# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 6- 37 70

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Lau ren M. Hale s

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

v.

Cas ey ’s Mark et in g C om

pa ny

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll ee

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e So ut he rn Dis tri ct of I owa - Dav en po rt

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Octo be r 19 , 20 17
Fil ed : Ap ril 3, 2 01 8

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re WOL LMAN an d S HEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s, an d GOLDBERG, Ju dg e. 1

__ __ __ __ __ __

W OLLMAN, Circ ui t J ud ge

.

Lau ren Hale s su ed he r fo rm er em pl oyer, Cas ey ’s Mar ke ti ng Co m pa n y (Cas ey ’s), fo r ho st il e wor k en vi ro nm en t se xu al ha ra s s m en t (h os ti le wor k

en vi ro nm en t) an d ret al ia to ry te rm in at io n in vi ol at io n of Tit le VII of th e Ci vi l Ri gh ts

The Hon or ab le Ri ch ard W

. Go l db erg , Uni te d St at es Co ur t of In te rn at io na l 1

Trad e, si tt in g b y

de si gn at io n.Act of 19 64

, 42 U.S.C. § 20 00 e, e t s eq

. (Tit le VII) an d th e Io wa Ci vi l Ri gh ts Act

(ICR A), Io wa Co de § 21 6.1

, et se q. The di st ric t cou rt di sm is se d th e ICRA cl ai m as

ti m e-b arre d an d reject ed th e Tit le VII cl ai m s on su m m ary jud gm en t. It al so ex cl ud ed

ev id en ce o f pr ev io us sex ua l as sa ul ts an d e xp ert tes ti m on y . W e aff irm.

Eig ht een -y ear- ol d Hale s was em p l o ye d at Cas ey ’s Su m

m er St reet st or e in

Bu rli ng to n, Io wa, fro m Apr il 9, 20 13

, th ro ug h May 31

, 20 13

. On May 28 -2 9, 20 13

, Hale s wor ke d th e 9: 00 p.m to 5: 00 a.m

. sh ift at Cas ey ’s W es t Ave nu e st or e, al so
lo cat ed in Bu rli ng to n, Io wa. Thi s was he r se co nd ti m e wor ki ng at t hi s l oc at io n.

At ap pr ox im at el y 1: 44 a.m

. on May 29

, a m al e cu st om er en te red Cas ey ’s W es t

Ave nu e st or e, whe re he st ay ed fo r ap p r ox im at el y twen ty-two m in ut es

. Hale s ha d

ne ve r m et th is cu st om er be fo re. The cu st om er pu rch as ed so m e i t e ms an d be ga n

sp eak in g wit h Hale s, as ki ng he r if sh e ha d a bo y fri en d an d if sh e wor ke d at th e W es t

Ave nu e lo cat io n of

te n. He al so m ad e co m

m en ts ab ou t he r ap pe aran ce. The cu st om er

to ld Hale s ab ou t whe re he li ve d, whe re he wor ke d, wha t ki nd of ve hi cl e he dr ov e, th at

th ere was a da sh bo ard cam era on hi s veh ic le

, an d, us in g a se xu al ly su gg es ti ve to ne , th at he li ke d t o fi lm

th in gs

.

In an at te m

pt to “ el ud e” th e cu st om er, Hale s de ci de d th at sh e was go in g to go

ou ts id e to sm ok e a ci ga ret te . She ask ed a co -wo rk er to ke ep an ey e on he r be cau se

a cu st om er ha d be en “ hi tt in g on he r.” The co -wo rk er as ke d Hale s why sh e was go in g

ou ts id e if th e cu st om er was st il l in th e st or e an d su gg es te d th at Hale s sh ou ld jus t as k

hi m to lea ve . Hales res po nd ed th at sh e co ul d t ak e car e o f he rs el f.

Th e c u s t o mer fo ll owe d Hale s ou ts id e an d bl oc ke d th e en tra nc e to th e st or e.
Hale s as se rts th at aft er th e c u s t om er sa id th at “ hi s gi rlf rie nd cal ls hi m whe n it ’s

rai ni ng ou ts id e to te ll [h im ] ho w wet sh e is

, [b ut th at ] th at ’s hi s job ,” Hale s to ld hi m

to “ ba ck of

f.” The cu st om er rep li ed

, “ W ha t are y ou go in g to do ab ou t it ? ” In

r e s p o n s e, Hale s ex te nd ed he r ci ga ret te to ward s th e cu st om er in an at te m pt to m a k e

-2

-hi m m ov e away. The cu st om er in st ead st ep pe d to ward Hale s an d bu rn ed hi s le ft arm

on he r c i g a ret te

. The cu st om er reco il ed an d th en reen te red th e st or e, fo ll owe d by

Hale s.

