FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T OCT 22, 2010 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 11 65 7 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 9 :0 9- cv -8 05 72 -KAM JOHANE TILLERY, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, ver su s UNITED STAT ES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Ja ne t Nap ol it an o, Se cret ary, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee.

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

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Oct ob er 2 2, 2 01 0) Befo re CARNES, HULL andFAY, Circ ui t Jud ge s. PER CURI AM:Jo ha ne Til le ry ap pe al s t he di st ric t co urt’s o rd er d is m is si ng he r co m pl ai nt rai si ng ret al ia ti on cla im s u nd er Tit le VII fo r fai lu re t o e xh au stadm in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s. Afterrev ie w, we affi rm .

1 I. BACKG ROUND A. Ti tle VII Compla in t Pl ai nt iff Jo ha ne Til le ry

(“ Til le ry ”) wo rk edas atrans po rta ti on sec ur ity of fic er fo r th e Tran sp orta ti on Secu rit y Adm in is tra ti on (“ TSA”), an ag en cy withi n th e Dep art m en t o f Hom el an d S ecu rit y (“ DHS”), atth e Pal m

Beac h In te rn at io na l Airp ort (“ PBIA” ). In F eb ru ary 20 06 , Till ery co m pl ai ne d t ha t h er m an ag er, Larry Dav is , hadsex ua ll y

ha ras se d h er. As a r es ul t Dav is was t ran sf erre d fr om

PBIA. InMarc h 2 00 6, Ti ll ery reque st eda tr an sf er t o a n a irp ort i n Tu cs on , Arizo na . On Ap ril 13 , 20 06 , herreque stwas app ro ve d. Ho wev er, o n M ay 5, 2 00 6, af

te r th e Ariz on a fac il it y

sp ok e to Til le ry ’s PBIA s up erv is or s, Ti ll ery was to ldth atsh e co ul d n ottra ns fer t o t he Ariz on a fac il it y . On Ju ne 7, 2 00 6, Ti ll ery was term in at ed . Til le ry ’s com

pl ai ntall eg edth athe r PBIA s up erv is or s g av e fal se in fo rm at io n t o t he Ariz on a fac il it y

inret al ia ti on forhe r se xu al ha ras sm en t co m pl ai ntag ai ns t Dav is an d l at er t erm in at edhe r in ret al ia ti on , to o.

Civil Rights Act of

1964, § 701 et seq., a s amende d by Civil Rights Act of

1991, § 104 et 1 seq., 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. ( “Title VI I ”). 2B. Mot io n to Dis m is s

DHS fil eda pr e-an swe r m ot io n t o d is m is s p ur su an t t o F ed eral Ru le of C iv il Pro cedur e 1 2( b) . DHS’ s m ot io n a rg ue d t ha t Ti ll ery fai le d t o e xh au sthe r adm in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s b ecau se sh e d idno t co nt actTSA’ s Equa l Em pl oym en t Offi ce (“ EEO”) withi n 4 5 d ay s o f th e al le ge dl y di sc riminat ory

act io n, as requi red by agen cy

reg ul at io ns . See 2 9 C .F.R. § 1 61 4.1 05 (a)( 1) (requi rin g afed eral em pl oyee who be li ev es sh e h as be endi sc riminat edag ai ns t t o “ in it ia te co nt actwith a 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 atte r al le ge d t o b e d is cri m in at ory or , inth e cas e o f pe rs on ne l ac ti on , withi n 4 5 d ay s o f th e eff ect iv e d at e o f th e act io n” ). DHS con te nd ed , in te r al ia , th at(1) th e fi rs t al le ge d re ta li at ory act 2 oc cu rredon May 5, 20 06 ; (2 ) th e 4 5- da y no ti fic at io n p eri odex pi redonJu ne 19 , 20 06 ; an d (3 ) Til le ry

di d n otco nt actanEEO cou ns el orun ti l Jul y 12 , 20 06 , 23 da y s af te r th e 4 5- da y

