The Honorable Joseph E. Stevens, Jr., United States District Judge for the 1 Western District of Missouri, sitting by designation.



## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 97-1634

___________ Brenda Shempert, * * Plaintiff-Appellant, * * * v. * * Harwick Chemical Corporation * and Tom Breckenridge, Individually; * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Defendant-Appellee, * Eastern District of Arkansas * Lynne Gibel, * * Movant-Appellant. *

------------------------------------ * Equal Employment Opportunity * Commission, *

Amicus Curiae. *

___________ Submitted: November 19, 1997 Filed: July 31, 1998

___________ Before McMILLIAN and WOLLMAN, Circuit Judges, and STEVENS, District 1 Judge.The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, United States District Judge for the 2 Eastern District of Arkansas. -2- ___________ McMILLIAN, Circuit Judge.
Brenda Shempert appeal s from a final order issued in the United States District Court f or the Eastern District of Arkansas granting summary judgment in favor o f 2 defen dants Harwick Chemical Corporation (Harwick) and Tom Breckenridge , indivi dually, and denying Lynne Gibel’s motion to intervene. Shempert v. Harwic k Chem. Corp

. , No. H-C-96-37 (E.D. Ark. Dec. 27, 1996) (Order) (hereinafter “sli p op.”). The district court dismissed Shempert’s claim of sexu al harassment employment discrim inationunder 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (Title VII), holding tha t Shemp ert failed to file an administrative charge within 180 days of the last allege d discriminatory incident as required by 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1). Slip op. at 6. For reversal, Shempert argues that the district court erred in holding that (1) her Intak e Questionnaire, submitted to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) wi thin180 days, did not constitute a valid administrative charge, and, alternatively , (2) the doctrine of equitable tolling did no t apply to save her claim even if she failed to file an administrative charge within the 180-day filing period. For the reason s discussed below, we affirm the judgment of the district court.-3- Jurisdiction

Jurisdict ionin the district court was proper based upon 28 U.S.C. § 1331

. Jurisdic tion in this court is proper based upon 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The notice of appeal was timely filed pursuant to Rule 4(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Background
Shempert worked as a Senior Customer Service Rep resentative for Harwick from 1983 until she resigned on May 7, 1996. She alleges that during 1994 and 1995 he r super visor, Breckenridge, repeatedly subjected her to unwelcome sexual advances , physical touching, verbal harassment, and other sexually explicit activities. She claims that despite repeated complaints to both Breckenridge and corpora te officials at Harwick the harassment continued and no corrective action was taken. Shempert claims that the acts of sexual harassment put her in fear of her personal health and safety, forced her to take a medical leave of absence, and compelled her to seek the care of a physician.
Shempert obtained legal assistance on October 11, 1995. Her attorney discussed with her the procedures for filing an Intake Questionnaire or Charge Information Form provided by the EEOC. On October 30, 1995, Shempert went to her attorney’s office where she was assisted in fill ing out an Intake Questionnaire, which she signed, but not under oath or affirmation. She alleged in the Intake Questionnaire that her employer’s last a ct of discrimination occurred on May 15, 1995. The date of this alleged act o f discrimination marked the beginning of th e 180-day filing period in which she could file-4-

a va lid administrative charge. The filing period, therefore, expired on November 11 , 1995.

The EEOC received Shempert’s completed and signed Intake Questionnaire on November 2, 1995. On November 9, 1995, the EEOC sent Shempert a letter an d requestedthat she sign and date the attached Charge of Discrimination (Charge) form prepared for her. The letter warned her that a failure to respond within 30 days could result in the dismissal of her charges. In addition, the letter warned that the Charge had to be filed within the time limits imposed by law and, therefore, should be returned to the E EOC as soon as possible. Upon receipt of the letter, Shempert contacted he r atto rney. She signed the Charge form on November 16, 1995, and returned it to th e EEOC on November 27, 1995. Three days later, on November 30, 1995, the EEO C received the Charge form.

On Januar y 24, 1996, the EEOC issued a “Notice of Right to Sue” letter an d Shempert filed this action in fe deral district court against Harwick and Breckenridge on Ma rch26, 1996. On November 27, 1996, Gibel, a former bookkeeper employed a t Harwick, filed a motion to intervene. Defendants then filed a motion for summary judgment and the district court granted the motion, holding that Shempert’s unverified Intake Questionnaire could not serve as an administrative charge for purposes of th e 180-day statute of limitations. Slip op. at 6 (citing Diez v. Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co. , 88 F.3d 672, 675 (8th Cir. 1996) ( Diez ), and Hodges v. Northwest Airlines, Inc. , 990 F.2d 10 30, 1032 (8th Cir. 1993) ( Hodges )). The district court also rejecte d Shempert’s assertion that equitable tolling applied to preserve her claim. Id. at 8 n.2.There is no state or local fair employment practices agency in Arkansas. 3 Therefore, Shempert had 180 days, as opposed to 300 days, after the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred to file her charge with the EEOC. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1). -5- Because Shempert could not maint ain her Title VII action, the district court also denied Gibel’s motion to intervene. Id. at 9-10. This appeal followed.

