal . Fed eral Depo si t In s. Co rp . v. 2 32 , Inc ., 92 0 F .2d81 5, 81 7 (1 1th C ir. 1 99 1) ; s ee al so Uni te d S ta te s v . God oy, 821 F.2d14 98 , 15 04 (11 th Ci r. 19 87 ) (“ The ge ne ral rul e, of co ur se , is th atanap pe ll at e co urt wi ll no t co ns id er a le ga l i ss ue un le ss itwas p res en te d t o t he tri al co urt.”) . Thi s ru le ap pl ie s, as he re, to waiv er ar gu m en ts th atco ul d h av e b eenrai se d i n o pp os it io n t o R ul e 5 0 m ot io ns . Cf. Ho wardv. Walg reen Co ., 60 5 F .3d12 39 , 12 43 -4 4 (1 1t h C ir. 2 01 0) (pl ai nt iff

“ fo rfei te d h is rig htto rai se waiv er o n app eal ” b y no t ra is in g t he arg um en t i n t he di st ric t co urt i n re sp on se to Ru le 50 (b ) m ot io n fo r jud gm en t as a m at te r of law)
.
Ramirez also contends that ther e wa s a fa ctual dispute (whic h should have be en lef t for 7 the jury to decide) reg arding

when he should have fir st learne d that his non-selec tion was due to discrimination, and whethe r his EEO Counselor c ontact wa s timely there afte r. Thus, while the DOT a rgues (a nd the district court a gree d) that Ramirez should have r ealized he ha d a potential claim as e arly

as 2001 (whe n he lea

rned the re w as no hiringfre eze), Ramire z argues that he did not know that he had a

potential claim until August 2003 (when he le arne d via the F ree dom of Information Ac t that non-Hispanic a pplicants wer e off

ere d the job at the sala

ry he wa s denied). 18 Case: 10-15086 Date Filed: 07/12/2012 Page: 18 of 29Ourrel uc ta nc e to co ns id er wai ve d l eg al arg um en ts is “ m erel y a ru le of p ract ic e,” ho wev er, an d i s n otab so lu te . DeanW it te r Reyno ld s, In c. v. Fe rn an de z, 74 1 F .2d 35 5, 3 60 (11 th Cir . 19 84 ). The d eci si on of wh ethe r to co ns id er anarg um en t t ha t was no t ra is edin th e d is tri ctco urt b el ow i s l eftpri m ari ly to t he di sc ret io n o f th e ap pe ll at e co urt, t o b e ex erci se d o n t he pa rti cu la r fac ts of t he in di vi du al cas es . Id. As we h av e ex pl ai ne d:

Inth e ex erci se of t ha t d is cret io n, ap pe ll at e co urts m ay pa ss on is su es no t ra is edbe lo w if t he en ds of ju st ic e wil l be stbe serve d b y

do in g s o. Sp eci fic al ly, th e co urt wi ll co ns id er anis su e n otrai se d b el ow i n t he di st ric t co urt i f itin vo lv es a pu re que st io n o f la w, andrefu sa l t o c on si de r itwou ldres ul t i n am is carr ia ge of ju st ic e. Cab an -Wheel er v . Els ea, 9 04 F.2d15 49 , 15 57 (11 th Cir . 19 90 ), ab ro ga te d o n o th er gr ou nd s b y , St. Ma ry ’s Hon orCen te r v. Hi ck s, 5 09 U.S. 50 2, 1 13 S. Ct. 2 74 2, 1 25 L. Ed. 2d40 7 (1 99 3) . Thu s, wh ere t he pa rty seek in g c on si de rat io n o f anarg um en t no t ra is edin th e d is tri ctco urt “ ha s ra is edno ne w factua l que st io ns ” an d the reco rd

