### F I LE D U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E LEVE NTH CI RCUI T Se pt e m be r 9, 2005 T HOM AS K. KAHN C L E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 10947 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 04 -007 02 -C V -J M F -1 T O M M Y E . R O B I N S O N , C S I I n s p e c to r , U S D A F S I S , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s M I K E J O J A N N S , S e c r e ta ry o f

A g r ic u ltu r e , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lle e .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o r th e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( S e p t e m b e r 9, 2005) B efo re T JO F L A T , B IR C H an d B A R K E T T , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: I n h is c o m p la in t in th is c a s e , T o m m y R o b in s o n , a6 0 - y e a r - o ld b la c km a leA l th o ughRo b i n s o n ’ s c o mp l ai ntal l e g e s ag edi s c ri m in ati o ninv i o l ati o no f T i tl eV II, 1 discrimination on the basis of ag e is prohibited under the Ag e Discrimination in Employ ment Act (“ADEA” ), 29 U.S.C. § 623(a)( 1), not Title VII . We theref ore tre at the ag e claim as having been brought under the ADEA. An ag ency, h ow e ver, “ sh all extend th e45 -day tim elimit in p aragra

ph(a)( 1) of

thi s 2 section when the individual shows that . . . he or she did not know a nd rea sonably

should not have known that the discriminatory matter or personnel action occurred.” Id. § 1614.105(a) (2). This provision provides Robinson no relief in this case; that is, nothingin the complaint sug g ests, much less alleg es, that the Department should be he ld to have extended the 45- day limit . 2 e m pl oy e e of

the F ood S a f

e ty a nd I ns pe c t i on S e rvi c e ( “ F S I S ” ) , adi vi s i on of the U ni t e d S t a t e s D e pa r tm e ntof A gr i c ul tur e ( “ D e pa r tm e nt ” ) , a l l e ge d tha tthe D e p a r tm e n t d is c r im in a te d a g a in s t h im o n a c c o u n t o f h is a g e , s e x , a n d r a c e , in v io la tio n o f

T itle V I I o f

th e C iv il R ig h ts A c t o f 1 9 6 4 ( “T itle V I I ” ) , 4 2 U .S .C . § 2 0 0 0 e - 2 ( a ) ( 1 ) , w h e n if

r e f u s e d to p r o m o te h im to th e p o s itio n o f C u s to m e rS a f

e ty O f f i c e . O n the D e pa r tm e nt ’ s F e d. R . C i v. P . 12( b) ( 6) m ot i on t o di s m i s s , the 1 di s tr i c tc our tc onc l ude d tha tthe c om pl a i ntf a i l e d t o s t a t e ac l a i m f

orr e l i e f a nd d is m is s e d it. T h e c o u r t d id s o o n th e g r o u n d , a m o n g o th e r s , th a t R o b in s o n f a ile d to c o n ta c t a n E E O c o u n s e lo r( a n d c o m p la in ab o u t th e a lle g e d d is c r im in a tio n ) w ith in th e t i me l i mi tp r e s c r i b e d b y l a w . Ro b i n s o n n o w ap p e a l s . W e a f f i rm. F e de r a l s e c t ore m pl oy e e s , s uc h a s R obi ns on, w ho be l i e ve tha tthe y ha ve b e e n s u b je c t to d is c r im in a tio n , m u s t in itia te c o n ta c t w ith a n E E O c o u n s e lo rw ith in 4 5 d a y s o f

th e e f f e c tiv e d a te o f

th e p e r s o n n e l a c tio n . S e e 2 9 C .F .R . § 1 6 1 4 .1 0 5 ( a ) ( 1 ) . A n e m p lo y e e w h o f a ils to d o s o s u f

f e r s th e d is m is s a l o f

h is 23

c o m p la in t. I d . § 1 6 1 4 .1 0 7 ( a ) ( 2 ) ; c f . M a n n in g v . C a r lin , 7 8 6 F .2 d 1 1 0 8 , 1 1 0 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 6 ) . T he re cord i nd i ca t es that , on S ept em ber 17, 20 01 , the D epartm enti nform ed R ob i nson thatsom eone el se had b ee n cho se n for the C ust om erS af ety O ff i ce p o s itio n h e w a s s e e k in g . H e c o n ta c te d th e E E O c o u n s e lo ro n D e c e m b e r1 3 , 2 0 0 1 , 4 2 d a y s a f

