T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptunderthe doctr i nes of * law o f th e c a se , res ju d ica ta, a n d c o llate ra l es to p p e l. Itm a yb e c ited , h o w e v e r, f o r its per s uas i ve val ue cons i s t entw i th Fed. R . A pp. P. 32. 1 and 10th C i r . R . 32. 1. FI LED Uni te d St at e s C our t o f Appe als

Te nt h Ci r c uit 

### S e p t e m b e r 28, 2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT DR . J ANE T B. S UL L I VAN, P lain tiff -A p p e llan t, v. N o. 07- 1206 D R . F R A N C I S J . H A R V E Y , S e c r e t a ry, De p a r t me n to f

Ar my , Ag e n c y ; M S . CARI M . D O M I N G U E Z , C om m i s s i oner , E qual E m pl oym entO ppor tuni tyC om m i s s i on, A g e n c y, D e f

e n d a n t- A p p e lle e s . ( D . C. N o. 06 - c v- 83 8- LTB - CB S) ( D . C ol or ado)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e B R I S C O E , E B E L , and M c CO NNELL , C i rcui tJudg es.

A ft erexami ni ng the br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, thi s panel has det erm i ned unani m ous l yt o honorthe part i es ’ r eques tfora dec i s i on on the br i efs w i thoutor al ar gum ent . See Fed. R . A pp. P. 34( f) ; 10th C i r . R . 34. 1( G ) . T he ca s e i s , ther efor e, o rd e re d s u b m itte d w ith o u t o ra l a rg u m e n t.2

P lai n ti ff Jan et S u ll ivan , ap p ea ri n g p ro se , ap p ea ls from the d istri ct co u rt ’s d i s mi s s a l o f

th e Ti t l e VI I a c t i o n s h e f i l e d a g a i n s tth e S e c r e t a ryo f th e Un i t e d S t a t e s Ar my and the C om m i ssi on er of the E qu al E m ploym ent O pp ortun i tyC om m i ssi on . W e exerci se j u r i s d i c t i o n p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 9 1 a n d a f f i r m. I. Sul l i van i s a form erci vi l i an empl oy ee of the U ni t ed St at es A r m yati t s For tC ar s on i ns t al l at i on i n C ol or ado Spr i ngs , C ol or ado. I n l at e 2002 and the s pr i ng of 2003, Sul l i van, w hi l e s t i l l empl oy ed bythe A r m y , fi l ed compl ai nt s w i th the Equal E m pl oym ent O ppor tuni tyC om m i s s i on ( E E O C ) al l egi ng s ex and di s abi l i ty - bas ed di s cr i m i nat i on on t he partof A r m yoffi ci al s . O n J une 9, 2003, Sul l i van and A r m yoffi ci al s negot i at ed a s e ttle m e n t a g re e m e n t th a t p u rp o rt e d to re s o lv e S u lliv a n ’s a lle g a tio n s o f d is c ri m in a tio n . U nderthe t erm s of thatagr eement , Sul l i van agr eed t o w i thdr aw hercompl ai nt s of di s cr i m i nat i on, for ego the fi l i ng of anyl aw s ui t s ar i s i ng outof heral l egat i ons of di s cr i m i nat i on, and vol unt ar i l yr et i r e fr om herpos i t i on w i th the A r m yeff ect i ve J ul y3, 2003. I n r eturn, the A r m yagr eed, i n pert i nentpart , t o paySul l i van “a l um p s um of $ 6 1 ,0 0 0 .0 0 f

