Pursuant to Fifth Circuit Rule 47.5 , we h ave determin ed th at this opinionshould not * be publish ed and is not precede nt except under the limit ed circu mstance s set forthinFifth Circuit Rule47 .5. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 10164 Su m m ar y Cal endar TE RRY L. M I LL ER , P l a i n ti ff

–A p p ell a n t
v. JO H N E . P O T T E R , P ost m asterG en eral , U n i t ed S t ates P ost alServi ce, D efen da n t–A pp el l ee

A p p ea lf

rom the U n i ted S tates D i stri ct C ou rt f or t h e N ort h ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 3: 07- C V

- 1040 B ef ore B E N AV ID E S , P R A D O , an d S O U T H W IC K , C i rcui tJu dg es . P E R C U R I A M: * A pp el l an tT erry L. M i l l er, an A f ri can - A m eri can w om an , w as an em pl oyee of the U ni t e d St at e s Po s t alSe r vi c e ( “ U SPS” ) . I n 2 00 5, M i l l e ra ppl i e d t o t he su cces sion l i sts f

or tw o p ositi on s via th e C orp ora te S u cces sion P l a n n i n g (“C S P ”) p r o g r a m , w h ic h is th e U S P S ’ s e x e c u tiv e p r o m o tio n p r o g r a m . United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Janua ry 7, 2010 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk Case: 09-10164 Document: 0051998883 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/07/2010N o. 09- 10164

2 In F eb ru a r y2 0 0 6 , M ille rfile d a n E q u a l E m p lo y m e n t O p p o r tu n ity (“E E O ”) com pl ai n t(t h e “F ebru ary C om pl ai n t ” ) a l l egi n g t h at she h ad been di scr i m i n ated ag ai ns t o n t he b as i s o f r ac e , due t o a s e pa r at e e ve nt . I n Apr i l2 00 6, M i l l e ra nd th e U S P S s e tt le d th e F e b r u a r yC o m p la in t. O n Ju l y 7, 2 006 , M i l l er r eceived an em ai lnoti f yi n g h er t h at s h e ha d n ot be e n s e l e c t e d f

o rt he s uc c e s s i o n l i s tfo rei t he rof t he C SP po s i t i o ns . M i l l e rm ad e severalatt em pts t o m eetw i t h her m an ager, P et er Sgro, t o ask w h y she h ad not be e n s e l e c t e d. F i n al l y, o n Se pt e m be r6 , 2 00 6, Sg r o t o l d he rt hathe rno nselecti on w a s d u e t o he r “con fl i ct” w i th m a n a ge m en t. M i l l er u n d ersto od this to m ea n tha t he r n on -sel ecti on stem m ed f rom h er fi l i n g o f th e F eb ru a ryC om p l a i n t. O n O ct ober 16, 200 6, M i l l er i n i t i ated an E E O com pl ai n t , al l egi n g t h at her no n- sel ec t i o n was due t o r e t al i at i o n f o rt he Fe br uar y Com pl ai nt . Af t e rt he U S P S dism i sse d M i l l er’ s E E O com p l a i n t f or fai l u re to m a k e ti m ely con tact w i th a coun sel or, M i l l er f

i l ed a com pl ai n t i n federal di st ri ctcourt . Th e di st ri ctcourt g r a n te d th e U S P S ’ s m o tio n fo rs u m m a r yju d g m e n t, a n d M ille ra p p e a le d . W e have j uri sdi c t i on o vert h e d i st r i c tc our t ’ s f i nalj udgm entunder 28 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . W e rev i ew the distri ct cou rt’ s gra n t of su m m a ryj u d gm en t de novo . Henri ckson v. Pot t er , 3 2 7 F .3 d 4 4 4 , 4 4 6 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). Ti t l e V II pr o hibi t s a n e m pl o ye rf r o m m ak i ng an ad ve r s e e m pl o ym e nt deci si on t h at i s m ot i vated in p a rtby dis cri m i n ati on on the basi s of sex, race, co lor , re li g ion , o r n a tion a l orig in . 4 2 U .S .C . § 2 0 0 0 e -2 (a )(1); R i c hards on v. Mon i t ronic s I