The cu s t o mer ret ur ne d to th e Cas ey ’s W es t Ave nu e st or e th e ne xt da y an d

rep or te d t h a t H a le s ha d bu rn ed hi m wit h a ci ga ret te

. The W es t Ave nu e m an ag er

th erea fte r rev ie wed th e su rv ei ll an ce ta pe s, an d in fo rm ed th e Su m m er St reet lo cat io n

m an ag er ab ou t t he in ci de nt be twee n Hal es an d t he cu st om er.

W he n Hale s rep or te d fo r he r ne xt sh ift at Cas ey ’s Su m m er St reet st or e on May

31

, 20 13

, he r m an ag er as ke d he r if “ an y th in g ou t of th e or di na ry ha d ha pp en ed ” whi le

wor ki ng at th e W es t Ave nu e st or e. Hale s a ck no wled ge d th at sh e ha d bu rn ed a

cu st om er wit h he r ci ga ret te

, bu t st at ed th at sh e di d so in or de r to de fen d he rs el f. The

m an ag er t he reu po n t erm in at ed Hale s’s em pl oym en t.

On Ju ne 27

, 20 13

, an d Feb ru ary 10

, 20 14

, Hale s fil ed a co m pl ai nt wit h th e

Io wa Ci vi l Ri gh ts Co m

m is si on (ICR C), arg ui ng th at he r te rm in at io n wa s ba se d on
di sc riminat io n an d in ret al ia ti on fo r res is ti ng se xu al ha ras sm en t. The co m pl ai nt was

cro ss -fi le d wit h th e Equ al Em pl oym en t Opp or tu ni ty Co m m is si on (EEOC). On Ju ne 1, 20 14

, Hale s req ue st ed se pa rat e ad m in is tra ti ve rel eas e s fro m th e ICRC an d th e

EEOC. The ICRC is su ed Hale s an ad m in is tra ti ve rel eas e le t t e r on he r ICRA

co m pl ai nt on Ju ne 4, 20 14

. Th e EEOC m ai le d Hale s a Dis m is sa l an d Not ic e of

Ri gh ts on he r ret al ia ti on cl ai m on Sep te m be r 24

, 20 14

. It m ai le d Hales a Dis m is sa l

an d Not ic e of Ri g h t s on he r ho st il e wor k en vi ro nm en t cl ai m on Octo be r 8, 20 14

, whi ch sh e rece iv ed on Octo be r 13

, 20 14

. The EEOC’ s le tt ers st at ed th at a la wsu it

“ m us t be fil ed WI THI N 9 0 DAYS o f yo ur rece ip t of thi s no tic e, or yo u r rig ht to

su e ba se d on th is ch arg e wil l be lo st .” (em ph as is in or ig in al ). The EEOC se nt co pi es

of th e le tt er to Ja m es Hale s (Mr

. Hale s)

, who is Hale s’s fat he r as well as he r at to rn ey

.

-3

-Bo th se ts of le tt ers were se nt to th e sa m e res id en ti al ad dr es s, be cau se Hale s li ve d

th ere wi th he r fat he r fro m Ju ne 20 14 to Sep te m

be r 20 14

. 2

Hale s fil ed su it in fed eral di st ric t co ur t on Ja nu ary 7, 20 15

. Cas ey ’s m ov ed to

di sm is s un de r Ru le 12 (b )(6 ) arg ui ng th at Hal e s’s ICRA cl ai m was ti m e-b arre d

be cau se it was fi le d o ut si de th e st at ut or y fil in g p eri od

. See Io wa Co de § 2 16 .16 (4 )
(s ta ti ng th at “ an act io n

. . . is ba rred un le ss co m m en ced wit hi n n i n e t y d a ys a fte r
is su an ce by th e co m

m is si on of a rel eas e”)

. H a l e s arg ue d th at th e li m it at io n pe rio d

sh ou ld ap pl y on ly to pa rti es who wis h to ha ve th ei r cl ai m res ol ve d in st at e co ur t. Sh e

al so arg ue d th at he r cl ai m sh ou ld no t be ti m e-b arre d be cau se th e EEOC di d no t is su e

it s le tt er un ti l aft er th e st at e co ur t fil in g de ad li ne ha d ex p i r e d

. The di st ric t co ur t

di sa gr eed an d g ran te d C as ey ’s m ot io n t o d is m is s o n t he ICRA cl ai m

.

