FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT A ugus t 31, 2005 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 10591 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 03 -002 93 -C V -W D O -5 W I L L I A M L . W A R R E N , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s J A C K S C H W E R M A N , S C H W E R M A N T R U C K I N G C O M P A N Y , D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lle e s .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e M id d le D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( A ugus t31, 2005) B efo re A N D E R S O N , B L A C K an d K R A V IT C H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:Th is c a sewa s Warre n v . TheHe althand Wel fa reF un d o f t

heCentral State s So uth e a st 1 and Southwest Are as, 752 F . Supp. 452 (M.D. Ga. 1990) . 2 P lain ti ff W il li am W ar re n , p ro ce ed in g p ro se , ap p ea ls th e d istrict co u rt’s gr a ntof s um m a ry j udgm e nti n f a vorof de f e nda nt s J a c k S c hw e r m a n a nd S c hw e r m a n T ruc ki ng C om pa ny , i n hi s c i vi l a c t i on br oughtpur s ua ntt o T i t l e V I I of th e C iv il R ig h ts A c t o f

1 9 6 4 , 4 2 U .S .C . § 2 0 0 0 e - 2 , a lle g in g th a t th e d e f e n d a n ts d is c r im in a te d a g a in s t h im b y f a ilin g to m a k e c o n tr ib u tio n s to a p e n s io n p la n in a c c o r d a n c e wi th a c o n tr a c tu n d e rwh i c h h e wo r k e d . F o rth e f o l l o wi n g r e a s o n s , we a f f i r m. I . B a c kgr ound W a rr e n w a s e m pl oy e d by de f e nda ntS c hw e r m a n T ruc ki ng C om pa ny f r om ap p ro x i m at el y N o v em b er 3 , 1 9 7 0 th ro u g h A u g u st2 , 1 9 8 2 . W arren w as a pa r t i c i pa nti n a pe ns i on f und e s t abl i s he d pur s ua ntt o a c ol l e c t i ve ba r ga i ni ng a g r e e m e n t e n te r e d in to b e tw e e n a u n io n a n d S c h w e r m a n T ru c k in g C o m p a n y . B e tw e e n S e p te m b e r1 9 8 3 a n d N o v e m b e r1 9 8 4 , W a rr e n f ile d v a r io u s c la im s w ith th e p e n s i o n p l a n f

o ra mo n th l y d i s ab i l i ty b e n e f i t . A f t e rp u r s u i n g th e s e c l a i ms w i tho utsucc es s throu gh the vari ou s s t ages of adm i ni stra t i ve re vi ew , i n O ct ob er 1986, W a rr e n f

i l e d a l a w s ui ta ga i ns tthe pe ns i on pl a n, s e e ki ng t o r e c ove rthe be ne f i t s . I n tha tc a s e , the di s tr i c tc our tgr a nt e d s um m a ry j udgm e nti n f a vorof the 1 pe ns i on pl a n, f

i ndi ng tha t“ the de f

e nda ntdi d nota c ti n a n a rbi tr a ry orc apr i c i ous3

m a n n e rin th e h a n d lin g o f p la in tif f’s ap p lic a tio n o rb r e a c h a n y f id u c ia ry d u tie s it m ay have ow ed t o p l ai nt i ff . ” I n Jul y 199 3, W arre n m ov ed t o re- op en hi s O ct ob er 19 86 com pl ai nt , on the basi s thathe di sc ov er ed new evi dence thathi s e m pl oyer , S c hw e r m a n T ruc ki ng C om pa ny , ha d f a i l e d t o pr ope r l y c ontr i but e t o the pl a n. T he c o u r t d e n ie d th e m o tio n . A boutt e n y e a r s w e ntby a nd, i n S e pt e m be r2003, W a rr e n f i l e d the i ns t a nt a c t i on, a ga i n a l l e gi ng tha thi s e m pl oy e ri m pr ope r l y c ontr i but e d t o the pl a n. T he d e f e n d a n t s a n s w e r e d a n d mo v e d f o rj u d g me n to n th e p l e a d i n g s u n d e rFe d . R. Ci v . P. 1 2 ( c ) , o ra lte rn a tiv e ly , f o rs u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. B e c a u s e W a rr e n f ile d d o c u m e n ts out s i de of