o r c o m p e n s a to ry a n d m e d ic a l d a m a g e s .” R O A , V o l. I , D o c . 1 , A tt. 2 a t 2 . T he agr eementexpr es s l ys t at ed thatthe A r m y“ma[de] no r epr es ent at i ons t o [Sul l i van] conce rni ng the t ax cons equenc es of thi s paym ent . ” I d. T he agr eementfur thers t at ed that “the part i es agr ee[ d] thatanyt ax obl i gat i on” ar i s i ng fr om thi s paym entw oul d “be the obl i gat i on of [Sul l i van] and notthe obl i gat i on of the [A r m y ] ( oranyothercomponentof the U ni t ed St at es ) , s houl d t he t axi ng author i tym ake a nys uch det erm i nat i on. ” I d.T he For m 1099 al s o r eport ed a s epar at e $1, 000 paym entthatw as m ade bythe 1 A r m yt o Sul l i van as partof the s ett l ementagr eement . Sul l i van di d notand does not c h a l l e n g e th e i n c l u s i o n o f th i s p a yme n to n th e f

o r m. 3 I n February2004, the A r m yi s s ued t o Sul l i van and the I nt ernal R evenue Ser vi ce ( I R S) a For m 1099- M I SC ( For m 1099) l i s t i ng the $61, 000 paym entas m i s cel l aneous i ncome forSul l i van forthe t ax y ear2003. I d. , A t t . 3. A l though Sul l i van ac know l edges 1 re c e iv in g th e F o rm 1 0 9 9 , sh e a lleg e d lyd id n o t b e g in p re p a rin g h e r 2 0 0 3 tax re tu rn u n til e a rlyA p ril 2 0 0 5 . A t th a t ti m e , sh e c o n c lu d e d th a t th e F o rm 1 0 9 9 h a d b e e n im p ro p e rly i s s ued. O n A pr i l 6, 2005, Sul l i van s enta l ett ert o the A r m yal l egi ng thati thad br eac hed the s ett l ementagr eementbyi s s ui ng the For m 1099 and cl as s i fy i ng the $61, 000 paym ent as m i s cel l aneous i ncome. T he A r m y ’ s E qual E m pl oym entO ppor tuni tyC om pl i ance and C o m p lain ts R e v iew d iv isio n tre a ted S u lli v a n ’s le tter a s a se ttl e m e n t n o n c o m p lian c e c laim and r es ponded t o heral l egat i ons on A pr i l 28, 2005, concl udi ng thatthe s ett l ement agr eementhad notbeen br eac hed and thatSul l i van’ s cl ai m w as unt i m el y . Sul l i van u n s u c c e s s f

u l l ya p p e a l e d th e Ar my ’ s d e t e r mi n a t i o n t o th e EE OC. O n M ay2, 2006, Sul l i van, appea r i ng pr o s e, fi l ed thi s T i t l e V I I act i on agai ns tt he Secr et aryof the A r m yand the C om m i s s i onerof the EE O C . R O A , V ol . I , D oc. 1. I n her compl ai nt , Sul l i van al l eged thatthe A r m y , byi s s ui ng the For m 1099 cl as s i fy i ng the $61, 000 paym entas m i s cel l aneous i ncome, ( a) di s cr i m i nat ed aga i ns theron the bas i s of herr ace and phy s i cal and ment al di s abi l i t i es , ( b) br eac hed the s ett l ementagr eement , ( c) fai l ed t o r eas onabl yacc om m odat e herdi s abi l i t i es , ( d) comm i t t ed fr aud, and ( e) t ookI n herappel l at e br i ef, Sul l i van onl ym akes pas s i ng m ent i on of the A r m y ’ s and 2 E E O C ’s al l eged l yi m proper processi ng of h er appeals and cl ai m s, and do es not otherw i se s er i ous l ydi s put e the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s di s m i s s al of thos e cl ai m s . T o the ext ents he i nt ends t o appea l the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s di s m i s s al of thos e cl ai m s , w e af fi r m forthe r eas ons s t at ed by th e d istric t co u rt. 4 advant age of