Hale s so ug ht to in tro du ce ev id en ce th at sh e ha d pr ev io us ly be en se xu al ly

as sa ul te d, al on g wit h te st im on y fro m he r co un se lo r th at Hale s ha d be en un de rg oi ng

th erap y in or de r to le arn to ha ve a vo ic e an d be “ em po wered ” to res is t se xu al as sa ul ts

. The di st ric t co ur t gr an te d Cas ey ’s m ot io n in l i mi n e an d m ot io n to ex cl ud e ex pe rt

op in io n an d te st im on y , co nc lu di ng th at ev id en ce of Hale s’s pr ev io us se xu al as sa ul ts

was no t re le va nt to he r ho st il e wor k e nv iro nm en t an d re ta li at io n c la im s.

The reaf te r, Cas ey ’s m ov ed fo r su m m ary ju d gm en t. The di st ric t co ur t

de te rm in ed th at th e ho st il e wor k en vi ro nm en t cl ai m fai le d as a m at te r of la w be cau se
Hale s di d no t sh ow “ se ve re or pe rv as iv e ha ras sm en t affe ct in g a te rm or co nd it io n of

he r em p l o ym e n t.” Hale s v. Cas ey ’s Mk tg

. Co

., No. 3: 15 -CV-0 00 04 -RGE, at 19
(Au g. 17

, 20 16 ). The co ur t al so co nc lu de d th at in li gh t of th e ci rcu m st an ces , Cas ey ’s

was no t li ab le fo r th e cu st om er’s co nd uc t. Hale s arg ue d th at th e cu st om er’s co nd uc t

sh ou ld be im

pu te d to Cas ey ’s be cau se Cas ey ’s ha d kn owl ed g e o f th e cu st om er’s

pr ev io us in ap pr op ria te co nd uc t an d ha d fai le d t o ta ke rem ed ia l act io n. The di st ric t

Mr. Hale s was us in g hi s ad dr es s as bo th a pr iv at e res id en ce an d a la w of fic e. 2

-4

-co ur t di sa gr eed

, co nc lu di ng th a t up on rece iv in g a pr ev io us rep or t th at th is sa m e

cu st om er ha d m ad e se xu al co m m en ts to fem al e em

pl oyees, Cas ey ’s to ok “ reas on ab le

act io n” by ha vi ng a m al e em pl oyee warn th e cu st om er th at if he co nt in ue d to bo th er

th e em pl oyees, th e po li ce wou ld be cal le d an d he wou ld be ba nn e d f r o m th e st or e.
Id . at 1 2.

The co ur t al so de te rm in e d t h at Hale s’s ret al ia ti on cl ai m fai le d bo th

pr oc ed ur al ly an d on th e m eri ts

. Pro ced ur al ly, th e co ur t ru le d th at th e cl ai m was ti m eba rred be cau se it was fil ed ou ts id e th e EEO C’ s nin ety -d ay li m it at io n pe rio d an d Hale s

ha d fai le d to es ta bl is h an y reas on why th e l i mi t a t i o n pe rio d sh ou ld be to ll ed

. The

co ur t fu rth er co nc lu de d th at Hale s’s ret al ia ti on cl ai m wou ld fai l on th e m eri ts be cau se
sh e was no t en ga ge d i n a ct iv it y pro te ct ed un de r Tit le VII.

I.

A. ICRA Cl ai m

Hale s arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t sh ou ld ha ve fo un d Io wa’s ni ne ty-day fil in g

pe rio d to be eq ui ta bl y to ll ed be cau se th e EEOC’ s rig ht -to -s ue le tt er was n o t is su ed

u n t i l a f te r th e ICRA st at ut or y fil in g pe rio d ha d ex pi red

. W e rev ie w th e gr an t o f a

12 (b )(6 ) m ot io n to di sm is s de no vo

. Sch m ed di ng v. Tne m ec Co

., In c., 18 7 F.3 d 86 2,

86 4 (8 th Cir . 19 99 ).

