09-3990 -cv

Lanh am v. S h in seki U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A LS F O R T H E S E C O N D C IR C U IT
SUM M AR

Y O RD ER R U L I N G S B Y S U M M A R Y OR D E R D O N OT HA V E P R E C E D E N T I A L E F F E C T . C I T A T I ON T O A SUM M A R Y O R D ER FI LED O N O R AFTER JAN U A R Y 1, 20 07 , I S PER M I TTED A N D I S GO V ERN ED B Y T H IS C O U R T ’S L O C A L R U L E 3 2 .1 .1 A N D F E D E R A L R U L E O F A P P E L L A T E P R O C E D U R E 3 2 .1 . W H EN C I TI N G A S U M M A R Y O R D ER I N A D O C U M ENT FI LED W I TH TH I S C O U R T, A PA R TY M U S T C I T E E I T HE R T HE F E D E R A L A P P E N D I X OR A N E L E C T R ON I C D A T A B A S E ( W I T H T HE NO TATI O N “ S UM M ARY O RDER”) . A PARTY CI TI NG A S UM M ARY O RDER M US T S ERVE A CO PY O F IT O N A N Y P A R T Y N O T R E P R E S E N T E D B Y C O U N S E L .
At a stated Te rm of the United States Court of A ppeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patric k Moy

nihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of Ne w York, on the 24 day

of Nove mber, two thousand a nd ten. th Pr e se nt: B ARRI

NG TO N D . PA RKER, RO SEM AR

Y S. POO L ER, RI CHARD C. W ESL EY,

Circuit Judges

.

_____________________________________________________ KIM E . LAN HA M, Plaintif f-Appellant ,
-v- 09-3990-c v GO RD ONH. MA

NSF I ELD, SEC RET AR

Y, VE TE RA

N’ S AF F AIRS, De fe nd an t, E R IC K
. S H IN S E KI, Defendant- Appellee

. Ap pe ari ngfo r A

pp e lla nt: JohnR. Wi lli ams, Ne w H ave n, CT Appea ri ngfor Appe llee: David C. Nelson, Assistant United States Attorney (David B. F ein, Un ite d St ate s Atto rn e y

fo r t he Di stric t of

Conne c tic ut, Sand

ra S. Glover, of

counsel, on the brief

), Ha rt fo rd , CT2

Appea l from the United States District Court for the District of Connec ticut (Arter ton, J. ). ON CONSIDERATION WHE REOF, IT IS HEREB Y ORDERED, ADJUD GED, AN D D EC RE ED that th e jud gme nt o f s a id D istri c t Co ur t be and it h e reby is AF F IRM ED
. Kim L anham a

ppeals fr om the J une 4, 2009 dec ision and order of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, grantingdefe ndants’ motion for summary judgme nt. Lanham v. Shinseki , 662 F. Supp. 2d 238, 242-43 (D . Conn. 2009). The district cour t de te rm ine d th at L anh am, who a lle g e d g e nd e r a nd ra c e dis c ri min atio n, fa ile d to tim e ly e xha us t her a dministrative r emedies be fore pursuingher f eder al cour

t complaint. Id. We assume the parties’ familiarity

with the underly

ing f acts, proc edura l history , and spec ification of issues for revie w. A fe dera l employee w ishing to cha lleng e a f eder al ac tion as discriminatory must beg in the administrative re view proc ess within 45 day s of the alleg ed discriminatory act. 29 C.F .R. § 1614.105(a) . Her e, L anham a pplied for a

promotion. She rece ived an inter view, but was not selec ted. Instead, the position went to a Cauc asian male . Veter an’s Af fairs ma iled plaintiff a letter on May

9, 2006, stating: “ You wer e qualifie d and re fer red f or consider ation, but not selec ted . . . . The f

ollowing qua lified ca

ndidate fr om outside the VA wa s selecte d . . .” On June 30, 2006, L anham c omplained to an equa l opportunity counselor, a

nd followed up by filing a n administrative complaint shortly there afte r with the VA’ s Offic e of Resolution Manag ement, alleg ing g ender and ra ce disc rimination. The par ties agree L anham’ s first contac t came 47 day s after

the ef fec tive date of

succe ssful candidate’s hire . L anham’ s complaint proce eded thr ough the various levels of administrative re view until November 14, 2007,when the VA’s Of fice of Employ

ment Discrimination Complaint Adjudi cation issued a F inal Ag ency Dec ision (“Fina l Decision”)

. L anham a dvance s two arguments on appea l: (1) that the g overnme nt is estopped from raisingher f

ailure to timely

exhaust her administrative re medies bec ause V eter an’s Af fairs conducte d a full and c omplete investig ation into her complaint without ever addre ssing the issue of timeliness; and (2) the g overnme nt waived its timeliness argument by failingto plead it as an aff irmative def

ense in its answe r. B oth argume nts fa il. A g ov e rnme nt a g e nc y do e s n ot w a ive a

de fe ns e of

fa ilureto t ime ly exhaust administrative r emedies by acc eptingand investig atinga complaint. Belgravev. Pe na , 254 F.3d 384, 386 ( 2d Cir. 2001). A timeliness objection is only waived where an ag ency makes “a spe cific f

inding that the c laimant’s submission was timely .” Id. (qu o t i n g Rowe v. Sullivan , 967 F.2d 186, 191 ( 5th Cir. 1992)). It is undisput ed that no finding s reg ardingtimeliness were included in the F inal Dec ision, thus the g overnme nt did not waive its tim eliness argument. As to L anham’ s argument that the g overnme nt waived its untimely exhaustion defense by fa ili ngto p le a d it

in i ts a ns we r, L anh am ha s w a ive d th at argume nt b y no t r a isi ngit b e low . Wh ile we have dis c re tio n to re vie w i ssu e s r a ise d f or the fi rs t ti me on

a pp e a l “ wh e rene c e ssa

ry to a vo id3

manifest injustice or whe re the argument prese nts a question of law a nd there is no need for additional fac tfinding,” Bogle-Asse gai v. Connecticut , 470 F.3d 498, 504 ( 2d Cir. 2006) (citation omitted), we seeno rea son to ex erc ise that discre tion here. A ccordingly , the judg ment of the district court her eby

is AFF I RMED.
FOR THECOURT: Catherine O ’Ha g an Wolfe, Clerk