N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT PEGGY JONES, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt,
v. SC ORPIO GOLD (US) C ORPOR ATION, De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 13-15831 D.C . No. 3:12-c v-00508-LRHW GC
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ne v a da Larry R . Hic ks, Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 10, 2016 * * San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : THOM AS, C hie f Judge and SC HR OEDER and NGUYEN, C irc uit Judge s. Pe ggy Jone s a ppe a ls from

the distric t c ourt’ s dism i ssa l of he r a c tion a lle ging disc rim ination unde r Title VII of the C ivil Rights Ac t of 1964 (“ Title VII” ). W e re ve rse . B e c a

use the pa rtie s a re fam ilia r with thefa c ts a

nd the proc e d

ura l history , we ne e d not re c ount the m he re . 

# FIL ED FEB 12 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).Although a num be r of argum e nts we re pre se nte d to the distric t c ourt, the only issue on a

p pe a l i s whe the r Jone s’ s c ha rge of disc rim i nation to the Equa l Opportunity

Em ploy m e nt C om

m ission (“ EEOC ” ) re late s ba c k to a le tte r a nd dra ft
c om pla i nt she se nt to theEEOC through c ounse l. If so, thec h arge wa s tim e ly file d ; if not, the

filing wa s untim e ly
. The c onte nts of a

Title VII disc rim inat ion c ha rge are gove rne d by

29 U.S.C
. § 1601.12. Se e Ede lman v . Ly nc hburg C oll. , 535 U.S. 106, 118 (2002). Se c tion 1601.12(b) pe rm its Title

VII c om pla ina nts to “ c ure te c hnic a l de fe c t s or om issions” in the ir initia l filings, so long as “ the pe rson m aking thec ha rge ” tim e ly se nt the EEOC “ a writte n s tate m e nt suffic ie ntly pre c ise to ide ntify the pa rtie s, a nd to de sc ribe ge ne ra lly

the a c tion or pra c tic e s c om p la ine d of.” An EEOC c ha rge is
c onside re d suffic ie n t if it is “ in writing . . . na m e [s] the prospe c tive re sponde nt a nd . . . ge ne ra lly a l l e ge [s] the disc rim inatory a c t(s).” Se e Fe de ral Ex

pre ss C o rp. v . Holow e c k

i , 552 U.S. 389, 396 (2008) (a lte ra tion in origina

l ) (c ita tion omi tte d). He re , Jone s’ s initial c orre sponde n c e wa s “ suffic i e ntly pre c ise ” to c onstitute
a c ha rge unde r § 1601.12(b): it ide ntifie d the a c c use r and the a c c use d, it a l le ge d the disc rim inatory

a c tion c om

pla ine d of, it c onta i ne d c om p le te c onta c t inform ation for the a c c use r’ s c ounse l, a

n d it re que ste d re m e d i a l a c tion. Though it om i tte d Jone s’ s phone num

be r and a ddre ss, this wa s a “ t e c hnic a l de fe c t[] or om ission[] ” tha t 2§ 1601.12(b) pe rm its Jone s to c ure . Whe n she c ure d the de fe c t s through he r

subse q ue nt c ha rge , it “ re late [d] ba c k to the date the c ha rge wa s first re c e i ve d.” 29 C .F.R . § 1601.12(b). Thus, the othe rwise late file d EEOC c h a rge be c am e tim e ly be c a use it re l ate d ba c k

to he r initia l le tte r and dra ft c om p la int. Sc orpio’ s a

rgum e n t tha t § 1601.12(b) a

pplie s only to TitleVII c om p la ina nts who do not re ta in c o unse l is unpe rsua sive . While c ourts m ay offe r a dditiona l le nie nc y to pro se c om

pla ina n ts, c ourts do not im

pose artific ia lly

highe r sta

nda rds whe n a c om pla ina n t ge ts a la wy e r. H e inige r v . C

ity of Phoe nix , 625 F.2d 842, 844 (9th C ir. 1980). Nothing in § 1601.12 or § 1601.7 a lte rs this princ iple . Nor do
e quita ble tolling c a se s gove rn he re , a s Sc o rpio a sse rts. Jone s doe s not re l y on re lation ba c k a s a

n e quita ble p rinc iple ; rathe r, she re lie s on it a s a provision se t forth by re gula tion. W e ne e d not, a

nd do not, re a c h a

ny othe r argum e n t a sse rte d by the p artie s.

RE V E RSE D AND RE M ANDE D.

3