pe rio d e xp ire d. DHS fu rth er co nt en de d Ti ll ery ne ve r co nt act edanEEO Cou ns el orab ou t t he all eg ed ly retal ia to ry term in at io n. DHS subm it te d e xh ib it s, i nc lu di ng : (1 ) anEEO Cou ns el or ’s Rep ort; (2) de cl arat io ns of Under Part 1614, an e mployee of a fe dera l ag ency

must first consult an EEO Counselor 2 in an ef fort to “infor

mally resolve thematter.” 29 C.F.R. § 1614.105(a) . At the end of this informal consultation, the e mploy ee ma y file a f ormal complaint with the ag ency within fifteen day s, trigg eringthe ag ency ’s obligation to conduct an investig ation. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.106(a) -(b) , (e) (2). The ag ency

is require d to dismi ss a forma l complaint if the employee f ailed to comply with the time limi ts for informa lly consulting w ith the EEO Counselor or f or filingthe forma l complaint. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a) (2). The employee the n has the right to appeal the a g ency ’s dismiss al of the f

ormal complaint. See 29 C.F .R. § 1614.106(e)( 1). 3EEO offi ci al s; (3) Til le ry ’s form al EEO com pl ai nt ; an d (4 ) th e DHS’s fin al ag en cy de ci si on di sm is si ng he r fo rm al EEO com pl ai ntas u nt im el y

un de r th e reg ul at io ns . Til le ry res po nd ed , att ach in g h er aff id av itan d d oc um en ts . Till ery co nt en de d th atth e 4 5- da y

no ti fic at io n p eri odwas e qu it ab ly tol le d b ecau se , aft er s he was pl acedon lea ve on May 8, 20 06 , sh e co ul d c on ta ctanEEO Cou ns el oron ly by ph on e an d h er re pe at edcal ls ov er a t hr ee- o r fo ur -weekpe rio d wer e n otreturne d. See 2 9 C .F.R. § 1 61 4.1 05 (a)( 2) (requi rin g a ge nc y to ex te ndth e 4 5- da y

pe rio d whe re “ de sp it e due di li ge nc e” cl ai m an t “ was pre ve nt edby circu m st an ces be y on d hi s o r he r co ntro l fr om

co nt act in g t he co un se lo r wit hi n t he ti m e li m it s” ). Til le ry ’s affi da vi t s ta te d t ha t, wh il e o n l eav e, sh e m ad e cal ls th ree o r fo urti m es pe r week ov er a 2 5- to 30 -d ay

pe rio d u nt il Ju ly 11, 2 00 6, wh ensh e fi na ll y rece iv eda return cal l. Til le ry

arg ue d tha t (1 ) ev id en ce o f he r effo rts to co nt actth e EEO Cou ns el or crea te d age nu in e is su e o f m at eri al factth aton ly a j ury sh ou ldde ci de , and(2) he r le tt er, d at edMay 30, 2 00 6, t o P et e Garci a, th e Fed eral Secu rit y Dire ct or , withi n th e 4 5- da y

pe rio d s at is fie d t he EEO Cou ns el orco nt actrequi rem en t. Inrep ly, DHS fil edad di ti on al do cu m en ts , in cl ud in g t he de cl arat io n o f Ja ne t Whi te , an EEO m an ag er, d es cri bi ng th e EEO’ s p ro ces s fo r ha nd li ng tel ep ho ne cal ls . W hi te av erre d t ha t t he EEO m ai nt ai ne d a24 -h ou r ho tl in e th atem pl oyees co ul d c al l t o l eav e m es sa ge s re ga rd in g EEO co nc ern s. Th e EEO’ s p ro to co l was to 4return m es sa ge s wi th in24 ho ur s. Each da y , an a ss ig ne d EEO co un se lo r wou ld