t e rth e 4 5 - d a y p e r i o d f

o rc o n t a c t i n g ac o u n s e l o rh a d e x p i r e d . E v e n i f we w e r e t o a s s um e tha tthe 45- da y pe r i od di d notbe gi n t o run unt i l O c t obe r16, 2001, w he n R obi ns on f

i l e d agr i e va nc e w i th hi s uni on c om pl a i ni ng of s e x a nd a ge d is c r im in a tio n , th e c o n ta c t w a s s till u n tim e ly

— 1 3 d a y s la te . I n a n a tt e m p tt o g e ta r o u n d th e l i m i t a t i o n s b a r , R o b i n s o n m a k e s two a r g u m e n ts . F ir s t, h e s a y s th a t h e d id n o t le a rn o f th e u n la w f

u l d is c r im in a tio n u n til N ove m be r15, 2001. W e r e j e c tthi s a r gum e ntbe c aus e he di d notpr e s e nti tt o the di stri ctcourt . S ec on d, he says thathe di d n otl ea rn thatthe pers on w ho ob t ai ned th e p o s itio n , D e b r aD a v is , is w h ite u n til s o m e tim e a f te rh e f ile d h is g r ie v a n c e w ith the uni on on O c t obe r16, 2001. T hus , the 45- da y pe r i od di d notbe gi n t o run on thatdat e. W e r ej ec tthi s argum entfor the sa m e r ea son w e r ej ec tthe fi rs ton e; R o b in s o n f

a ile d to p r e s e n t it to th e d is tr ic t c o u r t. T he pr e r e qui s i t e of

t i m e l y c ont a c tw i th a n E E O c ouns e l ori s not j ur i s di c t i ona l , a nd i s s ubj e c tt o w a i ve r , e s t oppe l a nd e qui t abl e t ol l i ng. S e e 294

C . F . R . § 1614. 604( c ) ; s e e a l s o Z i pe s v. T r a ns W or l d A i r l i ne s , I nc . , 455 U . S . 385, 3 9 3 , 1 0 2 S . C t . 1 1 2 7 , 1 1 3 2 , 7 1 L . E d . 2 d 2 3 4 (1 9 8 2 ). E q u i t ab l e t o l l i n g ap p l i es

“ w hen the defendantm i sl ea ds [pl ai nt i ff ] i nt o al l ow i ng the st atut ory per i od t o l apse , w hen [pl ai nt i ff

] has no rea sonabl e w ayof di sc ov er i ng the w rong perpetra t ed a g a in s t [ h im ], o rw h e n [ p la in tif f ] f ile s ate c h n ic a lly d e f

e c tiv e p le a d in g a n d in a ll other r es pect s a ct s w i th the prop erdi l i gence w hi ch st atut es of l i m i t at i on s w er e i nt e nde d t o i ns ur e . ” J us t i c e v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 6 F . 3d 1474, 1479 ( 11th C i r . 1993) ( c ita tio n s o m itte d ) . W e ha ve c ons i de r e d, a nd r e j e c t , the not i on tha tR obi ns on’ s f i l i ng of the gr i e va nc e w i th the uni on t ol l e d the 45- da y pe r i od. H e s ugge s t s tha tthe D epartm ent ’ s r equestfor a n ext ensi on of t i m e t o res po nd t o h i s gri evance opera t ed to to ll th e lim ita tio n s p e r io d . S u c h r e q u e s t, h o w e v e r , d id n o t m e e t th e e q u itab le t o l l i n g t estseto u tab o v e. M o reo v er, R o b i n so n fai l s t o st at e h o w th i s req u est p r e v e n te d h im f

r o m c o n ta c tin g a n E E O c o u n s e lo r . W e f i nd no ba s i s f

ordi s turbi ng the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de c i s i on. AF F I R ME D.