Hale s co nc ed es th at ab se nt to ll in g, he r ICRA cl ai m was un ti m el y fil ed

. Bu t sh e

arg ue s th at if th e ICRA fil in g de ad li ne is no t eq ui ta bl y to ll ed du rin g th e pe nd en cy of

an EEOC rev ie w sh e wou ld be es to pp ed fro m br in gi ng he r f e de ral cl ai m in fed eral

co ur t be cau se bo th cl ai m s aro se fro m a co m m on nu cl eu s of fact

. The Su pr em e Co ur t reject ed a si m il ar arg um en t in Jo hn so n v. Rai lway Exp res s Age nc y , In c., ho ld in g th at

th e fi li ng of a Tit le VII cl ai m wit h th e EEOC do es no t t ol l t he st at ut e o f li m it at io ns

in an act io n aris in g un de r 42 U.S.C. § 1 98 1 e ve n t ho ug h t he cla im s aros e ou t of the

-5

-sa m e nu cl eu s of fact

. 42 1 U.S. 45 4, 46 5 (1 97 5)

. The Co ur t ex pl ai ne d th at a pl ai nt iff

sh ou ld f i l e su it an d th en “ as k th e co ur t to st ay pr oc eed in gs un ti l th e ad m in is tra ti ve

effo rts

. . . an d vo lu nt ary co m pl ia nc e ha ve be en co m

pl e t ed .” Id

. If, on th e ot he r

ha nd

, a pl ai nt iff ha s a rig ht to fil e a § 19 81 cl ai m an d fai ls to do so —ev en if “ in du ced
by fait h i n t he ad eq ua cy

of h is Tit le VII rem ed y ”—t ha t pl ai nt iff ha s i n e ffec t “ sl ep t

on hi s § 198 1 rig ht []” to fil e su ch cla im , and th e cl ai m is co ns eq ue nt ly ti m e-b arre d.

I d . a t 46 6; se e al so Cas ta gn a v. Luc en o, 74 4 F.3 d 25 4, 25 8 (2 d Ci r. 20 14 ) (h ol di ng

th at “ as a m at t er of fed eral la w[,] fil in g an EEOC ch arg e do es no t to ll th e ti m e fo r

fil in g st at e to rt cl ai m s, in cl ud in g th os e th at a r i s e ou t of th e sa m e nu cl eu s of fact s

al le ge d in th e ch arg e of

di sc riminat io n fi le d wi th th e EEOC”); Ju arez v. Am eri te ch

Mo bi le Co m

m c’ns

, In c., 95 7 F.2 d 31 7, 32 3 (7 th Ci r. 19 92 ) (s ta ti ng th at “ th e ti m e fo r

fil in g [a st at e-l aw cl ai m ] is no t to ll ed by th e fil in g of a di sc riminat io n ch arg e wit h th e EEOC.”); Arn ol d v. Uni te d St at es , 81 6 F.2 d 13 06

, 13 13 (9 th Ci r. 19 87 ) (rejec ti ng

arg um en t t ha t s ta te -la w cla im s s ho ul d b e to ll ed by fili ng a Tit le VII cl ai m ).

Fo ll owi ng th e Su pr em e Co ur t’s rat io na le in Jo hn so n, we co nc lu de t ha t th e

pe nd en cy of an EEOC rev ie w do es no t to ll a st at e ci vi l rig ht s cl ai m an d th at Hale s’s

ICRA cl ai m is th us ti m e-b arre d. Bec au s e we ho ld th at Hale s’s ret al ia ti on cl ai m is

ti m e-b arre d, we n eed no t ad dr es s h er ev id en ti ary arg um en ts reg ard in g t ha t cl ai m

.

B. Hos ti le W or k En vi ro nm en t

Hale s arg u e s t h a t he r ho st il e wor k en vi ro nm en t cl ai m sh ou ld ha ve su rv iv ed

su m m ary jud gm en t be cau se th e cu st om er’s co nd uc t was se ve re en ou gh to affe ct a

te rm or co nd it io n of he r em pl oym en t an d be cau se Cas e y’s fai le d to ta ke su ffi ci en t

act io n d es pi te it s h av in g k no wled ge of t he cu st om er’s b eh av io r.