ch eckth e h ot li ne vo ic em ai l, re co rdth e in fo rm at io n o n a n “ in co m in g- cas e sp read sh eet ,” return t he cal l an d t he n s up pl em en t the en try onth e sp read sh eetwith in fo rm at io n o bt ai ne d dur in g t he tel ep ho ne co nv ers at io n. Itwas c on tra ry to th e EEO’ s m is si on an d b us in es s p ract ic e to de le te m es sa ge s wi th ou t re sp on di ng to th em , fai l t o re tu rncal ls or i na ccu rat el y reco rdda te s o f co nt actwith the co m pl ai na nt s. Th e EEO’ s i nc om in g- cas e sp read sh eetin di cat edth atTil le ry ’s on ly cal l t o TSA’s EEO was o n J ul y 11 , 20 06 , whi ch was re tu rn edonJu ly 12, 2 00 6. C. Dis tri ct Co urt’ s No tic e On Fe brua ry

9, 2 01 0, t he di st ric t co urt n ot ifi edth e p art ie s t ha t i t was co ns id eri ng DHS’ s m ot io n t o d is m is s. Th e d is tri ctco urt ad vi se d t ha t i t was gu id edby Bry an t v . Ric h, 5 30 F.3d13 68 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ), whi ch di rect s t he di st ric t co urt t o re so lv e fac tu al di sp ut es as t o e xh au st io n o f adm in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s o n am ot io n t o d is m is s i f (1 ) th e fac tu al di sp ut es do no t d eci de th e m eri ts of th e cl ai m s an d (2 ) th e p art ie s h av e h adsu ffi ci en t o pp ortu ni ty to d ev el op th e reco rd . Id. at13 76 . The d is tri ctco urt n ot edth atth e p art ie s h adfil edex hi bi ts , in cl ud in g a ffi da vi ts . The d is tri ctco urt g av e Til le ry ten da y s t o s ub m itan y ad di ti on al ev id en ce i n o pp os it io n t o DHS’s m ot io n t o d is m is s. D. Ti ll ery ’s Suppl emental Bri ef 5Til le ry th ensubm it te d asupp le m en ta l b rie f an d m or e ev id en ce, i nc lu di ng : (1 ) Til le ry ’s affi da vi t; (2) co pi es of e m ai ls ; an d (3 ) de po si ti on tra ns cri pt s o f TSA supe rv is or s atth e Tuc so n a irp ort wh o h an dl edTil le ry ’s tra ns fer re qu es t. Til le ry ’s br ie f arg ue d t ha t DHS re co ns id eredhe r tr an sf er re qu es t an d u lt im at el y

de ni editon May 29, 2 00 6, m ak in g h er J ul y 11 , 20 06 tel ep ho ne co nt actwith t he EEO offi ce ti m el y . E. Dis tri ct Co urt’ s Di smis sa l O rder On M arch 10 , 20 10 , th e d is tri ctco urt g ran te d DHS’s m ot io n t o d is m is s. Aga incit in g B ry an t v . Ric h, t he di st ric t co urt re it erat edth atitco ul d c on si de r th e pa rti es ’ ev id en ce as to ex haus ti on of a dm in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s o n am ot io n t o di sm is s an d was no t re qu ire d t o c on ve rt t he m ot io n t o asu m m ary jud gm en t m ot io n. Th e d is tri ctco urt co nc lu de d t ha t “ whe th er Til le ry ti m el y in it ia te d a n adm in is tra ti ve rev ie w of h er cl ai m , or i f no t, wh ethe r th e ti m e sh ou ldbe to ll ed , do no t g o t o t he m eri ts . There fo re the Co urt wi ll res ol ve th es e que st io ns at t hi s st ag e.” Afte r rev ie win g t he ev id en ce, the di stric t co urt fo un d t ha t: (1) Til le ry fir st co nt act edth e EEO cou ns el oron Ju ly 11, 2 00 6 a ndco m pl ai ne d t ha t t he Apri l 2 4, 20 06 tra ns fer d en ia l was ret al ia to ry ; (2 ) itwas “ hi gh ly unl ik el y th atTil le ry