her“i m pai r ed condi t i on t o conductbad fa i th bar gai ni ng. ” I d. at2. Sul l i van al s o al l eged thatboth t he A r m yand the EE O C i m pr oper l ypr oces s ed hercl ai m s and a p p e a ls . D efe ndant s m oved t o di s m i s s Sul l i van’ s compl ai ntforl ack of s ubj ectm att er j ur i s di ct i on and/ orfai l ur e t o s t at e a c l ai m upon w hi ch r el i ef c oul d be gr ant ed. T he m agis trat e j ud ge assi gn ed to the case is sued a repo rtrecom m end i ng that defend ants ’ m o tio n b e g ra n ted . In d o in g so , the m a g istra te ju d g e c o n c lu d e d th a t S u lli v a n f a iled to s t at e a va l i d cl ai m forr el i ef unde rT i t l e V I I bas ed upon heral l egat i ons thatthe A r m yand E E O C i m pr oper l ypr oces s ed hercl ai m s and appe al s . T he magi s tr at e j udge further c o n c lu d e d th a t S u lli v a n h a d f a iled to tim e lye x h a u st h e r a d m in istra tiv e re m e d ies w ith r es pectt o herr emai ni ng T i t l e V I I cl ai m s and w as notent i t l ed t o appl i cat i on of the eq u it ab le t o ll ing d o ctri n e. T h e d istri ct co u rtsu b seq u en tl yad o p ted th e m ag istrate jud g e’s r ecomm endat i on, gr ant ed def endant s ’ m ot i on t o di s m i s s , and di s m i s s ed the ca s e.

II. I n h e ra p p e a l , S u l l i v a n c h a l l e n g e s th e d i s tr i c tc o u r t ’ s d i s mi s s a l o f h e rc l a i ms ar i s i ng outof the A r m y ’ s i s s uance of the For m 1099. A ccor di ng t o Sul l i van, the di s tr i ct 2 courterr ed i n r efus i ng t o appl ythe equi t abl e t ol l i ng doctr i ne t o hercl ai m s . W e r evi ew f o ra b u s e o f

d i s c r e t i o n th e d i s tr i c tc o u r t ’ s d e c i s i o n n o tt o a p p l ye q u i t a b l e t o l l i n g . Ha r ms5

v . I.R .S ., 3 2 1 F .3 d 1 0 0 1 , 1 0 0 6 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). T i t l e V I I pr ohi bi t s m i l i t arydepart m ent s fr om engagi ng i n di s cr i m i nat oryper s onnel pr act i ces w i th r es pectt o t hei rempl oy ees . 42 U . S. C . § 2000e- 16( a) . B efor e i ni t i at i ng a T itl e V II a c tio n in f

e d e ra l co u rt, a m ili tar ye m p lo y e e m u st f irst tim e lye x h a u st a v a ilab le a d m in istra tiv e re m e d ies . Id . § 2 0 0 0 e -1 6 (c ); se e K h a d e r v . A sp in , 1 F .3 d 9 6 8 , 9 7 0 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 3 ) (“ [ E ]x h a u stio n o f a d m in istra tiv e re m e d ies is a ju risd ictio n a l p re re q u isite to in stitu tin g a T itl e V II a c tio n in f e d e ra l co u rt.”) ( in ter n a l q u o tatio n m a rk s o m itt e d ). T h is exhaus t i on pr oces s typi cal l yi ncl udes “cons ul t [i ng] a C ouns el orpr i ort o fi l i ng a compl ai nt [ wi th th e mi l i t a r yd e p a r t me n t ] i n o r d e rt o tryt o i n f o r ma l l yr e s o l v e th e ma t t e r . ” 2 9 C. F . R. § 1614. 105( a) . Such cons ul t at i on m us toccurw i thi n for ty - fi ve day s “of the dat e of the m att eral l eged t o be di s cr i m i nat oryor , i n the ca s e of pe r s onnel act i on, w i thi n [forty - fi ve] d ay s o f th e e ff