W e rev ie w th e di st ric t co ur t’s gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t de no vo

. Hen th or n

v. Cap it ol Co m

m c’ns

, In c., 35 9 F.3 d 10 21

, 10 24 (8 th Ci r. 20 04 ). Su m m ary jud gm en t

is pr op er if, whe n vi ewin g th e ev id en ce in a li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e no n- m ov in g

-6

-pa rty, no ge nu in e is su e of m at eri al fact ex is ts an d th e no nm ov in g pa rty is en ti tl ed to

jud gm en t as a m at te r of la w. Id

. at 10 26

. Mer e al le ga ti on s th at are no t su pp or te d by

sp eci fic fact s are in su ffi ci en t to es ta bl is h a ge nu in e is su e of m at eri al fact an d wil l no t

wit hs ta nd a su m

m ary jud gm en t m ot io n. Id

.

To pr ev ai l on a ho st il e wor k en vi ro n men t c l ai m , a pl ai nt iff m us t pr ov e th e

fo ll owi ng fiv e el em en ts : (1 ) th at sh e is a m em be r of a pr ot ect ed gr o u p ; ( 2 ) t h at sh e

was th e su bjec t of un welc om e se xu al ha ras sm en t; (3 ) th at a c a u s al ne xu s ex is te d

be twe e n t h e ha ras sm en t an d pr ot ect ed gr ou p st at us ; (4 ) th at ha ras sm en t affe ct ed a

te rm , co nd it io n, or pr iv il eg e of em pl oym e n t ; a n d ( 5 ) th at he r em pl oyer kn ew or
sh ou ld ha ve kn own of t h e ha ras sm en t an d fai le d to ta ke pr om pt an d effe ct iv e

rem ed ia l act io n. Klei n v. McGo wan , 19 8 F.3 d 70 5, 70 9 (8 th Ci r. 19 99 ). The fo ur th

el em en t in cl ud es bo th su bjec ti ve an d ob jecti ve co m

po ne nt s. Bl om ke r v. Je well

, 83 1

F.3 d 10 51

, 10 56 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 ). In or de r to sh ow th at th e ha ras sm en t affe ct ed a te rm

or co nd it io n of em

pl oym en t, “ th e co nd uc t m us t be su ffi ci en tl y se ve re or pe rv as iv e to

crea te an en vi ro nm en t th at a reas on ab le pe rs on wou ld fin d ho st il e or ab us iv e an d th at

act ua ll y al te red th e co nd it io ns of th e vi ct im ’s em pl oym en t.” Cri st v. Focu s Hom es , In c., 12 2 F .3d 11 07 , 11 11 (8t h C ir. 1 99 7)

.

Hale s arg ue s th at an is ol at ed in ci de nt m ay be su ffi ci en t t o e st ab li sh an effe ct

on an em pl oyee’s wor k co nd it io n. W hi le th is m ig ht be tru e in an “ ex tre m el y se rio us ”

in ci de nt

, th e in ci de nt in th is cas e do es no t m eet th e de m an di ng st an da rd se t fort h in

th e cas e la w. See Fara gh er v. Ci ty of Bo ca Rat on , 52 4 U .S. 77 5, 78 8 (1 99 8) ); se e

al so Alag na v. Sm it hv il le R-II Sch oo l Dis t

. , 32 4 F.3 d 97 5, 98 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 03 )
(h ol di ng th at a m al e te ach er’s to uc hi ng a fem al e te ach er, te ll in g he r th at he lo ve d he r,

an d act in g in ap pr op ria te ly fo r two y ears was no t su ffi ci en tl y se ve re to sa ti sf y a cl ai m

fo r ho st il e wor k en vi ro nm en t se xu al ha ras sm en t). Dur in g th e in ci de nt at Cas ey ’s, th e

cu st om er ne ve r to uc he d or ov ert ly th reat en ed Hale s. Alt ho ug h Hale s cl ai m s sh e fel t

th reat en ed , sh e h as fai le d to m ak e a su ffi ci en t s ho win g t ha t t he cu st om er’s co nd uc t

was so se ve re or pe rv as iv e as to affe ct a te rm , co nd it io n, or pr iv il eg e o f he r

-7

-em

pl oym en t. As a res ul t, we co nc lu de th at Hale s’s wor k en vi ro nm en t was no t so

of fen si ve as t o b e o bjec ti ve ly hos ti le . See Ala gn a, 32 4 F .3d at 9 80 -8 1.