m ad e an y in it ia l co nt actwith TSA’s [EEO of fic e] oth er tha n t he co nt actreco rd edon th e in co m in g- cas e sp read sh eet ” o n J ul y 11 , 20 06 ; (3 ) th ere was “ no cred ib le 6ev id en ce” s up po rti ng Til le ry ’s cla im in he r “ se lf- se rv in g a ffi da vi t” th atsh e h ad at te m pt edto cal l t he EEO offi ce thr ee t o fo urti m es a weekov er a 2 5 o r 30 da y pe rio d o r th athe r on ly w ay to co nt actth e EEO offi ce was by tele ph on e. Acco rd in gl y , th e d is tri ctco urt co nc lu de d t ha t the re was no ba si s t o e qu it ab ly tol l th e 4 5- da y

li m it at io n p eri od . The di stric t co urt al so co nc lu de d t ha t Ti ll ery’ s M ay 30 , 20 06 let te r to Pet e Garci a, se ntwithi n t he 45 -d ay pe rio d, d idno t s at is fy

th e n ot ifi cat io n re qu ire m en t be cau se Garci a was no t co nn ect edto th e EEO pro ces s an d Ti ll ery’ s l et te r di d n ot ex pr es s an in te ntto be gi n t he EEO pro ces s. Th e d is tri ctco urt fu rth er fo un d t ha t Til le ry ne ve r fi le d aform al co m pl ai ntch arg in g re ta li at ory term in at io n. Th us , th e di st ric t co urt co nc lu de d tha t Ti ll ery fai le d t o e xh au stadm in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s as to bo th he r cl ai m

forret al ia to ry

de ni al of h er tran sf

er re qu es t an d h er cl ai m

for ret al ia to ry

term in at io n. Til le ry

ap pe al ed . II . DISCUSSI ON On ap pe al , Till ery do es no t ch al le ng e th e m eri ts of t he di st ric t co urt’s ru li ng th atsh e fai le d t o e xh au stadm in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s. Ra th er, Til le ry arg ue s o nl y th at , inrul in g o n DHS’s m ot io n t o d is m is s, t he di stric t co urt erredin res ol vi ng factua l d is pu te s. W e st artwith o urpre ced en t i n B ry an t v . Ric h, 5 30 F.3d13 68 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ), rel ie d o n b y

th e d is tri ctco urt. In Bry an t, thi s C ou rt c on cl ud edth atth e 7di st ric t co urt p ro pe rly reso lv edfactua l d is pu te s i n g ran ti ng a m ot io n t o d is m is s

ba se d o n fa il ur e to ex haus t ad m in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s. 5 30 F.3dat 1 37 7. Sp eci fic al ly, th e BryantCo urt ex pl ai ne d t ha t “ [b ]ecaus e ex haus ti on of adm in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s i s a m at te r in ab at em en t an d n otge ne ral ly an ad jud ic at io n on th e m eri ts , an e xh au st io n d efen se . . . is no t o rd in ari ly the pro pe r subjec t fo r a su m m ary jud gm en t; in st ead , itsh ou ldbe rai se d i n am ot io n t o d is m is s, o r tr eat ed as su ch if ra is edin a m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t.” Id . at 1 37 5- 76 (qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . The Bry an t Co urt t reat edRu le 12 (b ) m ot io ns reg ard in g ex haus ti on of n on

