A ft erexami ni ng the br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned * unani m ous l ythator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tt he det erm i nat i on of th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )(2 ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. T h is o rd e r a n d ju d g m e n t is notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, how ever , fori t s per s uas i ve val ue c o n s is te n t w ith F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 2 .1 a n d 1 0 th C ir . R . 3 2 .1 . FI LED Unite d St at e s C ourt o f Appe als

Te nt h Ci r c uit 

### O c t ob e r 10, 2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E T E N T H C IR C U IT QUI NCY GERALD KEE LE R,

P lain tiff-A p p e llan t, v. CE RE A L FO O D PRO CE SSO RS,

D efe ndant - A ppel l ee. N o. 07- 3055 ( D . C . N o . 0 6 - C V - 1 0 6 2 - J T M)

(D . K a n .)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e P O R F IL IO , AN DE RS ON , and BA LD OCK , C i rcui tJudg es. Q ui ncyG er al d K eel erappea l s pr o s e fr om t he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s di s m i s s al of hi s di s cr i m i nat i on cl ai m s underT i t l e V I I of the C i vi l R i ght s A ctof 1964, 4 2 U. S . C. § § 2 0 0 0 e - 2 a n d 2 0 0 0 e - 3 . Ex e r c i s i n g j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 9 1 , w e a ffirm in p a rt a n d re v e rse in p a rt.-2- Backgr ound M r . K eel erbegan w or k as a t empora ryempl oy ee forC er eal Food Pr oces s or s ( C FP) i n February2003. H e bec ame a ful l - t i m e empl oy ee i n J une 2 0 0 3 a n d c o n tin u e d to w o rk fo r C F P u n til h e w a s te rm in a te d in D e c e m b e r 2 0 0 4 . M r. K e e ler filed fo u r c h a rg e s o f d isc rim in a tio n w ith th e K a n sa s H u m a n R ig h ts C om m i s s i on and the Equal E m pl oym entO ppor tuni tyC om m i s s i on ( E E O C ) r el at ed t o hi s empl oym entw i th C FP. H e fi l ed hi s Fi r s tC har ge i n February2004, cl ai m i ng t hatC FP di s cr i m i nat ed aga i ns thi m bas ed on hi s r ace ( A fr i can A m er i can) and hi s age ( tw enty - s i x y ear s ol d atthe t i m e) , i n t empora r i l yl ay i ng h im o ff in D e c e m b e r 2 0 0 3 , w h ile re tain in g a n o ld e r, C a u c a sia n e m p lo y e e w ith l es s s eni or i ty . H e al l eged thathe fi l ed a gr i evanc e w i th C FP m anage m ent conce rni ng hi s l ay off a nd t hatC FP subs equent l yfor ced hi m t o per form danger ous w or k i n r et al i at i on forhavi ng openl yoppos ed C FP’s di s cr i m i nat oryact s and pr act i ces . H e l at eramended hi s Fi r s tC har ge t o add a c l ai m of r et al i at i on for c o m p lain in g to C F P m a n a g e m e n t ab o u t in c id e n ts o f se x u a l h a ra ss m e n t. M r . K e e l e rfi l e d h i s Se c on d Cha r ge i n Augus t20 04 , c l a i mi ng tha tCFP acc us ed hi m of m aki ng t hr eat s of vi ol ence , pl ace d hi m on a pai d l eave of abs ence , and r equi r ed hi m t o s ee a ps y chi atr i s t . H e al l eged di s cr i m i nat i on byC FP base d o n a p erc eive d d isab il ityan d in retali ati o n fo r fil ing h is FirstC h arg e. In N ovember2004 he fi l ed hi s T hi r d C har ge, agai n al l egi ng r et al i at i on byC FP base d u p o n h is fili n g o f