Discussion
We review a grant of summary judgment de novo . The question before the district court, and thi s court on appeal, is whether the record, when viewed in the light mos t favorabl e to the non-moving party, shows that there is no genuine issue as to an y material f act and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); see, e.g. , Celotex Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986) ; Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 47 7 U.S. 242, 249-50 (1986); Get Away Club, Inc. v. Coleman , 969 F. 2d 664, 666 (8th Cir. 1992); St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. FDIC , 968 F.2d 695, 699 (8th Cir. 1992). Where the unresolved issues are primarily lega l

ra ther than factual, summary judgment is particularly appropriate. Crain v. Board o f Police Comm’rs , 920 F.2d 1402, 1405-06 (8th Cir. 1990).

Under Tit le VII, an administrative charge must be filed within 180 days of th e alleged discriminatory inc ident. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1). In order to be valid, Title 3 VII requires that “[c]harges shall be in writing under oath or affirmation and shal l contain such information and be in such form as the [EEOC] requires.” Id. § 2000e-5(b). There is no dispute that the last alleged incident of discrimination occurred onThe EEOC has filed an amicus curiae brief in support of Shempert and 4 submits essentially the same argument on appeal. Therefore, our discussion addresses these arguments simultaneously. The regulation provides in relevant part: “[A] charge is sufficient when the 5 [EEOC] receives from the person making the charge a written statement sufficiently precise to identify the parties, and to describe generally the action or practices complained of.” 29 C.F.R. § 1601.12(b). The regulation provides in relevant part: “A charge may be amended to cure 6 technical defects or omissions, including failure to verify the charge . . . . Such -6- May 15, 1995. The last day for Shempert to file a valid charge, therefore, wa s November 11, 1995. The parties also do not dispute that Shempert filed an Intak e Questionnaire on October 30, 1995, within the 180-day filing period, and that she signed the Cha rge under affirmation or oath on November 16, 1995, after the 180-day filin g periodhad expired. The only dispute in this case, therefore, is whether the Intak e Qu estionnaire qualified as an administrative charge under the particular circumstances of this case.
Shempert contends that the district court should not have granted summary judgme nt on her Title VII claim because she filed an Intake Questionnaire within th e 180-d ay filing period. She argues that her Intake Questionnaire qualified as a n 4 ad ministrative charge because it was a precise statement identifying the parties an d desc ribing the discriminatory activities, as required by 29 C.F.R. § 1601.12(b). Sh e 5 further argues that, even tho ugh she did not sign the Intake Questionnaire under oath or affirmation, 29 C.F.R . § 1601.12(b) allows her to amend the Intake Questionnaire with the Charge s igned on November 16, 1995, and, therefore, cure any defect by relatin g back to October 30, 1995. 6amendments . . . will relate back to the date the charge was first received.” 29

C.F.R. § 1601.12(b). -7- Th e case law in the Eighth Circuit is well settled on this issue. Intak e Questionnaires which are neither signed under oath nor verified do not satisfy th e statut ory requirement for an administrative charge. See Lawrence v. Coope r Com munities, Inc. , 132 F.3d 447, 450 (8th Cir. 1998) ( Lawrence ); Schlueter v

