2005 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 5-18-2005 

# H amme r v . C ardio M ed P ro d Inc P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 02-2723

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2005 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " H amme r v

. C ar d io M e d P r od Inc " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1168. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/1168NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

________________ N o. 02- 2723

________________ NAN CY HAM M ER, A ppel l ant

v. CA RD I O M EDI CA L PROD UC TS, I NC OR PORA TED

________________ O n A p p ea l Fro m the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt F o r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i v. N o. 01- cv- 00564) D i stri ctJudg e: H on orabl e W i l l i am L . S t and i sh

________________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ay10, 2005 B efor e: R E N D E L L , A M B R O and FU E N T E S, C i r cui tJ udges

( Fi l ed: M ay18, 2005 )

________________ OP I NI ON

________________ P E R C UR I AM N ancyH amm erw as empl oy ed as a s al es r epr es ent at i ve byC ar di o M edi cal Pr oduct s , I nc. ( “C ar di o M edi cal ”) unt i l herempl oym entw as t erm i nat ed on M ar ch 22,2

1 9 9 9 . O n O c to b e r 2 4 , 2 0 0 0 , H a m m e r f iled a c h a rg e o f

se x a n d a g e d isc rim in a tio n w ith the Equal E m pl oym entO ppor tuni tyC om m i s s i on ( “EE O C ”) . T he EE O C i s s ued H amm er a D ism iss a l an d N o tice o f R ig h ts, n o tify in g h e r: “ Y o u r c h a rg e w a s n o t ti m e lyf iled w ith the C om m i s s i on, i . e. , y ou w ai t ed t oo l ong aft erthe dat e( s ) of the di s cr i m i nat i on y ou a lle g e d to f

ile y o u r c h a rg e .” O n M ar ch 26, 2001, H amm erfi l ed the under l y i ng pr o s e compl ai nti n the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tforthe W es t ern D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a pur s uantt o T i t l e V I I of the C i vi l R i ght s A ctof 1964, 42 U . S. C . § 2000e ets eq. ( “Ti t l e V I I ”) and the A ge D i s cr i m i nat i on i n E m pl oym entA ct , 29 U . S. C . § 621 ets eq. ( “A D E A ”) . C ar di o M edi cal r e s po nd e d t o the c ompl a i ntbyfi l i ng a mot i on t o d i s mi s s pu r s ua ntt o Fe d. R. Ci v. P. 1 2 (b )(6 ). In its m o tio n to d ism iss , C a rd io M e d ica l ar g u e d th a t H a m m e r h a d f a iled to tim e lye x h a u st h e r a d m in istra tiv e re m e d ies a n d th a t sh e w a s n o t en tit led to e q u itab le t oll i ng of the 30 0-dayl i m i t at i on s peri od . T he M agis trat e Judg e assi gn ed to the case a g re e d a n d re c o m m e n d e d th a t th e m o tio n to d ism iss b e g ra n ted . H a m m e r f iled u n tim e ly o b jec tio n s to th e re p o rt a n d re c o m m e n d a tio n , w h ich w e re stric k e n b yth e M a g istra te J udge on M ay22, 2002. O n M ay31, 2002, the D i s tr i ctC our tadopt ed the r eportand r ecomm endat i on and di s m i s s ed H amm er ’ s compl ai nt . H amm erthen fi l ed a “ not i ce of appea l ” t o the D i s tr i ctC our tfr om the M agi s tr at e J udge’ s M ay22, 2002 or der , w hi ch w as deni ed bythe D i s tr i ctC our ton J une 6, 2002. H amm ert i m el yappea l ed the M ay31 and Ju n e 6 o rd e rs o f

th e D istric t C o u rt. W e have appel l at e j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. O urs t andar d of3