ec ti v e d ate o f th e a cti o n . ” Id . § 1 6 1 4 . 1 0 5 (a)(1). I f, ho w ev er, th e m il it ary e m p lo y e e ’s c o m p lain t ar ise s o u t o f th e m ili tar yd e p a rtm e n t’s a lleg e d f a ilu re “ to c o m p ly w ith the term s o f a sett lem en t agre em en t, ” the em p loy ee m u st “n o ti fythe E E O D ir ec tor, i n w r i t i ng, of the al l eged nonc om pl i ance w i thi n [thi r ty ] day s of w hen the [e m pl oy ee] k n ew o r sho u ld h av e k n o w n o f th e a ll eg ed n o n co m p li an ce . ” 2 9 C . F . R . § 1 6 1 4 . 5 0 4 (a). S u l l i v a n c o n c e d e s th a ts h e d i d n o ta c twi th i n e i th e ro f th e s e e s t a b l i s h e d t i me f ra m e s. In p a rticu lar , S u lli v a n a c k n o w led g e s th a t sh e re c e iv e d th e F o rm 1 0 9 9 in February2004, butdi d notcont actei therthe A r m yorthe EE O C t o expr es s herconce r ns r egar di ng the For m 1099 unt i l A pr i l 6, 2005. She cont ends , how ever , thats he i s ent i t l ed t o appl i cat i on of the equi t abl e t ol l i ng doctr i ne bec aus e “a ffi r m at i ve mi s conductbythe6

A rm y ” “ ca u sed [h er] to m iss th e d ea d li n e thro u g h n o fa u lto f h er o w n . ” A p lt . B r. at 7. In s uppor tof thi s cont ent i on, Sul l i van as s ert s ( 1) “ther e w as a ‘ m eet i ng of the mi nds ’ dur i ng n e g o tia tio n s f

o r t h e s e ttle m e n t a g re e m e n t . . . th a t th e lu m p s u m p a ym e n t o f $ 6 1 ,0 0 0 . . . w oul d be nont axabl e i ncome, ” i d. , ( 2) notw i ths t andi ng thi s “meet i ng of the mi nds , ” the A r m y ’ s l egal r epr es ent at i ve, M aj orK ar en Pi ke, “t ook unfai radvant age of . . . Sul l i van, w ho w as heavi l ym edi cat ed, ” i d. , bycomposi ng the keyl anguage of the s ett l ement a g re e m e n t, p e rf

o rm in g th e w o rd p ro c e s s in g f u n c tio n s h e rs e lf

, a n d “ re a s s u r[ in g ] . . . Sul l i van thatthe l anguage m eanti tw oul d be nont axabl e i ncome, ” i d. at8, ( 3) “M aj or Pi ke avoi ded di vul gi ng the di s cl ai m er s byi ns ert i ng them i nt o the” s ett l ementagr eement “af t erthe part i es fi ni s hed medi at i ng the t erm s and condi t i ons of the contr act , ” i d. at10, and (4) “revel at i on of the decep t i on ” w as postpo ned becau se the “A rm yand D efen se Fi nance and A ccount i ng Sy s t em di d notw i thhol d i ncome t axes fr om the l um p s um att he t i m e of di s bur s ement , ” i d. at9. Sul l i van furthercont ends thatM aj orPi ke, by “empl oy [i ng] hers uper i orknow l edge a nd act [i ng] i n a domi nantr ol e dur i ng” the s ett l ementagr eementnegot i at i ons , eff ect i vel yas s um ed, and then pr ocee ded t o vi ol at e, fi duci aryr es pons i bi l i t i es t ow ar ds Sul l i van. I d. at14. Fi nal l y , Sul l i van cont ends s he “coul d nothave e xer ci s ed due di l i gence t o pr eventthe mi s conductbeca us e s he w as s ever el yi m pai r ed byi l l nes s and i nt oxi cat i on bypr es cr i pt i on m edi cat i on atthe t i m e s he att ended the” s ett l ementnegot i at i ons , “and f or18 t o 24 m onths aft erw ar ds . ” I d. at15. T h e ti m e li m it s estab li sh ed b yT it le V II fo r i n it iat ing ad m inistrati v e re m ed ies are notj ur i s di ct i onal , H arm s , 321 F. 3d at1006, and thus “ar e s ubj ectt o . . . equi t abl e t ol l i ng. ”7