. Anheuser-Busch, Inc. , 132 F.3d 455, 458 (8th Cir. 1998) ( Schlueter ); Diez , 88 F.3d at 675. Title 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(b) requires that all admi nistrative charges be “in writing under oath or affirmation.” Only when an Intake Ques tionnaire is signed under oath can it “constitute a valid charge under Title VII for purposes of the statute of limitations.” Lawrence , 13 2 F.3d at 450 (quoting Hodges , 990 F.2d at 1032). Shempert’s Intak e Questionnaire was never sign ed under oath or verified. The verification requirement of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(b), as construed by this circ uit, requires us to hold that Shempert’sSeveral circuits hold that an Intake Questionnaire cannot serve as an 7 administrative charge. See Park v. Howard Univ. , 71 F.3d 904, 908-09 (D.C. Cir. 1995), cert. denied , 117 S. Ct. 57 (1996); EEOC v. Appalachian Power Co. , 568 F.2d 354, 355 (4th Cir. 1978) (per curiam) (holding that a charge not taken under oath or affirmation is not a valid charge). But see Balazs v. Liebenthal , 32 F.39 151 (4th Cir. 1994) (holding that an invalid charge can be perfected through equitable tolling). Other circuits have held that a timely-filed Intake Questionnaire can serve as an administrative charge if subsequently verified. See Philbin v. General Elec. Capital Auto Lease, Inc. , 929 F.2d 321 (7th Cir. 1991) (per curiam); Peterson v. City of Wichita , 888 F.2d 1307 (10th Cir. 1989) (Title VII case involving discrimination based on race), cert. denied , 495 U.S. 932 (1990). Still other circuits have held that an Intake Questionnaire qualifies as a charge if it satisfies the requirements of 29 C.F.R. § 1601.12(b). See Clark v. Coats & Clark, Inc. , 865 F.2d 1237, 1239-41 (11th Cir. 1989) (Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) claim); Casavantes v. California State Univ. , 732 F.2d 1441 (9th Cir. 1984). Some circuits have also held that an unverified charge can be verified after the filing period has expired through equitable tolling. See Early v. Bankers Life & Cas. Co. , 959 F.2d 75 (7th Cir. 1992) (relying on the misleading conduct of the EEOC to toll the statute of limitations). -8- Intake Questionnaire did not constitute a valid charge under Title VII. Becaus e 7 Shempert’s Intake Questionnaire did not constitute-9-

a charge under Title VII, her verified Charge of Novemb er 16, 1995, can not relate back to the filing of the Intake Questionnair e. See Lawrence , 132 F.3d at 450 (noting that an Int ake Questionnaire is not a charge and 29 C.F.R. § 1601.12(b) only allows a n
ame ndment to relate back to the date a charge was first received); Schlueter , 132 F.3d at 458 (same).
Shempert urges us to apply the Dieztest for distinguishing between qu estionnaires that are preliminary to an administrative charge and questionnaires that function as a charge. Diez , 88 F.3d at 676 (adopting the Seventh Circuit test f rom Steffen v. Meridian Life Ins. Co. , 859 F.2d 534, 542 (7th Cir. 1988) ( Steffen ), cert. denied , 491 U.S. 90 7 (1989)). Shempert argues that she intended to s atisfy the statutory filing requirement by subm itting the Intake Questionnaire and, therefore, we should consider it a n administrative charge. The Steffen court proceeded from the premise that the claimant’s Intake Questionnaire fit within t he statutory and regulatory descriptions of a charge and conclud ed that the claimant’s intent to “activate the Act’s machinery,” as well as th e EEOC’s treatment of the Intake Questionnaire as a charge, requ ired the court to treat the In take Questionnaire as a charge. 859 F.2d at 542. Both Diez and Steffen , however , invol vedclaims of age discrimination under the ADEA, which does not require that a charge be verifi ed. 29 U.S.C. § 626; Diez , 88 F.3d at 675; Steffen , 859 F.2d at 541

. Charges under Title VII, in contrast, must be verified.Defendants argue that equitable tolling was not properly raised in the district 8 court and is not, therefore, reviewable by this court. See Kapp v. Naturelle, Inc. , 611 F.2d 703, 709 (8th Cir. 1979). The district court, however, noted that Shempert did assert that equitable tolling should apply but rejected that argument. Slip op. at 8 n.2. The issue of equitable tolling, therefore, is properly before this court. -10- 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(b). Whereas the Intake Questionnaires in both Diez and Steffen met the statutory description for an ADEA administrative charge, Shempert’s unverified Intake Questionnaire, as discus sed above, does not fit within the statutory requirements for a Title VII charge

. Compare 29 U.S.C. § 626, with42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(b). Diez , therefore, does not apply to this case.
Shempert argues in the alternative that the district court erred in failing to apply the doct rine of equitable tolling to the 180-day filing period. The filing of a timel y 8 charge with the EEOC is “a requirement that, like a statute of limitations, is subject to waiver, estoppel and equitable tolling.” Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, Inc. , 455 U.S. 385, 393 (1982) ( Zipes ) (footnote omitted). Equitable tolling is premised on th e “excusable neglect” of the filing party, Anderson v. Unisy s Corp. , 47 F.3d 302, 306 (8th Cir.) ( Anderson ), cert. denied , 516 U.S. 913 (1995), and preserves a claim af ter the filing period has expired. Shemp ert argues that the letter from the EEOC dated November 9, 1995, to which the Charge was attached, was misleading. She further argues that she could not have been expected to sign and return the Charge, sent by the EEOC o n Novemb er

9, on or before the expiration of the filing period only two days later o n November 11.-11-