th e F irst C h a rg e . H e c laim e d th a t o n sp e c ified d a tes in-3-

February , J ul y , A ugus t , and Sept ember , 2004, C FP cr i t i ci zed hi s j ob per form ance and r epr i m anded hi m forhi s att endanc e, i n r et al i at i on forhi s di s cr i m i nat i on c o m p lain t. T he EE O C i s s ued a r i ght - t o- s ue l et t eron M r . K eel er ’ s Second C har ge on O ct ober19, 2004, buthe di d notfi l e a l aw s ui tw i thi n ni netyday s of hi s r ece i ptof th a t le tte r. See 42 U . S. C . § 2000e- 5( f) ( 1) ( pr ovi di ng ci vi l act i on m aybe br ought w ith in n inetyd ay s o f n o ti ce o f righ t t o su e b yE E O C ). C F P term inated M r. K eel er ’ s empl oym enti n D ece m ber2004. Sever al m onths l at er , on A pr i l 26, 2 0 0 5 , th e E E OC i s s u e d r i g h t - t o - s u e l e t t e r s o n h i s F i r s ta n d T h i r d Ch a r g e s . He fi l ed hi s Four th C har ge i n J une 2005, al l egi ng thathe w as t erm i nat ed byC FP on D ece m ber17, 2004, i n r et al i at i on forhavi ng fi l ed hi s T hi r d C har ge. M r . K eel erfi l ed hi s Fi r s tA ct i on i n di s tr i ctcourton J ul y25, 2005, al l egi ng r ace di s cr i m i nat i on and r et al i at i on i n vi ol at i on of Ti t l e V I I . I n hi s compl ai nthe id e n tifie d C F P ’s d isc rim in a to ryc o n d u c t as h is te rm in a tio n , h is la y o ff in D ece m ber2003, and r et al i at i on. H e al l eged thatC FP re t al i at ed aga i ns thi m for hi s compl ai nt s aboutt he l ay off a nd s exual har as s m ent , and he a t t ache d a l engthy l et t er further det ai l i ng his al l egati on s. T he d i stri ctcou rtdis m i ssed the F i rs t A c tio n o n S e p tem b e r 1 3 , 2 0 0 5 , af ter M r. K e e ler fa iled to sp e c if yh is e x p e n se s in supp ortof h i s A pp l i cat i on for L eave to F i l e A ct i on W i tho ut Paym ent of F ees, C o sts , o r S e c u rity . H e d id n o t ap p e a l th a t d ism iss a l.-4-

T he EE O C i s s ued a r i ght - t o- s ue l et t eron M r . K eel er ’ s Four th C har ge on D e c e m b e r 1 9 , 2 0 0 5 , a n d h e file d th is a c tio n in d is tr ic t c o u rt o n M a rc h 1 6 , 2 0 0 6 . H i s c ompl a i nt s i n thi s a c t i on a nd hi s Fi r s tA c t i on a r e s ub s t a nt i a l l yi de nt i c a l . CFP m oved forj udgm enton the pl eadi ngs underFed. R . C i v. P. 12( c) , ar gui ng that th is a c tio n sh o u ld b e d ism iss e d a s tim e -b a rre d b e c a u se M r. K e e ler fa iled to file it w ith in n in e tyd a y s o f