the pl e a di ngs , the c our tc onve r t e d the m ot i on t o di s m i s s i nt o one f or sum m ary j ud gm entand n ot i fi ed the part i es . S ub se qu ent l y, the di stri ctcourt g r a n te d s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t in f a v o ro f th e d e f e n d a n ts . W a rr e n n o w ap p e a ls . II . S t andard of R evi ew W e r e vi e w a di s tr i c tc our t ’ s gr a ntof s um m a ry j udgm e ntde novo, vi e w i ng the e vi de nc e i n the l i ghtm os tf a vor abl e t o the pa r ty oppos i ng the m ot i on. W i l s on v. B / E A e r os pa c e , I nc . , 376 F . 3d 1079, 1085 ( 11th C i r . 2004) . S um m a ry j udgm e nt i s appr opr i a t e “ i f

the pl e a di ngs , de pos i t i ons , a ns w e r s t o i nt e rr oga t or i e s , a nd a dm i s s i ons on f

i l e , t oge the rw i th the a f

f i da vi t s , i f

a ny , s how tha tthe r e i s no ge nui ne i s s ue a s t o a ny m a t e r i a l f a c ta nd tha tthe m ovi ng pa r ty i s e nt i t l e d t o aNotably, the complaint form that Warren used to file his law suit enabled him to identify 2 whether his claim was base d on discrimination on acc ount of rac e, re ligion, sex, and/or national orig in. War

ren did n ot s e le c t any

of the sec ate g orie s. Ev e n if wewereto a ssumethat hi s complaint sufficiently

alleg ed a disc rimination claim, his Titl e VIIclaim fails for another rea son; he did not exhaust his admini strative remedies. As a prere quisite to filing a Title VIIsuit, an e mpl oye emus t f

ilea c ha rg eof dis c rimin atio n w iththeEq ual Empl oy

ment Opp or

tunity Commi ssion (“EEOC”) within the statutory time period. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(b) ,(f) ; Wi lkerson v. Grinell Corp., 270 F .3d 1314, 1317 (11th Cir. 2001). Warren failed to do so, thus barring a ny Title VIIclaim he may

have had. See Wilkerson, 270 F.3d a t 1317. 4 j udgm e nta s a m a tt e rof l a w . ” F e d. R . C i v. P . 56( c ) ; E be rha r dtv. W a t e r s , 901 F . 2d 1 5 7 8 , 1 5 8 0 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 0 ) . I I I . D i s c us s i on Wa rr e n o f

f e r s l i tt l e a r g u m e n te x p l a i n i n g h o w th e d i s tr i c tc o u r te rr e d , b u twe a r e m in d f

u l o f h is p r o s e s ta tu s a n d , th e r e f o r e , w e a d d r e s s th e m e r its o f h is c la im s . In do i ng so, w e c on cl ud e that , for s ever al re as on s, sum m ary j ud gm entw as prop er in th is c a s e . F ir s t, W a rr e n b r o u g h t th is a c tio n p u r s u a n t to T itle V I I , b u t h e f a ils to a l l e ge tha the w a s di s c r i m i na t e d a ga i ns ton the ba s i s of hi s m e m be r s hi p i n a pr ot e c t e d c l a s s . T i t l e V I I pr ovi de s r e dr e s s f ore m pl oy m e ntdi s c r i m i na t i on ba s e d on race, color, rel i g i o n , sex , o r n at i o n al o ri g i n . 4 2 U . S . C . § 2 0 0 0 e-2 ; see al so M cD on nel l D ou gl as C orp. v. G re en, 41 1 U . S . 79 2, 80 0-02 (197 3). W arre n d oes no t , ho w ever , al l ege di sc ri m i nat i on base d o n rac e, col or, re l i gi on , se x, or nat i on al o r i g i n . Th u s , h e f

a i l s t o s u f

f i c i e n t l y a l l e g e a d i s c r i mi n a t i o n c l a i m. 2 A lth o u g h W a rr e n f

