### 2002 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

3-5-2002 

# Gr o s set v . W a s t e M g t I nc

P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al :

D ock e t 1-1225

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w

. v i l l a no v a

. e du/thir dc ir c uit_2002

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. I t h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2002 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min

. C a rl s on@l a

w

. v i l l a no v a

. e du

. 

### R e c omme nde d C it a t ion

" Gr os s e t v . W as t e M g t I nc " (2002). 2002 D e cisio n s

. P a pe r 150. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w

. v i l l a no v a

. e du/thir dc ir c uit_2002/150NOT 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 Co urt for the Eastern District of Pennsylvani a (D.C. Civil Action No. 00-cv-03251) District Judge: Honorable Robert F. Kell y

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 Distri ct Judge for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation.

_______________

OPINION

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

District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granting d efendant Waste Management Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment. Grosset filed suit ag ainst 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 accommod ate his disability in September 1998, thereby causing his disability to worsen. Gr osset submitted a signed claim to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on O ctober 17, 1999, which

was stamped as received on October 20, 1999. In moving for summary judgment, Waste Manageme nt contended that Grosset did not file his charge with the EEOC within the 300 da ys of the alleged discriminatory act as required by the ADA and for that reason his char ge of discrimination was untimely. In response, Grosset denied that his charge was untime ly and made an additional claim that he suffered retaliation from Waste Management as re cently 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 sum mary 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. Th is allegation was not raised in the District Court and no copy of any such notice appea rs in the record on appeal. Grosset instead argued in the District Court that because t he EEOC processed his claim, it was timely. Grosset next contends that he properly exhaust ed all required administrative remedies before bringing his retaliation claim for judicial relief. The District Court found, however, that Grosset failed to assert retal iation 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 e quitable tolling doctrine and the continuing violation theory. These theories, howev er, 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 (3 d 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