re c e iv in g th e a p p lica b le r ig h t-to -su e lette rs, o r a ltern a tiv e ly thatcert ai n cl ai m s s houl d be di s m i s s ed forfai l ur e t o exhaus tadmi ni s tr at i ve rem edies . T he di s tr i ctcourtgr ant ed C FP’s m ot i on. I ti ni t i al l yhel d thatal l of the cl ai m s al l eged i n M r . K eel er ’ s Fi r s t , Second, and Thi r d C har ges w er e t i m e- barr ed beca us e he fai l ed t o fi l e thi s act i on w i thi n ni netyday s of hi s r ece i ptof anyof the r i ght - t o- s ue l ett er s on thos e cha r ges . A l though he had f i l ed the Fi r s tA ct i on w ith in n inetyd ay s o f th e A p ri l 26 , 2 0 0 4 , ri g h t- to-su e lett ers o n h is Firstan d T h ir d C har ges , the di s tr i ctcourthel d thati t s di s m i s s al of thatcas e w i thoutpr ej udi ce d id n o t to ll th e s ta tu to ry filin g d e a d lin e u n d e r T itle V II . See Brown v. Har ts hor ne P u b . Sc h . D is t. No . 1 , 9 2 6 F . 2 d 9 5 9 , 9 6 1 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 1 ) (B ro w n II) (“ C o u rts have s peci fi cal l yhel d thatt he fi l i ng of a c om pl ai ntthati s di s m i s s ed w i thout pr ej udi ce doe s nott ol l t he s t atut or yfi l i ng per i od of Ti t l e V I I . ”) M r . K eel er does n o t i d en ti fyan yerro r i n this po rt ion o f th e d istri ct co u rt ’s ruli n g an d w e the refo re aff i r m the di s m i s s al of hi s cl ai m s al l eged i n hi s Fi r s t , Second, and Thi r d C har ges a s u n t i m e l y.-5-

T h e d istri ct co u rtfu rth er c o n clud ed that M r. K ee ler’s cl aim o f re tal iat o ry t erm i nat i on w as t i m e- barr ed bec aus e i tw as encompas s ed byhi s T hi r d C har ge: [ P ]la in tiff ’s c laim o f

re talia tio n b a se d o n h is 2 0 0 4 ter m in a tio n sh o u ld a lso b e d ism iss e d , sin c e th e p lain tiff tre a ted th is c laim a s p a rt o f h is fi r s tl a w s u i ta n d , th e r e fo r e , fa i l e d t o fi l e th i s l a w s u i tw i th i n 9 0 d a ys of r ece i vi ng a N ot i ce of R i ght s . T he pl ai nt i ff i ncl uded pr eci s el ythe s ame al l egat i on i n hi s fi r s tl aw s ui t , w hi ch w as fi l ed s even months aft erhe w as t erm i nat ed fr om C er eal Food, and one mont h aft erhe fi l ed hi s four th admi ni s tr at i ve cha r ge. T he pl ai nt i ff’ s al l egat i on of te rm in a tio n w a s e n c o m p a s s e d b yh is th ir d c h a rg e . See Brown [ v. Ha r ts h o r n e P u b . Sc h . D is t. No . 1 ], 8 6 4 F . 2 d [6 8 0 ] at 68 2 (10 th C ir . 1988) ( T i t l e V I I cl ai m s m ay“enc om pas s anydi s cr i m i nat i on l i ke or r eas onabl yr el at ed t o the al l egat i ons of the EE O C char ge, i ncl udi ng new act s occurr i ng dur i ng the pende ncyof the cha r ge befor e the E E O C ”) . H er e, the pl ai nt i ff us ed hi s thi r d admi ni s tr at i ve cha r ge as the bas i s forr ai s i ng pr eci s el ythe cl ai m of r et al i at or yt erm i nat i on now i n i s s ue. R . , V ol . I I , D oc. 23 at4. M r . K eel erchal l enges thi s rul i ng on appea l , cont endi ng thatthe di s tr i ctcourterr ed i n di s m i s s i ng hi s t erm i nat i on cl ai m beca us e he f i l ed th is a c tio n w ith in n in e tyd a y s o f re c e iv in g th e rig h t-to -su e lette r o n h is F o u rth C har ge. D is cus s i on W e r evi ew de novo a di s tr i ctcourt ’ s rul i ng on a mot i on forj udgm enton t he p le a d in g s u n d e r R u le 1 2 (c ). Nels on v. Stat e Farm Mut . A ut o. Ins . C o. , 419 F. 3d 1 1 1 7 , 1 1 1 9 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). T h e d istri ct co u rtd eterm ined that M r. K ee ler’s r et al i at oryt erm i nat i on cl ai m w as unt i m el yunderthe ni nety - dayt i m e per i od for fi l i ng an ac t i on pur s uantt o § 2000e- 5( f) ( 1) , w hi ch i s “i n the natur e of a s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons . ” B i es t erv. Mi dw es tHeal th Ser vs . , Inc. , 77 F. 3d 1264, 1267-6-

