2002 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

3-5-2002

Grosset v. Waste Mgt Inc

Precedential or Non-Precedential:

Docket 1-1225

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2002

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2002 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Grosset v. Waste Mgt Inc" (2002). 2002 Decisions. Paper 150.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2002/150
 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

 FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT 

 

 

 No. 01-1225 

 

 ROBERT W. GROSSET, 

 

Appellant 

 

 v. 

 

 WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC. 

 

 Appeal from the United States District Court 

 for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania 

 (D.C. Civil Action No. 00-cv-03251) 

 District Judge: Honorable Robert F. Kelly 

 

 

 Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) 

 January 15, 2002 

 

 Before: ALITO and ROTH, Circuit Judges

 SCHWARZER*, District Judge 

 

 (Opinion Filed March 5, 2002) 

 

 * Honorable William W Schwarzer, Senior District Judge for the 

Northern District 

of California, sitting by designation. 

 

 _______________ 

 OPINION 

 

ROTH, Circuit Judge 
 Plaintiff Robert W. Grosset appeals the order of the United States 

District Court 

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granting defendant Waste 

Management Inc.'s 

Motion for Summary Judgment. Grosset filed suit against his former 

employer, Waste 

Management, alleging that it discriminated against him in violation of the 

Americans 

with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). See 42 U.S.C.  12101 et seq. 

Grosset claimed 

that Waste Management failed to reasonably accommodate his disability in 

September 

1998, thereby causing his disability to worsen. Grosset submitted a 

signed claim to the 

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on October 17, 1999, which 

was 

stamped as received on October 20, 1999. 

 In moving for summary judgment, Waste Management contended that 

Grosset did 

not file his charge with the EEOC within the 300 days of the alleged 

discriminatory act 

as required by the ADA and for that reason his charge of discrimination 

was untimely. In 

response, Grosset denied that his charge was untimely and made an 

additional claim that 

he suffered retaliation from Waste Management as recently as June 2000. 

The District 

Court denied the retaliation claim because Grosset failed to exhaust his 

administrative 

remedies with the EEOC. The court then granted summary judgment in favor 

of Waste 

Management. 

 Grosset makes several contentions on appeal. First, he alleges that 

he filed a 

notice of claim with the EEOC on June 10, 1999. This allegation was not 

raised in the 

District Court and no copy of any such notice appears in the record on 

appeal. Grosset 

instead argued in the District Court that because the EEOC processed his 

claim, it was 

timely. 

 Grosset next contends that he properly exhausted all required 

administrative 

remedies before bringing his retaliation claim for judicial relief. The 

District Court 

found, however, that Grosset failed to assert retaliation in his original 

EEOC charge. 

Indeed, the claimed retaliation did not occur until after the EEOC 

proceeding had 

terminated. 

 Finally, Grosset claims protection under the equitable tolling 

doctrine and the 

continuing violation theory. These theories, however, were first raised 

in this appeal. 
Issues and arguments not raised before the District Court cannot be raised 

for the first 

time on appeal. See Wilson v. Russo, 212 F.3d 781, 789, n.6 (3d Cir. 

2000) (citing 

Harris v. City of Philadelphia, 35 F.3d 840, 845 (3d Cir. 1994)). 

 For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the judgment of the 

District Court. 

 

 

TO THE CLERK: 

 Please file the foregoing Opinion. 

 By the Court, 

 

 /S/ Jane R. Roth 

 Circuit Judge