2 9 C .F .R . § 1 6 1 4 .6 0 4 (c ). W e h a v e , h o w e v e r, n a rro w lylim ited th e c irc u m sta n c e s in w hich equ i t able t oll i ng w i l l be p erm i t t ed. H arm s, 32 1 F . 3d at10 06 ; B i est er v. M i dw est H eal th Ser v. , I nc. , 77 F. 3d 1264, 1267 ( 10th C i r . 1996) . G ener al l ys peaki ng, w e have expr es s l yr ecogni zed e qui t abl e t ol l i ng of Ti t l e V I I ’ s t i m e l i m i t at i ons onl yi f the ci r cumst ance s of a c as e r i s e t o t he l evel of “a ct i ve dec ept i on, ” s uch as w her e a pl ai nt i ff h a s b e e n “ lu lled in to in a c tio n b yh e r p a st e m p lo y e r,” o r h a s b e e n “ a c tiv e lym isle d ” o r “ in s om e extr aor di naryw aybeen pr event ed fr om as s ert i ng hi s orherr i ght s . . . . ” B i es t er , 77 F. 3d at1267 ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) . A l though w e have acknow l edged the pos s i bi l i tyof an e xcept i on form ent al i ncapa ci ty , w e have i ndi cat ed that“exc ept i onal ci r cumst ance s ” w oul d have t o exi s tforthe r ecogni t i on of s uch an e xcept i on, and w e have y e t to a c tu a lly a p p ly su c h a n e x c e p tio n in a n yc a s e . Id . a t 1 2 6 8 . H er e, w e i nt erpr etSul l i van’ s r eques tforappl i cat i on of equi t abl e t ol l i ng as hi ngi ng on heras s ert i on thats he w as m ent al l yi m pai r ed ori ncapa ci t at ed dur i ng the t i m e of the s ett l ementnegot i at i ons and fornear l ytw o y ear s ther eaf t er . W e ar e notper s uaded, how ever , thatthe ci r cumst ance s s he has al l eged a r e trul y“exc ept i onal . ” To begi n w i th, ther e i s no al l egat i on thatSul l i van has everbeen a dj udged i ncompet entor i ns t i tut i onal i zed. I d. Fur ther , as the magi s tr at e j udge not ed i n r ecomm endi ng di s m i s s al of the compl ai nt , Sul l i van made no m ent i on of bei ng m ent al l yi m pai r ed ori ncapa ci t at ed i n herA pr i l 6, 2005 l ett erfi r s tcompl ai ni ng aboutthe For m 1099, and i n fac tdi d not m a k e a n ys u c h a s s e rt io n u n til a f te r h e r c o m p la in t w a s in itia lly d e n ie d b yth e A rm y . M o reo v er, as the m ag istrate jud g e a lso n o ted, S u ll ivan ’s claim s o f m en tal im p airm en t are8

w hol l yi ncons i s t entw i th heras s ert i ons thats he cl ear l yr emem ber s the det ai l s of the s e ttle m e n t n e g o tia tio n s a n d M a jo r P ik e ’s c o n d u c t d u ri n g th o s e n e g o tia tio n s . A c c o rd in g ly , w e c o n c lu d e th e d istric t co u rt d id n o t ab u se its d isc re tio n in re f u sin g to app l ythe eq uit able t oll i ng do ct ri ne to Su l l i van ’s cl ai m s. T h e ju d g m e n t o f

th e d istric t co u rt A F F IR M E D . S u lli v a n ’s m o tio n to p ro c e e d in f o r ma p a u p e r i s o n a p p e a l i s DE NI E D. E n tered fo r th e C o u rt M aryB eck Bri s coe C i r cui tJ udge