( 10th C i r . 1996) . W hethera di s tr i ctcourtpr oper l yappl i ed a s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons is a q u e s tio n o f

la w w e re v ie w d e n o v o . Nels on , 419 F. 3d at1119. I n di s m i s s i ng M r . K eel er ’ s t erm i nat i on cl ai m as t i m e- barr ed, the di s tr i ct c o u rt e m p h a siz e d h is in c lu sio n o f th a t cla im in h is F irst A c tio n . W h ile ac k n o w ledg ing that M r. K ee ler ha d fil ed h is Fo u rth C h arg e a ll eg ing retali atory t erm i nati on on l ya m on th b efore he fi l ed the Fir stA ct i on , the co urtno nethel ess c o n c lu d e d it w a s a d m in istra tiv e lye x h a u ste d b e c a u se it w a s e n c o m p a ss e d b yh is T hi r d C har ge. Forthi s pr opos i t i on, the courtr el i ed on B r ow n v. Har ts hor ne P ubl i c SchoolD is tr i ctNo. 1 (B r ow n I) , 864 F. 2d 680, 682 ( 10th C i r . 1988) , w hi ch h e ld th a t “w h e n a n e m p lo y e e se e k s ju d icia l re lief fo r in c id e n ts n o t li ste d in h is ori ginal charge to the E E O C , the judi ci al com plai nt nevertheles s m ayenco m pass a n yd i s c r i mi n a t i o n l i k e o rr e a s o n a b l yr e l a t e d t o th e a l l e g a t i o n s o f th e E E OC char ge, i ncl udi ng new act s occurr i ng dur i ng the pende ncyof the cha r ge. ” Id. at 68 2 (qu o tat ion an d b rac k ets o m itted). T h ere fo re, th e d istri ct co u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t M r. K e e ler ’s te rm in a tio n c laim w a s u n tim e lyb e c a u se h e fa iled to fil e itw ith in n inetyd ay s o f h is r ec eipt o f th e righ t- to-su e lett er o n h is T h ir d C har ge. W e re sp ec tfu ll yd isag ree . U n d er Mar t i nezv. P ot t er , 347 F. 3d 1208 ( 10th C i r . 2003) , t he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s r el i ance on B r ow n I i s mi s p l a c e d . As we r ecogni zed i n Mar t i nez , the Supr eme C our ti n Nat i onalR ai lr oad P as s engerC or p. v. Morgan , 536 U . S. 101 ( 2002) , “effec t ed funda m ent al change s t o the doctr i ne-7-