jud ic ia l re m ed ie s as si m il ar t o m ot io ns reg ard in g ju ris di ct io n an d v enue in th at“ [e]xh au st io n o f ad m in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s i s a m at te r in ab at em en t, an d o rd in ari ly doe s n otde al with the m eri ts .” Id . at 1 37 4 (q uo ta ti on m ark s an d b rack et s o m it te d) . In t ho se types of Rul e 1 2( b) m ot io ns ,“ itis pro pe r fo r a jud ge to co ns id er fa ct s o ut si de of t he pl ead in gs an d t o re so lv e fac tu al di sp ut es so lo ng as t he factua l d is pu te s d o n otde ci de th e m eri ts an d t he parti es ha ve su ffi ci en t op po rtu ni ty to d ev el op a reco rd .” Id . at 1 37 6 (f oo tn ot es om it te d) . Here, b ot h p ro ng s o f Bryantare s at is fie d. Fi rs t, the fact s re la ti ng to whethe r Til le ry ex haus te d a dm in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s d o n otbe ar o n t he m eri ts of h er ret al ia ti on cla im s. Sec on d, Ti ll ery cl earl y ha d s uf fic ie ntop po rtu ni ty to d ev el op , an d d idde ve lo p, a r eco rd . Accor di ng ly, un de r Bryant , th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t err

8by acti ng as t he fact fin de r as to when Til le ry fir stco nt act edth e EEO cou ns el or an d wh ethe r sh e h adm ad e ear li er u ns uc ces sf ul att em pt s t o d o s o. W e rejectTil le ry ’s arg um en t t ha t Bry an t i s ap pl ic ab le on ly to m ot io ns to di sm is s u nd er the Pri so n Li ti ga ti on Refo rm Act’s (“ PLRA”) e xh au st io n requi rem en t, 4 2 U.S.C. § 19 97 e(a) . Alth ou gh th e so ur ce o f th e ex haus ti on requi rem en t i n B ry an t was th e PLRA, Bryantrel ie d upo n g en eral pri nc ip le s t ha t: (1 ) a m at te r in ab at em en t, ev enif n on -juri sd ic ti on al , su ch as e xh au st io n o f adm in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s i s ap pr op ria te ly rais edin a Ru le 12 (b ) m ot io n t o d is m is s, an d (2 ) a d is tri ctco urt ca n re so lv e a fac tu al di sp ut e inrul in g o n t ha t Ru le 12 (b ) m ot io n t o d is m is s s o l on g a s i t d oe s n otad jud ic at e th e m eri ts of t he cla im an d t he pl ai nt iff ha s h adanop po rtu ni ty to d ev el op th e rec or d. Se e id . at 1 37 4- 76 . Lik e th e PLRA’s ex haus ti on requi rem en t, ex haus ti ng adm in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s u nd er Pa rt 1 61 4 o f th e Co de of F ed eral Reg ul at io n i s a p rere qu is it e to a fed eral em

pl oyee’s fil in g a n e m

pl oym en t d is cri m in at io n a ct io n u nd er Tit le VII. See C rawfo rdv. Babb it t, 1 86 F.3d13 22 , 13 26 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ) (co nc lu di ng th at ex haus ti ng adm in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s i s a ju ris di ct io na l p rere qu is it e to fil in g Ti tl e VII act io n) . Thu s, t he ge ne ral pri nc ip le s re li edup onin Bry an t ap pl y equa ll y to DHS’s m ot io n t o d is m is s Ti ll ery’ s Ti tl e VII ret al ia ti on cla im s o n e xh au st io n gr ou nd s.

9Til le ry rel ie s upo n S te wartv. Bo ok er T. W as hi ng to n In su ran ce, i n wh ic h th is Co urt re ve rs eda di st ric t co urt’s d eci si on th atth e p la in ti ff fai le d t o fi le he r st atut ory ch arg e o f di sc riminat io n wi th th e EEOC withi n 1 80 da y s o f he r te rm in at io n, as requi redby 42 U.S.C. § 20 00 e-5 (e)( 1) . 23 2 F .3d84 4, 8 46 (11 th Ci r. 20 00 ). The St ewartCo urt s tre ss edth atTit le VII’s st atut ory fil in g p eri oddo es no t b eg in to run un ti l t he em pl oyee rece iv es “un equi vo cal no ti ce o f th e ad ve rs e em pl oym en t d eci si on .” Id . at 8 49 (qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . The St ewartCo urt fir stco nc lu de d t ha t t he May 199 7 s ta te m en ts of t he de fen da ntem pl oyer’s pr es id en t, Ki rkwoo d B al to n, t o a ll em pl oyees t ha t t he co m