“ supp orts it s l eg al arg um en t,” we h av e h el d t ha t “ refu sa l t o c on si de r th atarg um en t co ul d re su ltin a m is carr ia ge of ju st ic e.” Ro of in g & Sh eetMet al Serv s., In c. v. La Qui nt a Mo to r In ns , Inc ., 68 9 F .2d98 2, 9 90 (11 th Cir . 19 82 ); F ed eral Depo si t In s. Co rp ., 92 0 F .2dat 8 18 (ho ld in g s am e). We hav e al so co ns id eredarg um en ts no t rai se d i n t he co urt b el ow “ ‘whe re the in te res t o f subs tant ia l ju st ic e is at s ta ke ’”;

19 Case: 10-15086 Date Filed: 07/12/2012 Page: 19 of 29“ ‘whe re the pro pe r res ol ut io n i s b ey on d a ny do ub t’”; a ndwher e th e arg um en t at

is su e in vo lv es “ si gn ifi can t que st io ns of g en eral im pa ctor o f gr eatpubl ic co nc ern .” DeanW it te r Reyno ld s, In c., 74 1 F .2dat 3 61 (m ul ti pl e ci ta ti on s o m it te d)
. On t he sp eci fic fact s o f th is cas e, itco ul d re su ltin a “ m is carr ia ge of ju st ic e” if we refu se d t o c on si de r Ram ire z’s arg um en t. Whil e we rec og ni ze tha t b ei ng pro se do es no t, b y

it se lf, e xc us e a fai lu re t o ra is e anarg um en t b el ow [s ee Tan ne nb au m

v. Un it edSta te s, 1 48 F.3d12 62 , 12 63 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ) (n ot in g p ro se pl ead in gs are v ie wedun de r a “ le ss st rin ge ntst an da rdth anpl ead in gs dra fte d b y at to rn ey s . . . [bu t] is su es no t ra is edbe lo w are n orm al ly deem edwaiv ed ”)], it
wou ldde featth e “ in te res ts of s ub st an ti al jus ti ce” t o app ly the waiv er ru le to a pr o se li ti ga nton anis su e th atwas d eci de d i n h is fav or bo thinth e ad m in is tra ti ve pr oc eed in gs --- wh ic h t he n b ecame fin al as am at te r of law -- - an d o n s umm ary jud gm en t i n t he civ il cas e, m erel y be cau se he fai le d t o o ral ly re-co nt es t t he is su e (a th irdti m e) i n re sp on se to th e d efen da nt ’s m id -tr ia l Ru le 50 (a) m ot io n fo r jud gm en t as m atte r of

law. In li gh t o f th is pa rti cu la r ba ck gr ou nd , andbe cau se we co nc lu de th atRam ire z’s arg um en t i s p ur el y a le ga l o ne th atdo es no t ra is e n ew factua l qu es ti on s an d i s amply sup po rte d b y th e rec or d a ndcas e la w (as de ta il edbe lo w), we wil l ex erci se ou r di sc ret io n a ndco ns id er the arg um en t t o a vo ida po ss ib le
m is carr ia ge of ju st ic e. 20

Case: 10-15086 Date Filed: 07/12/2012 Page: 20 of 29B. Disc us si on

As p rev io us ly dis cu ss ed , when Ram ire z fi le d h is adm in is tra ti ve co m pl ai nt , th e DOT in it ia ll y

di sm is se d the co m

pl ai ntas u nt im el y

on th e g ro un d t ha t Ra m ire z di d n otm ak e h is in it ia l co nt actwith a n EEO Co un se lo r wit hi n 4 5 d ay s. Onap pe al to th e EEOC, Ram ire z arg ue d t ha t h e “ di d n otkn ow an d was no t awa re o f th e 4 5- da y ti m e li m itin whi ch he was re qu ire d t o c on ta ctanEEO Cou ns el orto be gi n t he EEO com pl ai nt s p ro ces s.” Th e EEOC ag reedan d h el d tha t d is m is sa l o n t im el in es s gr ou nd s was im

pr op er, as th ere was “ no th in g i n t he reco rdto sh ow t ha t [R am ire z] ei th er kne w or s ho ul d h av e kno wn t he ti m e li m it s fo r in it ia ti ng th e EEO pro ces s fo ll owi ng a di sc riminat ory ev en t.” S ig ni fic an tl y , th e DOT di d n otch al le ng e th is
ru li ng . Rathe r, itacce pt edRam ire z’s co m pl ai nt , in ve st ig at edhi s al le ga ti on s, an d de ni edhi m

rel ie f on th e m eri ts . On the se fact s, we co nc lu de th atth e DOT andth e di st ric t co urt wer e b ou ndby the EEOC’ s t im el in es s fi nd in g. 8