al l ow i ng admi ni s tr at i vel yunexhaus t ed cl ai m s i n T i t l e V I I act i ons . ” 347 F. 3d at 1210. I n Mar t i nez , the pl ai nt i ff s oughtt o l i t i gat e cl ai m s of r et al i at orytr eatm ent th a t h e n e v e r i n c lu d e d in a fo rm a l c h a rg e . Id. T he di s tr i ctcourtgr ant ed the d e fe n d a n t’s s u m m a ryju d g m e n t m o tio n , rea so n in g th a t th e p lain tiff h a d fa iled to exh austadm i nis trat i ve rem edies w i th respectt o the add i t i on al cl ai m s “becau se theyw er e notl i ke orr eas onabl yr el at ed t o the al l egat i ons i n [hi s form al char ge] . ” Id. A l though w e agr eed w i th i t s r es ul t , w e part ed companyw i th the di s tr i ct courton i t s r eas oni ng i n Mar t i nez : “ Morgan abr ogat es the cont i nui ng vi ol at i on doctr i ne as pr evi ous l yappl i ed t o cl ai m s of di s cr i m i nat or yorr et al i at oryact i ons by empl oy er s , and r epl ace s i tw i th the t eac hi ng thateac h di s cr et e i nci dentof s uch tr eatm entcons t i tut es i t s ow n unl aw ful empl oym entpr act i ce forw hi ch admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es m us tbe exha us t ed. ” Id. ( quot at i on om i t t ed) . I n Morgan th e S u p re m e C o u rt o b se rv e d th a t “[ d ]isc re te a c ts s u c h a s te rm in a tio n , fa ilu re to pr om ot e, deni al of tr ans fer , orr efus al t o hi r e ar e ea s yt o i dent i fy , ” and i thel d t hat a c h a rg e c o u ld o n lye n c o m p a ss d isc re te, d isc rim in a to rya c ts th a t o c c u rre d w ith in the s t atut oryt i m e per i od forfi l i ng a cha r ge. 536 U . S. at114. T he C our tr ever s ed the courtof appe al s ’ hol di ng, w hi ch r el i ed upon the cont i nui ng vi ol at i on doctr i ne to b ri n g p ri o r d is c re te a c ts w ith in a la te r- file d c h a rg e . Id. I n Mar t i nez , w e appl i ed the rul e s t at ed i n Morgan “t o di s cr et e cl ai m s bas ed on i nci dent s occurr i ng af t erthe fi l i ng of [a form al char ge] . ” 347 F. 3d at1210- 11W e r ecogni zed i n Mar t i nezthat this ho lding d o es n o t app lyto h o sti le w o rk 1 e n v ir o n m e n t c la im s . See 347 F. 3d at1211. B ut , as i n Mar t i nez , t hatt ype of c la im is n o t b e fo re u s in th is c a s e . S e e id . A l though M r . K eel er ’ s char ges al l eged w hatcoul d be cha r act er i zed a s “an ongoi ng pat t ern of r et al i at i on, ” i d. , he di d not file a n yc h a rg e a lleg in g th a t h e w a s s u bjec t to a h o stile w o rk e n v iro n m e n t. -8- ( emphasi s i n or i gi nal ) . T hus , w e r ecogni zed thatthe “c ont i nui ng vi ol at i on theory , ” as appl i ed i n B r ow n I and the otherpr i ordeci s i ons w e ci t ed, w as no lo n g e r a p p lic a b le to c la im s re g a rd in g d is c re te a c ts . See i d. at1210- 11. 1 W e conc l ude, ther efor e, thatt he di s tr i ctcourterr ed i n i t s det erm i nat i on t hat M r. K eel er’ s T hir d C harge en com passed h i s r et al i at oryt erm i nati on cl ai m becau se i tw as l i ke orr eas onabl yr el at ed t o the al l egat i ons i n thatchar ge. U nder Mar t i nez , M r . K eel er ’ s T hi r d C har ge coul d notencompas s hi s l at er - occurr i ng, di s cr et e cl ai m r egar di ng hi s t erm i nat i on; i ns t ead, he w as r equi r ed t o fi l e a s e p a ra te c h a rg e w ith re s p e c t to th a t c la im . See i d. H e ful fi l l ed thatr equi r ement byfi l i ng hi s Four th C har ge. B utatt he t i m e he f i l ed hi s Fi r s tA ct i on, he had not ful l yexhaus t ed hi s admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es w i th r es pectt o thatchar ge bec aus e he had noty etr ece i ved a r i ght - t o- s ue l et t erfr om t he EE O C , norhad the 180- day w a itin g p e ri o d u n d e r § 2 0 0 0 e -5 (f)( 1 ) e x p ir e d . See EE O Cv. W. H. B r aum , Inc. , 347 F. 3d 1192, 1200 ( 10th C i r . 2003) ( “The E E O C has excl us i ve j ur i s di ct i on over a c l a i m d u r i n g th e 1 8 0 d a y s fo l l o wi n g t h e fi l i n g o f a c h a r g e . . . . Du r i n g t h i s t i me a n in d iv id u a l em p lo y e e m a yn o t b rin g su it i n fe d e ra l co u rt.”); cf . St one v. D ep’ tof A vi at i on , 453 F. 3d 1271, 1276- 77 ( 10th C i r . 2006) ( hol di ng A D A cl ai m had not

