T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he * doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, how ever , fori t s per s uas i ve val ue cons i s t entw i th Fed. R . A pp. P. 32. 1 ( eff. D ec. 1 , 2 0 0 6 ) an d 1 0 th C ir . R . 3 2 . 1 (eff. Jan . 1 , 2 0 0 7 ). 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### Jan u ary31,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT C H A R L E S A . M A R Q U E Z ,

Pl ai nt i ff–A ppel l ant , N o. 06- 2136 v. ( D . C. N o. 05 - CI V - 41 4 J H / RL P) S T AT E OF NE W M E XI CO , GEN ERA L SERVI CES D E P A R T M E N T , (D .N .M .)

D efe ndant–A ppel l ee.

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e KELLY , M c KAY , and LU CE RO , C i rcui tJudg es. A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and the appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned unani m ous l yt hator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tt he d e te rm in a tio n o f

th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )( 2 ); 1 0 th C ir . R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. Pl ai nt i ff f

i l ed an a ct i on agai ns tt he St at e of N ew M exi co, i t s G ener al Ser vi ces D epart m ent , and numer ous i ndi vi dual s , al l egi ng thathe w as cons t ruct i vel ydi s char ged and thathe w as r et al i at ed aga i ns tforfi l i ng a- 2-

di s cr i m i nat i on cl ai m w hen the defendant s r efus ed t o r ehi r e hi m forvar i ous pos i t i ons . H e as s ert ed cl ai m s of age di s cr i m i nat i on i n vi ol at i on of the A ge D i s cr i m i nat i on i n E m pl oym entA ct , nat i onal or i gi n di s cr i m i nat i on i n vi ol at i on of T itl e V II o f

th e C iv il R ig h ts A c t o f 1 9 6 4 (“ T itl e V II” ), se x d isc rim in a tio n in v io latio n o f

T itl e V II; d isa b ili tyd isc rim in a tio n in v io latio n o f th e A m e ric a n s w ith D isab il it ies A ct, an d retali ati o n in v iolati o n o f T it le V II. T he ca s e w as or i gi nal l yfi l ed i n s t at e courtbutw as r emoved t o fede r al cour t . T he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tforthe D i s tr i ctof N ew M exi co conc l uded t hatt he r et al i at i on cl ai m w as noty etexhaus t ed, as a dec i s i on fr om the Equal Em p l o yme n tOp p o r tu n i t yCo mmi s s i o n ( “ EE OC” ) r e ma i n e d p e n d i n g . By agreem ent of t he p art i es, t he co urtenter ed an order di sm i ssi ng the en t i re cas e w i t houtpr ej udi ce i n or dert o gi ve Pl ai nt i ff a n oppor tuni tyt o exhaus tthe r et al i at i on cl ai m . T he di s m i s s al or deri ncl uded a t ol l i ng agr eemental l ow i ng Pl ai nt i ff t o r efi l e hi s compl ai ntw i thi n ni netyday s of r ece i vi ng a r i ght - t o- s ue l e t t e rf r o m th e EE OC o n t h e p e n d i n g r e t a l i a t i o n c l a i m. T h e E E O C is s u e d a n d m a ile d th e ri g h t- to -s u e le tte r o n D e c e m b e r 2 8 , 2 0 0 4 . A di s put e ar os e overw hen Pl ai nt i ff a ctual l yr ece i ved the l et t er , and thus over w hen the ni nety - dayfi l i ng deadl i ne w as tr i gger ed. Pl ai nt i ff a s s er t ed— w i thout p re se n tin g a n ye v id e n c e — th a t h e d id n o t re c e iv e th e trig g e rin g d o c u m e n t u n til J anuary10, 2005, s om e thi r t een da y s aft eri tw as m ai l ed. H i s s ubs equent co m p lai n t w as fil ed o n A p ri l 12 , 2 0 0 5 . O n D efen d an t’ s M o ti o n fo r S u m m ary- 3-

J u d g me n t , t h e t r i a l c o u r td i s mi s s e d th e c a s e a s t i me - b a rr e d . I ta n a l y z e d th e t i me al t ernat i vel yundert he Supr eme C our t ’ s pr es um pt i on underFed. R . C i v. P. 6( e) t hati n abs ence of contr aryevi dence a documenti s r ece i ved thr ee da y s aft er m a i l i n g a s w e l l a s u n d e rt h e c o m m o n - l a w p r e s u m p t i o n o f r e c e i p tw i th i n fi v e d a ys of m ai l i ng. T he tr i al cour thel d thatPl ai nt i ff ha d fai l ed t o pr es ents uffi ci ent ev iden ce to o v erc o m e e ith er o f th ese p resu m p ti o n s. F inally , the tri al co u rt concl uded that , even a cce pt i ng Pl ai nt i ff’ s cl ai m ed r ece i ptdat e, the r efi l ed c o m p l a i n tw a s s t i l l u n t i m e l y. A s a pr eca ut i on, t he tr i al cour tcons i der ed D efe ndant ’ s M ot i on for Sum m aryJ udgm enton t he mer i t s , appl y i ng the s t andar d McD onnel lD ouglas b u rd e n -s h if

tin g ra tio n a le . See McD onnel lD ouglas C or p. v. G r een , 411 U . S. 792 ( 1973) . T he tr i al cour tconcl uded thatPl ai nt i ff ha d notm ethi s bur den of pr ovi ng t hat D efen dan t ’s proffered b usi ness r eason for i t s act i on w as pret extual . Ital so concl uded thatt he St at e w as i m m une fr om cert ai n of the cl ai m s underthe E l eventh A m endmentt o t he C ons t i tut i on. W e nee d notr eac h t he mer i t s deci s i on al t ernat i vel ys uppor t i ng the tr i al cour t ’ s or derdi s m i s s i ng t he ca s e w i th pr ej udi ce. Pl ai nt i ff ha d ni netyday s aft er r e c e i p to f

h i s r i g h t - t o - s u e l e t t e rt o r e fi l e h i s c a s e . Un d e ra n yv e r s i o n o f th e t i me o f re ce ipt of

that let ter, P lai n ti ff ’s co m p lai n t w as u n ti m elyfil ed an d there fo re b a rr e d b yth e a g re e d -u p o n s ta tu te o f lim ita tio n s .- 4-

T he judgm ent of t he tr i al cou rti s AFF I RM ED . E n tered fo r th e C o u rt

M onr oe G . M cK ay C i r cui tJ udge