The DO T contends that while the EEOC did make a findingreg ardingtimeliness, “that 8 findingonly

related to [R amirez’s] disparate pa y claim” (which wa s the claim bef ore the EEOC at that time), and “ not the [non-selection] claim that was befor e the district cour t” at the time of trial. The pr ecise nature of the c laim beforethe EEOC at that spec ific point in tim e is irre levant, howeve r, par

ticularly since (a s the district court obser ved) the two claims are “intertwine d.” See also note 4, supra . What matters is whether Ramirez knew about the 45- day time limi t when the administrative proc ess beg an. I d. The EEO C found --- and the district cour t also confirme d on summary judgme nt --- that he “‘ did not know and was not a war e of the 45-day

time limi t in which he w as re quired to conta ct an EEO Counselor to beg in the EEO complaints proc ess.’” I f he wa s unawa

re of the 45-da y rule, it nec essarily

follows that when the a dministrative pr ocess beg an he w as unaw are that he had to bring a ny claim (pa y claim or non-se lection claim) w ithin its ti me limit. 21

Case: 10-15086 Date Filed: 07/12/2012 Page: 21 of 29The Seco ndCir cu itco nf ro nt edth is is su e o n n earl y id en ti cal fact s. In Bri on es v. Ru nyon , 10 1 F .3d28 7 (2 d C ir. 1 99 6) , a po st al em pl oyee, Nica no r Bri on es , fil edanin fo rm al co m pl ai ntall eg in g d is cri m in at io n. OnDecem be r 11 , 19 91 , th e Po st al Serv ic e d is m is se d t he co m pl ai nt“ as un ti m el y

ba se d o n h is fai lu re to reque stEEO cou ns el in g wi th in th irt y da y s o f th e al le ge d d is cri m in at ory in ci de nt .” Id . at 2 89
. The e m pl oyee ap pe al edto th e EEOC, whi chva cat edan d 9
rem an de d b ecau se th ere was no ev id en ce tha t t he Po st al Serv ic e “ ha d i nf orm ed hi m of EEO p ro cedur es .” Id . The Po st al Serv ic e “ ne it he r ap pe al edth e EEOC’s de te rm in at io n n orrefu se d t o p ro ceed , bu t, ra th er, b eg anit s i nv es ti ga ti on ” an d
ev en tu al ly den ie d t he cla im on it s m eri ts . Id. at28 9- 91 . Whe n the em pl oyee br ou gh t a Ti tl e VII ca se infed eral co urt, “ [t]he Po st al Serv ic e rai se d t he same arg um en t t ha t i t h adrai se d i n i ts ori gi na l fi na l ag en cy de ci si on of De cem

be r 11 , 19 91 : t ha t Br io ne s h adfai le d t o c on ta ctanEEO cou ns el orwithi n t hi rty days of t he al le ge d d is cri m in at ory

in ci de nt .” Id . at 2 89 . The d is tri ctco urt ag reedan d g ran te d jud gm en t fo r th e Po st al Serv ic e. Inrev ers in g, t he Seco ndCir cu itrel ie d h eav il y on Gira rdv. Rubi n, 6 2 F .3d 12 44 (9t h C ir. 1 99 5) . The em pl oyee in th atcas e, Norm anC. Gira rd , fil eda ch arg e