“ m a tu re d ” a n d w a s s u bje c t to d is m is s a l p ri o r t o re c e ip t o f ri g h t- to -s u e le tte r) .-9-

M r . K eel er ’ s t erm i nat i on cl ai m di d notbecome r i pe forfi l i ng unt i l aft erthe d ism iss a l o f

th e F irst A c tio n , w h e n h e re c e iv e d h is rig h t-to -su e lette r o n h is F o u rt h C h a rg e . H e file d th is a c tio n w ith in n in e ty d a y s o f re c e iv in g th a t le tte r. A ccor di ngl y , the di s tr i ctcourterr ed i n di s m i s s i ng hi s t erm i nat i on cl ai m as u n t i m e l y. C FP cont ends thatourhol di ng i n Mar t i nezdo es not applyi n thi s case beca us e M r . K eel err epr es ent ed t o the di s tr i ctcour ti n hi s Fi r s tA ct i on thathe had e x h a u ste d h is a d m in istra tiv e re m e d ies . T h u s, C F P a rg u e s th a t M r. K e e ler sh o u ld notnow be perm i t t ed t o as s erthi s ow n non- compl i ance w i th the exha us t i on re q u ire m e n t in h is F irst A c tio n a s a b a sis to sa v e h is te rm in a tio n c laim in th is act i on fr om bei ng t i m e- barr ed. B utthe exha us t i on r equi r ementi s “a j ur i s di ct i onal pr er equi s i t e t o s ui tunderT i t l e V I I –notm er el ya condi t i on pr ece dentt o s ui t . ” Shi kl es v. Spr i nt/Uni t ed M gm t . C o. , 426 F. 3d 1304, 1317 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). T h ere fo re, ha d the d istri ct co u rtn o t dism issed M r. K ee ler’s Fi r s tA ct i on on pr ocedur al gr ounds , hi s r et al i at oryt erm i nat i on cl ai m i n thatact i on w oul d neverthel es s have be en s ubj ectt o di s m i s s al forl ack of s ubj ect - m at t er j ur i s di ct i on, r egar dl es s of anyr epr es ent at i on he made aboutexhaus t i on of a d m in is tr a tiv e re m e d ie s . See Mos l ey v . P ena , 100 F. 3d 1515, 1517, 1519 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 6 ) (affirm ing d ism issal of “p rem ature lyfil ed ” c o m p lai n t fo r fa il u re to e x h a u st a d m in istra tiv e re m e d ies ). Ju st a s M r. K e e ler ’s r e p re se n tatio n s c o u ld notm ake hi s otherw i s e- pr ematur e cl ai m r i pe forfi l i ng, w e dec l i ne t o hol d that-10-

theypr ecl ude hi m fr om l i t i gat i ng hi s t erm i nat i on cl ai m once hi s admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es w er e exha us t ed. Conclusion T h e d istric t co u rt’s d ism iss a l o f M r. K e e ler ’s r e talia to ryter m in a tio n c laim al l eged i n hi s Four th C har ge i s R E V E R SE D and R E M A N D E D forfur ther p roc ee d ing s co n sist en t w ith this ord er a n d jud g m en t. T h is distri ct co u rt ’s d i s mi s s a l o f

M r . Ke e l e r ’ s o th e rc l a i ms i s AF F I RMED . E n tered fo r th e C o u rt

Jo h n C . P o rfili o C i r cui tJ udge