ile d h is c la im u n d e rT itle V I I , h is a r g u m e n t r e a lly i nvol ve s a n a l l e ge d br e a c h of c ontr a c tc l a i m i n w hi c h he c ont e nds tha ttheHis complaint states that the def endants “ failed to makecontributions based on the 3 contract that my

duties fell under .” 5 defe nd ant s f

ai l ed t o p ay i nt o the pensi on as re qu i re d b y the cont ra ct . A ny brea ch 3 of c ontr a c tc l a i m tha tW a rr e n m a y ha ve , how e ve r , i s pr e e m pt e d by the E m pl oy m e ntR e t i r e m e ntI nc om e S e c ur i ty A c t , 29 U . S . C . § 1001 ( “ E R I S A ” ) . 29 U . S . C . § 1144( a ) ; H obbs v. B l ue C r os s B l ue S hi e l d of A l aba m a , 276 F . 3d 1236, 1240 ( 11th C i r . 2001) ; s e e a l s o P i l otL i f e I ns . C o. v. D e de a ux, 481 U . S . 41, 52- 54 ( 1 9 8 7 ) . T h e r e f o r e , W a rr e n ’s o n ly ap p r o p r ia te a v e n u e o f r e lie f w a s to s e e k b e n e f

its d u e u n d e rth e p l a n p u r s u a n tt o ERI SA . Th e p r o b l e m f o rW a rr e n i s th a ta n y ERI SA c l a i m h e ma y h a v e h a d i s n o w b a rr e d b y th e s t a tu t e o f l i mi t a t i o n s . I n a n ERI SA a c tio n , w e ap p ly th e lim ita tio n s p e r io d f r o m th e s ta te in w h ic h th e a c tio n is b r o u g h t. H a rr is o n v . D ig ita l H e a lth P la n , 1 8 3 F .3 d 1 2 3 5 , 1 2 3 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ) . B e c a u s e th is a c tio n w a s b r o u g h t in G e o r g ia , th e ap p lic ab le s ta tu te o f lim ita tio n s is si x yea rs . Id. at12 41 ; O . C . G . A . § 9 -3-24. In addi t i on , a c ause of ac t i on ac crues w hen t he pl ai nt i ff

kn ew or shou l d h ave kno w n o f the i nj ury. B ow l i ng v. F ou nd er s T i t l e C o. , 773 F . 2d 1175, 1178 ( 11th C i r . 1985) . A tthe l a t e s t , W a rr e n kne w a bout hi s i nj ury i n Jul y 199 3. A tthatt i m e, W arre n request ed thatthe di stri ctcourtre op en hi s e ar l i erca se because he bel i eved he had add i t i on al evi dence that “S c h w e r m a n T ru c k in g C o . h a d n o t p a id in to th e f u n d ....” W a rr e n , h o w e v e r , d id6

no tfi l e the i nst antac t i on un t i l S ept em ber 200 3. T hu s, W arre n’ s E R IS A cl ai m w as u n tim e ly , a s h e f

a ile d to f ile h is c o m p la in t w ith in th e s ix - y e a rs ta tu te o f lim ita tio n s . F i nal l y, W arre n argues thatthe di stri ctcourterre d i n g ra nt i ng sum m ary j ud gm entbecause i taddres se d the w rong i ss ue. H e a ss ert s thatthe di stri ctcourt s h o u ld h a v e d e te r m in e d w h e th e rth e c o n tr a c t f o rp e n s io n b e n e f

its w a s le g a lly bi nd i ng . B ec ause he di d n otchal l enge the val i di ty of the cont ra cti n the di stri ct c our t , w e de c l i ne t o a ddr e s s thi s i s s ue on appe a l . S e e A c c e s s N ow , I nc . v. S o u th w e s t A ir lin e s C o ., 3 8 5 F .3 d 1 3 2 4 , 1 3 3 1 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) ( s ta tin g g e n e r a l ru le thatw e do n otconsi der i ss ues r ai se d for the fi rs tt i m e on app ea l ). F or the foregoi ng re as on s, w e A F F IR M the di stri ctcourt ’ s gra ntof sum m ary j u d g m en ti n fav o r o f th e d efen d an t s. A F F I R M E D .