The EEO C subsequently amende d its regulations to ex tend the time limit from 30 day s 9 to its current 45 da

y s. 22 Case: 10-15086 Date Filed: 07/12/2012 Page: 22 of 29of

di sc riminat io n a ga in sthi s emplo y er, the Int ern al Rev enue Serv ic e (“ IRS” ). The IRS d en ie d i t as un ti m el y be cau se th e em

pl oyee di d n otm ak e co nt actwith a n EEO Co un se lo r wit hi n t hi rty days of t he di sc riminat ory ev en t. Th e EEOC rev ers edth at fin di ng an d i ns tru ct edth e IRS to in ve st ig at e th e co m pl ai nt . The IR S d idno t m ov e fo r rec on si de rat io n o r to reo pe n, b utrathe r itco m pl ie d wi th th e EEOC’s rul in g a nd
co nduc te d a n i nv es ti ga ti on (whi ch res ul te d i n afin di ng of n o d is cri m in at io n) . The Nin thCir cu ithe ldin th e en su in g c iv il act io n t ha t b ecau se th e EEOC’s un ap pe al ed de ci si on “ was a fi na l b in di ng ord er o n t he IRS,” t he IRS co ul d n otco m e in to co urt ata la te r st ag e an d a rg ue th e sa m e p oi nt ; the co urt h el d t ha t t he IRS h adwaiv edit s rig htto re-c on te stth e ti m el in es s i ss ue . Id. at12 47 ; ac co rdid . (“ The EEOC m ad e a fin al de ci si on th atGira rd ’s com pl ai ntwas t im el y . The ef fectof t he de ci si onwas t o waiv e th e th irt y -d ay

fil in g re qu ire m en t, an d t o re qu ire a de te rm in at io n o f Gira rd ’s
co m pl ai nton th e m eri ts . Thatde ci si on was b in di ng onth e IRS .”). The Seco ndan d Ni nt h C irc ui ts ha ve th us he ld , on st rik in gl y si m il ar fa ct s, th at“ a g ov ern m en ta l ag en cy de fen da ntm ay

no t h av e ‘a seco ndbi te at t he ap pl e’ by argu in g l ackof t im el y fil in g i n fe de ral co urt af

te r fai li ng to ch al le ng e anEEOC de te rm in at io n t ha t t he co m pl ai ntwas t im el y

fil ed .” Bri on es , 10 1 F .3dat 2 91 (quo ti ng Gira rd , 62 F.3dat 1 24 7) . They hav e co nc lu de d t ha t “ [f]ol lo win g apre in ve st ig at io n a ge nc y

de te rm in at io n tha t a d is cri m in at io n c la im is un ti m el y , an 23 Case: 10-15086 Date Filed: 07/12/2012 Page: 23 of 29un ap pe al edfin al EEOC det erm in at io n ru li ng th e fi li ng ti m el y is bi nd in g o n t he pa rti es an d t he co urt i n alat er-r el at edTit le VII act io n.” Bri on es , 10 1 F .3dat 2 92 ; Gira rd , 62 F.3dat 1 24 8 (“ Onc e th e EEOC de te rm in edth atGira rdwas e nt it le d t o pu rs ue hi s d is cri m in at io n c la im s t he IRS was no t en ti tl edto aska co urt t o h ol d ot he rwis e. Itwas b ou nd .”). Bri on es an d Gi rarddo no t s ta ndalo ne . Ind eed , in so far a s we c antel l, the Ci rcu itCo urts th atha ve co ns id eredth e is su e h av e uni fo rm ly hel d t ha t wh enan ag en cy fin ds th ata co m

pl ai ntis ti m el y , or wh enitfai ls to ch al le ng e anEEOC fin di ng of t im el in es s, i t wai ve s an y subs eque ntob

jecti on on ti m el in es s g ro un ds
. See, e.g ., Bru ce v . Uni te d S ta te s Dep ’t of J us ti ce, 3 14 F.3d71 , 74 (2dCir . 20 02 ) (“ An ag en cy

waiv es a ti m el in es s o bjec ti on by . . . fail in g t o app eal anEEOC de te rm in at io n o f ti m el in es s.”) ; M un oz v. Al dr id ge , 89 4 F .2d14 89 , 14 95 (5t h C ir. 19 90 ) (“ If an ag en cy