re v iew o f

th e D istric t C o u rt’s d ism iss a l u n d e r R u le 1 2 (b )(6 ) is p len a ry . S e e G a llo v . C ity of Phi l adel phi a, 161 F. 3d 217, 221 ( 3d C i r . 1998) . “W e mustdet erm i ne w hether , under a n yr e a s o n a b l e r e a d i n g o f th e p l e a d i n g s , th e p l a i n t i f f[ ] ma yb e e n t i t l e d t o r e l i e f , a n d we m us tacc eptas true the fa ctual al l egat i ons i n the compl ai ntand al l r eas onabl e i nfer ence s th a t c a n b e d ra w n th e re f ro m .” N a m i v . F a u v e r, 8 2 F .3 d 6 3 , 6 5 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 6 ). I n a def err al s t at e, s uch as Penns y l vani a, a pl ai nt i ff i s r equi r ed t o fi l e a Ti t l e V I I or A D E A char ge of di s cr i m i nat i on w i th the EE O C w i thi n 300 day s of the al l eged unl aw ful em ploym ent pr act i ce. S ee 42 U . S . C . § 2 00 0e-5(e) (1) ; 29 U . S . C . § 6 26 (d) (2) ; see al so W a tso n v . E a stm a n K o d a k C o ., 2 3 5 F .3 d 8 5 1 , 8 5 4 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 0 ). T h e re is n o d isp u te that H am m er f

ail ed to f il e h er c h arg e w ith the E E O C w ith in this t im e f ram e. T h e re co rd s how s thatH amm erw as fi r ed byC ar di o M edi cal on M ar ch 22, 1999. H amm erdi d not fi l e herchar ge w i th the EE O C unt i l O ct ober24, 2000, 581 day s aft erthe l i m i t at i ons p e ri o d h a d s ta rt e d . C o n s e q u e n tly, H a m m e r’ s c h a rg e w a s c le a rl yu n tim e ly. I ti s w el l - es t abl i s hed, how ever , thata t i m el ychar ge of di s cr i m i nat i on w i th the E E O C is n o t a ju ri s d ic tio n a l p re re q u is ite to f ilin g s u it u n d e r T itle V II o r t h e A D E A . R a th e r, itis a re q u ire m e n t m o re in th e n a tu re o f a sta tu te o f

lim itatio n s w h ich is s u b jec t to equi t abl e t ol l i ng. See C our tneyv. L a Sal l e U ni v. , 124 F. 3d 499, 505 ( 3d C i r . 1997) ; s ee a ls o O s h iv e r v . L e v in , F is h b e in , S e d ra n & B e rm a n , 3 8 F .3 d 1 3 8 0 , 1 3 9 2 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 4 ). E q u itab le to lli n g m a yb e a p p ro p ria te w h e re a p lain tiff h a s “ b e e n p re v e n ted f

ro m f ili n g in a t i m el ym annerdue t o s uffi ci ent l yi nequi t abl e ci r cumst ance s . ” Sei t zi ngerv. R eadi ng H os p. & M ed. C tr . , 165 F. 3d 236, 240 ( 3d C i r . 1999) . L i kew i s e, equi t abl e t ol l i ng m ay4

a p p ly“ w h e re th e e m p lo y e r’s o w n a c ts o r o m iss io n s h a v e lu lled th e p lain tiff in to for egoi ng pr om ptatt empt s t o vi ndi cat e [he r ] r i ght s . ” B onham v. D r es s erI ndus . , I nc. , 569 F. 2d 187, 193 ( 3d C i r . 1977) ; s ee a l s o O s hi ver , 38 F. 3d at1388 ( not i ng that“the f u n d a me n t a l ru l e o f