n t ’l, I n c. , 43 4 F . 3 d 3 2 7 , 3 3 3 ( 5 th C i r. 20 0 5 ). T i tl e V II also pro h ib i ts ret al i ati on by an em pl oyer againstan em pl oye e w h o h a s f i l ed a ch arge of d is c r im in a tio n . 4 2 U .S .C . § 2 0 0 0 e -3 (a ); B ryan tv. Compa ss G roup US A I n c. , 413 F .3 d 4 7 1 , 4 7 5 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). B ef ore s eeking j u di ci alrel i ef f or a Title V II vi ol ati on , em pl oyees “ m u st ex h a u st t h eir ad m i n i strative re m ed i es b y fi l i n g a ch a rg e of discri m i n a ti on w i th th e E E O d i visi on o f th eir ag en cy . ” Pa ch ec o v. Min eta , 448 F . 3d 783 , 788 ( 5th C i r. Case: 09-10164 Document: 0051998883 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/07/2010N o. 09- 10164

Thereis some di spute in this Circuit re gardin g wheth er exh austion implic ates subj ect 1 matt erj uri sd ict ion, or wh eth erit isap rere quis it e subj ect toe quit ab ledoctrines . Compare Tolbe rtv. U

nited States , 91 6 F .2d 2 45, 247(5th Cir. 199 0) (hol ding that a plaintiff’ s failure to exhau st hi s administrative re medies “wholly deprives th e di strict court of jurisdictionover the ca se”) with You ng

v. Cityof Houston, Tex ., 906 F.2 d 177 , 18 0 (5 th Cir. 1 990) (“A failure of th e E E OC p r e r e qui s it e do e s no t rob a c o urt o f j uri s dic tio n . ”) . B e c au s e Mill e r’ s e quit ab l etollin g argument fails, we ne ed not resolve this di sagreement. 3 200 6) . A s partof

t h e charge-f

i l i n g process, an em pl oyee “ m u sti n i t i ate c on t act w i t h a C ounse l orw i t hi n 45 da ys o f t he dat e o f

t he m at t eral l ege d t o b e di sc r i m i nat or y o r , i n t he c as e of pers onnelact i on, w i t hi n 45 days of t he e f fec t i ve d a te o f th e a c tio n .” 2 9 C .F .R . § 1 6 1 4 .1 0 5 (a )(1 ). I ti s und i sput ed t hatM i l l erl ear ned of the al l ege dl y di sc r i m i nat or y ac tby Ju n e 7, 200 6. H ow ever, M i l l er di d n otcontactan E E O coun sel or un t i lO ct ober 16, 200 6, m ore than f ou r m on t h s l ater . M i l l er argues t h at t h e l i m i t ati on s peri od s ho ul d b e gi n o n Se pt e m be r 6, 20 09 be c aus e s he di d no tb e c o m e s us pi c i o us o f t he U S P S ’ s m o tiv e s u n til s h e m e t w ith S g r o . In this C i rcu i t, i t i s cl ea rl y esta b l i sh ed th a t “th e li m i tati on s p eriod starts r unn i ng w hen t he pl ai n t i f f know s of

t he di sc r i m i nat or y act , no tw he n t he p l a i n ti ff

pe rceive s a discrim i n a torym oti ve be h i n d the act. ” C h ris top h erv. Mo b il O i lCor p. , 9 50 F. 2d1 20 9, 1 21 7 n. 2 ( 5t h Ci r . 1 99 2) ( e m pha s i s i n o r i gi nal) (c i t i ng Me r r i l lv. S. Me t hodi s tUni v. , 8 0 6 F .2 d 6 0 0 , 6 0 5 (5 th C ir .1 9 8 6 )); se e also Pa checo v. R i ce , 966 F . 2d 904 , 906 (5 th C ir. 199 2) ( “ T o al l ow pl ai n t i f fs t o rai se e m p lo y m e n t d is c r im i n a tio n cla im s w h e n e v e rth e yb e g in to s u s p e c t t h a t t h e ir em p l oy ers h a d i l l i ci t m otive s w ou l d effectively ev i scer a te th e tim e lim i ts pre sc ri bed f