m ak es a sp eci fic fin di ng du rin g t he adm in is tra ti ve pro ces s th atth e adm in is tra ti ve co m pl ai ntwas t im el y , itcan no t l at er d efen d a ga in sta ci vi l
co m pl ai ntby argu in g t ha t t he adm in is tra ti ve co m pl ai ntwas u nt im el y .”) (ci ti ng Hen de rs on v. Un it edSta te s Vet eran s Ad m in ., 79 0 F .2d43 6, 4 41 (5th C ir. 1 98 6) (“ Inth is cas e, th e ag en cy ful ly inv es ti ga te d t he ti m el in es s o f th e co m pl ai nt , and fo un d asat is fact ory

reas on forth e d el ay . No m or e was requi redto ful fil l t he st atut ory pre requi si te s t o s ui t, an d t he di st ric t co urt n eedno t h av e rec on si de redth e 24 Case: 10-15086 Date Filed: 07/12/2012 Page: 24 of 29qu es ti on of t im el in es s” as t he ag en cy can no t “ si m

pl y rai se [] an o bjec ti on inco urt th atwas m oo te d b y

[an ] earl ie r un m od ifi edfin di ng .”)); see als o Wardv. Ca li fan o, 44 3 F . Sup p. 8 9, 9 0- 91 & n .2 (D.D.C. 1 97 7) (st at in g tha t d efec ts cau se d b y fai lu re to co nt actEEO Cou ns el orwithi n 3 0 d ay s “ es se nt ia ll y be co m e irrel ev an t” when ag en cy fin ds th e co m

pl ai ntto be un ti m el y ; t ha t d eci si on is rev ers edby the EEOC; th e ag en cy

pro ceed s t o i nv es ti ga te th e cl ai m ; an d t he em pl oyee ti m el y

fil es a ci vi l act io n) ; ac co rdGrie r v. Sn ow, 2 00 6 WL 54 40 38 7, at*1 2 (N.D. Ga. Ma r. 15 , 20 06 ) (h ol di ng on fact s “ ne arl y in di st in gu is habl e fro m

th os e in Bri on es an d Gira rd ” th atth e ag en cy ’s “bi nd in g d et erm in at io n re ga rd in g t im el in es s wi th ou t ob jecti onfro m

th e IRS pre ve nt s t he IRS fr om arg ui ng th atGrie r’s co m pl ai ntwas un ti m el y in th is Co urt” ), aff’d, 2 06 F. App ’x. 86 6 (1 1t h C ir. Oct . 26 , 20 06 ). W e ag ree wi th an d a do ptth e rea so ni ng of t he for eg oi ng cas es , parti cu la rly Bri on es an d Gi rard . In d oi ng so , we reco gn iz e th atwe ha ve pre vi ou sl y cri ti ci zeda po rti onof t he Gira rdde ci si on in Ell is v. En gl an d, 4 32 F.3d13 21 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). Howev er, we d idso on ly to t he ex te ntth atGira rdall owe d “ frag m en te d re vi ew” o f
anadm in is tra ti ve de ci si on . The p la in ti ff i n El li s ar gu edth atth e EEOC’s fav or ab le fin di ng on li ab il it y

sh ou ldno t b e rev ie wedde no vo , bu t t ha t h e was “ en ti tl edto a de no vo rev ie w (by a j ury ) [o n] th e que st io n o f da m ag es .” See i d. at13 25 . Girar d al lo wedsu ch rev ie w, bu t we d idno t (a nddo no t) a gr ee wi th Gira rd ’s ana lysis on 25 Case: 10-15086 Date Filed: 07/12/2012 Page: 25 of 29th atpo in t. Se e id
.