e q u i tyth a ta p a r tys h o u l d n o tb e p e r mi t t e d t o p r o f i tf r o m i t s o wn w r ongdoi ng” i s the “ba s i c pr i nci pl e” unde r l y i ng the equi t abl e t ol l i ng doctr i ne) . H amm er bear s the bur den of pr ovi ng thatthe equi t abl e t ol l i ng doctr i ne appl i es . See C our tney , 124 F. 3d at505. A nt i ci pat i ng thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tw oul d concl ude thatherE E O C char ge w as u n tim e ly , H a m m e r a ss e rte d tw o g ro u n d s f o r e q u itab le to lli n g in h e r c o m p lain t. F irst, H amm eral l eged thats he w as ent i t l ed t o equi t abl e t ol l i ng beca us e, aft ers he w as fi r ed, f o u r o f h e r lo v e d o n e s p a ss e d a w a yu n e x p e c ted ly . W e a g re e w ith th e D istric t C o u rt th a t, w hi l e the eve nt s al l eged byH amm erar e tr agi c, theydo notj us t i fyt ol l i ng the 300- day l i m i t at i ons per i od, part i cul ar l yw her e H amm erdi d notfi l e herchar ge unt i l 281 day s aft er the l i m i t at i ons per i od had expi r ed. See, e. g. , R obi ns on v. D al t on, 107 F. 3d 1018, 1023 (3d C i r. 19 97 ). S econ d, H am m er al l eged that equi t able t oll i ng w as approp ri at e beca use C a rd io M e d ica l f

a iled to p o st a n yin f

o rm a tio n c o n c e rn in g h e r sta tu to ryrig h ts u n d e r T itl e V I I orthe A D E A . T he D i s tr i ctC our tr ej ect ed thi s ar gum ent , concl udi ng that“eve n i f” C a rd io M e d ica l h a d “ f

a iled to p o st n o tice s in its o f f ice s c o n c e rn in g e m p lo y e e s’ r ig h ts u n d e r T itle V II a n d th e A D E A ,” it c o u ld n o t e q u ita b ly to ll th e 3 0 0 -d a ylim ita tio n s p e ri o d . E m pl oy er s ar e r equi r ed t o pos ti n “cons pi cuous pl ace s ” not i ces of fa i rempl oym ent pr act i ces , i ncl udi ng des cr i pt i ons of pert i nentpr ovi s i ons of Ti t l e V I I and the A D E A . 42B ec au se a rem an d is ne ce ssary , w e n ee d n o t con side r w h ethe r th e D istri ct C o u rt 1 a b u se d its d isc re tio n in d e n y in g H a m m e r’s “ n o tice o f a p p e a l” f

ro m th e M a g istra te J udge’ s M ay22, 2002 r eportand r ecomm endat i on. 5 U . S. C . § 2000e- 10( a) and 29 U . S. C . § 627. W e have s t at ed thatequi t abl e t ol l i ng m ay app l yi f t he p l ai nti ff can dem on strat e “exc usable i gn orance” o f her st atutoryri gh t s, w her e, fori ns t ance , herempl oy erhas fai l ed t o pos tthe r equi r ed not i ces . K al e v. C om bined Ins. C o. , 86 1 F . 2d 74 6, 75 2-53 (1stC i r. 19 88 ). T his i s a fact -i ntensi ve tes t i nvol vi ng s ever al “equi t abl e fa ct or s . ” I d. H er e, H amm erhas averr ed thats he w as un aw are of her r i gh t s unti l Jul y29 , 20 00 w hen she fi rs tob t ai ned kn ow l edg e of these r i ght s fr om a fr i end. T hus , s he as s ert s the fa i l ur e t o pos tas a gr ound fort ol l i ng and, acc or di ngl y , the D i s tr i ctC our ts houl d gi ve herthe opportuni tyt o demonstr at e the ex ist en ce o f th ese fa ctors. B o n h am v . D resse r Ind u s. Inc . , 5 6 9 F . 2 d 1 8 7 , 1 9 3 (3d C ir . 1 9 7 7 ). A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l vaca t e the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s M ay31, 2002 or der , and r emand thi s m att ert o the D i s tr i ctC our tforfur therpr ocee di ngs cons i s t entw i th thi s opi ni on and Bo n h a m. 1