Hale s ha s al so fai le d to sh ow th at Cas ey ’s kn ew of th e cu st om er’s h a r as si ng

co nd uc t bu t fai le d to ta ke rem ed ia l act io n. An em pl oyer’s li ab il it y tu rn s on whe th er

t h e em pl oyer was aware of th e co nd uc t an d whe th er it to ok ap pr op ria te act io n t o

rem ed y th e ci rcu m st an ces in a ti m el y an d ap pr op ria te m an ne r. S e e C r i s t, 12 2 F.3 d

at 11 11

. W he n Cas ey ’s rece iv ed th e fir st co m pl ai nt fro m th e ot he r fem al e em pl oyees,

it to ok im m ed ia te act io n, te ll in g th e cu st om er th at he wou ld be ba nn ed fro m th e st or e

an d th at th e po li ce wou ld be cal le d if hi s be ha vi or co nt in ue d. Acco rd in gl y , be cau se
Hale s fai ls to sa ti sf

y bo th th e fo ur th an d fif

th el em en ts req ui red un de r a Tit le VII

ho st il e wor k en vi ro nm en t cl ai m , th e di st ric t co ur t co rrec tl y gr an te d su m m ary jud gm en t i n fa vo r of

Cas ey ’s. 3

W e t u r n t he n to Hale s’s arg um en t th at th e di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n

in ex cl ud in g ev id en ce of he r pr ev io us se xu al as sa ul t an d he r rel at ed t h e r a p y. Sh e

co nt en ds th at th e ev id en ce wou ld ha ve gi ve n co nt ex t to th e in ci de nt wit h th e

cu st om er an d wou ld ha v e t e n d e d t o sh ow th at Hale s act ed reas on ab ly in th e
ci rcu m st an ces

. To su pp or t he r arg um en t, Hale s ci te s Onc al e v. Su nd own er Offs ho re

Serv ic es , In c., whi ch st at es , “ [c]om m on se ns e, an d an ap pr op ria te se ns it iv it y to so ci al

co nt ex t, wi ll en ab le co ur ts an d ju rie s to di st in gu is h be twee n si m pl e te as in g . . . an d

co nd uc t w h i c h a reas on ab le pe rs on in th e pl ai nt iff ’s po si ti on wou ld fin d se ve rel y

ho st il e o r ab us iv e.” 5 23 U.S. 75 , 82 (1 99 8)

.

Hale s’s rel ia nc e on Onc al e is m isp la ce d, how ev er, fo r th e so ci al co nt ex t in qu iry

Onc al e sa y s sh ou ld be ex am in ed rel at es to whet he r a rea so na bl e p ers on wou ld fin d

It is un se tt le d la w i n ou r ci rcu it whe th er an em pl oyer may b e h el d li ab le fo r 3

th e act io ns of a cu st om er un de r a ho st il e wor k en vi ro nm en t se xu al ha ras sm en t cl ai m

. W e are ass um in g, wi th ou t d eci di ng , th at su ch a cl ai m can be m ai nt ai ne d.

-8

-th e h aras sm en t s o s ev ere t ha t it wou ld affe ct a te rm or c on di ti on of e m

pl oym en t. It

do es no t, as Hale s su gg es ts

, req ui re co ur t s t o de lv e in to a pl ai nt iff ’s pe rs on al

ba ck gr ou nd whe n as se ss in g th e ob jecti ve se ve rit y of ha ras sm en t. Thu s, we co nc lu de

th at th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s d i s c r e ti on in ex cl ud in g th e ev id en ce as

irr el ev an t un de r Fed eral Ru le of Evi de nc e 40 1. See Koz lo v v. Ass oc ia te d W ho le sa le

Gro cers , Inc ., 81 8 F .3d 38 0, 3 96 (8t h C ir. 2 01 6) (st an da rd of r ev ie w).

C. Ret al ia to ry

Dis cri m in at io n

Hale s al so m ai nt ai ns th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in gr an ti ng su m m ary jud gm en t

in fav or of Cas ey ’s be cau se he r ret al ia ti on cl ai m was ti m el y fil ed ba se d on whe n sh e

rece iv ed th e EEOC’s adm in is tra ti ve rel eas e le tt er.

Ti t l e VII al lo ws an ag gr ie ve d pa rty t o br in g a ci vi l act io n wit hi n ni ne ty d ays

aft er no ti ce of di sm is sa l is gi ve n by th e EEOC. See 42 U.S.C. § 20 00 e-5 (f)(1 ). Thi s

ni ne ty-day pe rio d co ns ti tu te s a l i mi t a t i o n s pe rio d th at ba rs a su it th at is no t fil ed

wit hi n th at ti m e. Payan v. Aram ark Mg m t. Servs

. Ltd

. P’sh ip

, 49 5 F.3 d 11 19

, 11 21
(9 th Cir . 20 07 ). It is th eref or e cru ci al to asc ert ai n t he da te on whi ch th e n in et y -d ay

pe rio d be ga n to ru n to de te rm in e whe th er a Ti tl e VII ac ti on was t im el y fil ed

. Id . a t

11 21 -2 2.