Tha t i s n otth e si tu at io n h ere. Ra m ire z is no t s eek in g fr ag m en te d re vi ew of th e 2 00 7 EEOC d eci si onth atde ni edhi s cl ai m s. To be sure, h e is ch al le ng in g a nd
se ek in g d e n ov o re vi ew of th e en ti ret y

of t ha t d eci si on . W

ha t h e is do in g i s as ki ng th atwe en fo rce, as bi nd in g, t he EEOC’ s ea rli er an d u napp eal edpro cedur al rul in g on th e ti m el in es s o f hi s i ni ti al co nt actwith t he EEO Cou ns el or(fro m whi chall th e

“ in te rtwi ne d” cla im s i n thi s ca se sp ran g) . Thatrul in g fo un d t ha t Ra m ire z’s in it ia l
co nt actwith t he EEO Couns el or in Sep te m

be r 20 03 was n otun ti m el y be cau se --- an d t hi s was factua ll y

un co nt es te d a t the adm in is tra ti ve lev el , at t ria l, an d dur in g th is ap pe al --- the re i s n o e vi de nc e in th e rec or d t ha t Ra m ire z kne w abo utth e 4 5- da y ti m e li m itat t he ou ts etof thi s m at te r. 1 0 The re i s a s ou ndrat io na le an d l og ic in ho ld in g tha t i f th e EEOC de te rm in es th ata di sc riminat io n c la im is ti m el y (or , at l eas t, tha t t he re i s a v al idan d a de qu at e

For example, as Ramirez notes in his brief, this is not the sort of c ase wherethere was 1 0 evidenc e of pr ominently

displayed signs or handbooks that infor med employees of

the 45-da y rule. See Gaillard v. Shinseki, 349 F. A pp’x. 391, 392-93 (11th Cir. 2009) (employee ha d notice of 45-da y rule whe re the re w as evide nce of a poster on a

bulletin board that desc ribed the 45- day time period for

contac ting a

n EEO Counselor); a ccor d Har ris v. Gonzales, 488 F.3d 442, 445 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (identify ing “posters, employee ha ndbooks, orientation sessions, etc.” as the means by which a f eder al ag ency

may put employ ees on notice of the 45-da y rule); B ailey

v. United States Postal Serv., 208 F.3d 652, 655 (8th Cir. 2000) ( employer tra ining pr ogram a nd poster displayed at wor

kplace made e mploy ee a

war e of 45- day

rule). T he DOT has made no attempt in this case to ar gue that Ramirez knew or should have known a

bout the 45-day

rule. Indeed, it implicitly

conce ded in the brie fingand at or al ar gument that he did not. 26 Case: 10-15086 Date Filed: 07/12/2012 Page: 26 of 29reas onto ex cu se it s u nt im el in es s) , andth e ag en cy th enacce pt s t ha t d et erm in at io n an d p ro ceed s t o i nv es ti ga te an d a tt em ptco nc il ia ti on of the cla im , th atsh ou ldpu t th e ti m in g i ss ue to res t. As th e fo rm er Fi fth Cir cu itno te d i n B ou dr eau x v . Bat on Ro ug e Ma rin e Co nt ract in g C o., 4 37 F.2d10 11 (5t h C ir. 1 97 1) :

The EEOC is th e ag en cy

up on whi ch th e st atut e p la ces th e b ur de n o f de te rm in in g wh ethe r a ch arg e h as be en ti m el y fil ed , so as t o p erm ititto in ve st ig at e an d a tt em pt to co nc il ia te th e ch arg e in acco rd an ce wi thth e st atut ory sc he m e. . . . W

he re the EEOC has on ce d et erm in edth ata ch arg e was ti m el y

. . . , andha s ac tu al ly ent eredin to a co nc il ia ti onatt em

pt , itdo es no t s eem

parti cu la rly in ke ep in g wi thth e co ng res si on al in te ntth atth e ti m el in es s of th e fi li ng of t he EEOC cha rg e sh ou ldbe op ento reco ns id erat io n b y