or f i l i n g such com pl ai n t s. ” ) . Th u s, i ti s i m m ater i alw h en M i l l er bec am e s uspi c i ous of t he r eas ons be hi nd her non- se l ec t i on. Becaus e m or e t han for ty -fiv e d a y s p a ss e d b e tw e e n th e a ll e g e d ly d iscr im in a to ry a ct a n d M il le r ’s c o nt ac tw i t h a c o uns e l o r , M i l l e r ’ s c l ai m fal l s o ut s i de t he l i m i t at i o ns pe r i o d. M i l l e ra l s o a r gue s t hats he i s e nt i t l e d t o e qui t ab l e t o l l i ng o f t he l i m i t at i o ns peri od. I n T i t l e V II cases , w e “ h ave i den t i f i ed three potenti albases f or 1 Case: 09-10164 Document: 0051998883 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/07/2010N o. 09- 10164

4 e qui t ab l e t o l l i ng: (1) the pe nde nc y o f a s ui tb e t w e e n t he s am e pa r t i e s i n t he w r o n gfo r u m ; (2 ) th e p la in tiff ’ s la c k o f

a w a r e n e s s o f th e fa c ts s u p p o r tin gh is c l ai m b e c aus e o f

t h e de fe nda nt ’ s i nt e nt i o nalc o nc e al m e nto f t he m ; a nd ( 3) t he E E O C ’ s m i slead i n g th e p l a i n ti ff a b ou t his ri gh ts. ” Ma n n i ngv . C h e v r o n C h e m. Co. , 332 F . 3d 874, 880 ( 5t h C i r . 2003) (c i t i ng B l u m berg v. H C A M gm t . Co. , 848 F .2 d 6 4 2 , 6 4 4 (5 th C ir . 1 9 8 8 )). M ille ra r g u e s th a t t h e U S P S in te n tio n a lly conceal ed the fact s s u pp ort i n g h er c l ai m becau se Sgro avoided dis cussi n g h er n o n -se lec tion u n tila fter th e li m ita tion s p e rio dh a d ru n . H o w e v e r, “[w ]e equ i t ably t ol la l i m i t ati on s p eri od on l y w h en t h e em pl oyer’ s affi rm a tive a cts m is le a d th e e m p lo y e e a n d in d u c e h im n o t t o a c t w ith in t h e lim ita tio n s p e r io d .” I d. ( em ph asi s i n ori gi n al) . Th ere i s no i n di cat i on t h at s u ch an a ffi rm a tiv e act o c c u r r e d h e r e . Cf

. Tu c k e rv . UPS , 65 7 F. 2d 72 4, 72 5– 26 ( 5t h Ci r . 1 98 1) ( ap pl yi ng equi t abl e t ol l i ng w hen t he c om pany t ol d s eas onalem pl oye es t hey w oul d notbe r ec al l ed, and t hen r ec al l ed a l m os tex c l usivel y w hi t e a nd notbl ac k s eas onal w o r k e r s ); R eeb v. E con. O pp ort u n i ty A t l an t a, I n c. , 5 16 F . 2d 9 24, 9 30– 31 (5t h C i r. 197 5) ( ap pl yi n g equ i t able t ol l i n g w h en t h e pl ai n t i f f w as f al s e l y i nf

o r m ed that her job h a d b e e n ter m in a te d b e ca u se of in a d e q u a te fu n d s). W e A F F IR M th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s g r a n t o f s u m m a r yju d g m e n t. Case: 09-10164 Document: 0051998883 Page: 4 Date Filed: 01/07/2010