pa ny’ s p rimary

ass et s were b ei ng so ldan d tha t t he co m pa ny woul d “ try to h ire th em , or . . . pa y th em fo urm on th s’ sev eran ce p ay ” were n otsu ffi ci en t t o s ta rt t he ti m e cl oc k ru nn in g o n th e 1 80 -d ay

st atut ory pe rio d. Id . (om is si on in ori gi na l). We po in te d o utth at al th ou gh Bal to n’s s ta te m en ts ga ve th e p la in ti ff em pl oyee reas on “ to su sp ectth at sh e m ig htbe term in at ed ,” th is was n ota st at em en t tha t p la in ti ff was “ actua ll y be in g t erm in at ed .” Id . W e al so po in te d o utth atpl ai nt iff ha d fi le d a n un co ntrad ic te d a ffi da vi t s ta ti ng th atsh e was ne ve r to ldsh e was term in at edun ti l Nov em be r 19 97 . Id. The Ste wartCo urt co nc lu de d t ha t t he di st ric t co urt erredin ho ld in g B al to n’s st at em en ts were s uf

fic ie ntto st artth e 1 80 -d ay pe rio d a ndin di sr eg ard in g t he 10pl ai nt iff’s affi da vi t t es ti m on y th atsh e was ne ve r to ldsh e was term in at edun ti l Nov em be r 19 97 . Id. at84 9- 50 . The d is tri ctco urt i n S te wartha d c on ve rte d a m ot io n t o d is m is s i nt o am ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t an d h adap pl ie d t he Ru le 56 su m m ary jud gm en t s ta nd ard . Id. at84 8. Th is Co urt re vi ewedth e d is tri ct co urt’s d eci si on un de r on ly the Ru le 56 st an da rd . Id. The Ste wartCo urt s ta te d th atitm us t ac cep t t he pl ai nt iff’s affi da vi t as tru e inth e Ru le 56 (c) s umm ary jud gm en t co nt ex t an d t ha t h er af fid av itcrea te d afactua l i ss ue of wh ensh e was no ti fie d o f he r te rm in at io n. Id . at 8 50 . The St ewartCo urt d idno t m en ti on

“ ex haus ti on of a dm in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s” at a ll or wh ethe r ex haus ti on is pro pe rly rai se d andres ol ve d u nd er Ru le 12 (b ). Forth is reas on , Ste wartdi d n otad dr es s t he Ru le 12 (b )-ex haus ti on is su e p res en te d i n B ry an t an d i n t hi s ca se to o. St ewartdo es no t re qu ire us to rev ers e th e d is tri ctco urt h ere. Insu m , inrul in g o n DHS’s Ru le 12 (b ) m ot io n t o d is m is s b as edso le ly on ex haus ti on of a dm in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s an d n oton th e m eri ts of Ti ll ery’ s cl ai m s, th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t err inco ns id eri ng ev id en ce o ut si de th e p le ad in gs or i n m ak in g fa ctfin di ng s as to ex haus ti on . Accor di ng ly, we affi rm th e d is tri ctco urt’s

11or de r di sm is si ng Til le ry ’s com pl ai ntforfai lu re t o e xh au stadm in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s wit h h er EEO cou ns el or

be fo re fi li ng su it . 3 AFFIRMED.

Be cause Tillery

did not appeal the me rits of the district court’ s ruling that she failed to 3 exhaust administ rative r emedies, she has aba ndoned this issue. See Mar ek v. Single tary , 62 F.3d 1295, 1298 n.2 (11th Cir. 1995). 12