th e co urt, wh en , oft eny ears or m an y m on th s af te rward , a su itis bro ug htbe cau se co nc il ia ti on ha s fa il ed
. Id . at 1 01 4 n .6. Bec au se th e EEOC fou ndth atth ere was a sa ti sf act ory reas on forRam ire z’s de la y in m ak in g i ni ti al co nt actwith t he EEO Couns el or , andbe cau se th e DOT di d
no t ch al le ng e th atfin di ng , bu t, i ns te ad , un de rto okin ve st ig at io n a ndco nc il ia ti on , th e DOT andth e d is tri ctco urt wer e b ou ndby the EEOC’ s fi nd in g. As ou r ru li ng on th is is su e is di sp os it iv e, we ne edno t co ns id er the ot he r arg um en t t ha t Ra m ire z m ak es onap pe al , see no te 7, s up ra, as itco nc ern s h is alt ern at iv e p os it io n t ha t h is

27 Case: 10-15086 Date Filed: 07/12/2012 Page: 27 of 29in it ia l co nt actwith t he EEO Cou ns el orwas t im el y . 1 1 IV. At b ot to m , th is cas e in vo lv es a ve ry fam il ia r an d o ft- se enfactpa tt ern : an un su cces sf

ul job ap pl ic an t b rin gs a la wsu itag ai ns t an em pl oyer, all eg in g tha t h e was pa ss edov er fo r th e p os it io n b y les se r qu al ifi edpe op le ou ts id e h is pro te ct ed cl as s. Whil e atfir stbl us h t he cas e wou ldsee m to be si m pl e an d s tra ig ht fo rward , up on clo se r rev ie w, as i ll us tra te d abo ve , itis an yth in g b ut . There are, i nt er al ia , un cert ai nt ie s an d a m

bi gu it ie s ab ou t t he two po si ti on s atis su e; whatwas re so lv ed atsu m m ary jud gm en t; an d wh atcla im th e jury was be in g c al le d upo n t o d eci de
. Wha t i s cl ear, h owe ve r, is th atitwas e rro r fo r th e d is tri ctco urt t o ru le as am at te r of law o n t he DOT’ s m id -tr ia l m ot io n t ha t Ra m ire z’s adm in is tra ti ve ch arg e was un ti m el y , gi ve n tha t the EEOC hadpre vi ou sl y de te rm in editwas t im el y . As the Girardco urt n ot ed : “ Whe n ago ve rn m en t em pl oyee se ek s t o p ur su e a cl ai m of d is cri m in at io n u nd er Tit le VII . . . the go ve rn m en t ca nn otbe at warwith it se lf. Pr ot eanth ou gh itm ay so m et im es be , itcan no t i n i ts EEOC form say tha t t he
To be c lear , we e mphasize once a g ain that our de cision is not based mere ly on the fa ct 1 1 that the DOT pr ocesse d and investig ated Ramire z’s discrimination complaint. As Briones a nd Girar d (and se vera l of the other c ases c ited above) , have e x plained, it is one thing f or an a g ency to acc ept a c laim, conduct an inve stigation, and discover during the investiga tion that the claim is untimely . It is quit e anothe r thingfor the a g ency to expressly

find that the cla im is t imely (or be told by the EEOC that it is tim ely and not cha lleng e that finding ), investig ate the c laim, and then challeng e (or

re- challeng e) timeliness months or year s later in a c ivil li tigation. There is no binding wa iver in the for

mer situation, but there is in the latter
.

28 Case: 10-15086 Date Filed: 07/12/2012 Page: 28 of 29em

pl oyee m ay

go forward , whi le in [an ot he r] form itsays h e m ay

no t.” Gi rard , 62 F.3 d a t 1 24 8. On ce the EEOC rul edth atRam ire z co ul d p ur su e h is cla im , andth e DOT didno t ap pe al th atrul in g, t he DOT “was no t en ti tl edto aska co urt t o h ol d ot he rwis e. Itwas b ou nd .” Id
. The di stric t co urt’s jud gm en t i s, the refo re, REVERSED, an d t hi s m at te r is
rem an de d fo r fu rth er p ro ceed in gs .

29

Case: 10-15086 Date Filed: 07/12/2012 Page: 29 of 29