“ Gen eral ly, th e ni ne ty-day fil in g pe rio d be gi ns to ru n on th e da y th e rig ht to su e
le tt er is rece iv ed at th e m os t rece nt ad dr es s th at a pl ai nt iff ha s pr ov id ed th e EEOC.”

Hil l v. Jo hn Ch ezi k Im

ps ., 86 9 F.2 d 11 22

, 11 24 (8 th Ci r. 19 89 ). It is pr es um ed th at

a p l a i n t iff wil l rece iv e th e no ti ce th ree da y s aft er th e m ai li ng da te

. Fed . R . C iv . P

. 6( d) ; se e al so Bal dwi n Ct y

. W el co m e Ct r. v. Bro wn, 4 6 6 U

. S

. 1 4 7, 14 8 n.1 (1 98 4)
(p er cu ria m ) (s ta ti ng th at th e pr es um ed da te of rece ip t fo r an EEOC rig ht to su e le tt er

was J a n ua ry 30 aft er it was m ai le d Ja nu ary 27 ). Bec au se it is un di sp ut ed th at th e

EE O C is su ed it s le tt er on Hale s’s ret al ia ti on cl ai m on Sep te m be r 24

, 20 14

, i t i s

th eref or e pr es um ed th at Hale s rece iv ed th e le tt er on Sep te m be r 27

, 20 14

. Hale s fil ed

-9

-su it on Ja nu ary 7, 20 15 —m or e th an 10 0 da y s aft er th e pr es um ed rece ip t of th e le tt er.

Hale s cl ai m s th at sh e di d no t rece iv e he r rig ht to su e l e t t e r r e l a te d to he r

ret al ia ti on cl ai m un ti l Ju ne 3, 20 15 , b ut sh e ha s of fere d no ev id en ce to su pp or t th is

cl a i m, a n d s h e do es no t ex pl ai n why sh e fil ed he r su it si x m on th s be fo re th at da te

. Sh e ci te s h er t hi rd am en de d c om pl ai nt , whi ch al le ge s th at th e le tt er arriv ed on Ju ne 3, 20 15

, as well as he r fat he r’s Feb ru ary 9, 20 16

, de po si ti on te st im on y th at he was th e

on ly pe rs on to co l l e c t t h e mai l rel at ed to th e la wsu it an d th at he di d no t rem em be r

rece iv in g th e rig ht to su e le tt er, sa y in g, “ I kn ow I di d no t rece iv e th is [Sep te m be r 24

, 20 14

, le tt e r ]. ” J.A. 41 6. Hale s th us ha s fai le d to su bs ta nt ia te he r al le ga ti on “ wit h

su ffi ci en t pr ob at iv e ev id en ce th at wou ld pe rm it a fin di ng in he r fav or ba se d on m or e

th an m ere sp ecu la ti on [o r] co njec tu re.” See Cl ay v. Cred it Bu reau Ent ers ., In c., 75 4

F

. 3 d 5 3 5, 53 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ) (ci ta ti on an d in te rn al br ack et s om it te d)

. Mo reo ve r,
Hale s’s te st im on y th at sh e di d no t read he r m ai l fro m th e EE O C a n d he r fat he r’s

ad m is si on th at he di d no t di li ge nt ly ch eck hi s m ai l m il it at e m ig ht il y ag ai ns t an y cl ai m

fo r e q u it ab le to ll in g. See Hil l, 86 9 F.2 d at 11 24 (s ta ti ng th at eq ui ta bl e to ll in g no t

ap pr op ria te whe n th e pl ai nt iff di d no t in fo rm th e EEOC of he r ne w ad dr es s) ; Bro wn,

4 6 6 U

. S. at 15 1 (h ol di ng th at a pl ai nt iff “ who fai ls to act di li ge nt ly can no t i n v o k e

eq ui ta bl e p rin ci pl es to ex cu se th at lac k o f di li ge nc e”).

The jud gm en t i s af

fir m ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-1 0-