Whil e Title VII is remedial legislation and its charge-filing provisions are not to be r ead too literally or technically, see Zipes , 455 U.S. at 397, “[p]rocedura l requirements established by C ongress for gaining access to the federal courts are not to be disr egarded by courts out of a vague sympathy for particular litigants.” Baldwi n County Welcome Ctr. v. Brown , 466 U.S. 147, 152 (1984) (per curiam) ( Baldwin ). As

a gener al rule, equitable tolling is a remedy reserved for circumstances that are “trul y beyond the cont

rol of the plaintiff.” Hill v. John Chezik Imports , 869 F.2d 1122, 1124 (8th Cir . 1989); see also Lown v. Brimeyer , 956 F.2d 780, 782 (8th Cir.) (“Equitabl e tolling is appropriate only when the circumstances that cause a plaintiff to miss a filing deadline are out of his [or her] hands.”) (quoting Heid eman v. PFL, Inc. , 904 F.2d 1262, 1266 (8th Cir.1990), cert. denied , 498 U.S. 1026 (1991)), cert. denied , 506 U.S. 86 0 (1992). Baldwin

suggests instances in which equitable tolling w ould be appropriate: (1)

a claimanthas received inadequate notice; (2) a motion for appointment of counsel i s pending; (3) the court has led the plaintiff to believe that he or she has done everything required of him or her; or (4) affirmative misconduct on the pa rt of a defendant lulled the plaintiff into inaction. 466 U.S. at 151.

The circumstanc es of Shempert’s case do not justify the application of equitable tolling. At no point were circumstances out of Shempert’s control. Defendants did not engage in af

firmative misconduct which might have lulled Shempert into inaction. See id. Furthermore, Shempert controlled the timing of the Intake Questionnaire and th e filing of her Charge. In addition, the EEOC did not mishandle her claim or otherwis e misleadher into inaction. While Shempert argues that the third paragraph in the letter dated November 9 misled her into believing she had 30 days in which to file a charge, she acknowledges having read the entire letter which included a paragraph notifying-12-

her that a Charge had to be filed within the time limits im posed by law. Even construing the facts in her favor, equitable tolling is allowed only if the language was misleading. See A nderson , 47 F.3d at 306-07 (“[W]hen an administrative agency misleads a complainant, particularly one who is without the benefit of counsel, e quitable tolling may be justified.”). In the present case, not only did the EEOC not mislead Shem pert, but she had the benefit of counsel for one full month before the filing period expired.

Furth ermore, while Shempert may not have received the EEOC’s letter date d No vember

9, 1995, to which the Charge was attached, until after the filing perio d expired on N ovember 11, the fact remains that Shempert had the full 180 days to file a charge of h arassment. She waited until almost two weeks before the filing perio d expired to complete and mail the Intake Questionnaire to the EEOC. In addition , Shempert had the advice of counsel for one full month before the filing period expired. The situatio n was never beyond Shempert’s control so as to justify tolling the filin g deadline. See Mi ller v. Runyon , 32 F.3d 386, 390 (8th Cir. 1994). Equitable tolling is not an excuse to be invoked by those failing to exercise reasonable diligence. Se e Baldwin , 466 U.S. at 151.
Shempert relies on many

cases which demonstrate the appropriate application of equitable tolling. In each of those cases, equitable tolling was justified because of the misleading information provided by the agency or circumstances beyond the control of the c laimant. See Lawrence , 132 F.3d at 451 (permitting equitable tolling because the EEOC led the claimant to believe that submitting an Intake Questionnaire within fifteen days of the expiration of the filing deadline, with subsequent verification, would-13-

suffice as a Charge); Schlueter , 132 F.3d at 459 (permittingequitable tolling because the EEOC mistakenly gave the claimant the wrong form, used the wrong date to calculate when the 300-day filing period would expire, and led the claimant to believe that she had done everything necessary to file a charge); Anderson , 47 F.3d at 306-07 (applyin g equitable tolling because an agency le d the claimant to believe the filing period with the EEOC was one year rather than the a ppropriate 300 days and because the claimant was withoutcounsel); Warren v. Department of the Army , 867 F.2d 1156, 1160 (8th Cir

. 198 9) (permitting equitable tolling because of misleading information in the EEOC’ s right-to-sue letter and because the claimant was without c ounsel). Accordingly, we hold that equitable tolling does not apply in the present case.
The last issue on appeal is Gibel’s motion to interve ne. A party who has not filed an admi nistrative charge with the EEOC may still join a suit by “piggybacking” on the administrative charge of one already a party to the suit. Anderson , 47 F.3d at 305 n.8 (citing Kloos v. Carter-Day Co. , 799 F.2d 397, 400 (8th Cir. 1986)). Gibel argues that alt hough she did not file a charge of discrimination with the EEOC, she should b e allowed to “piggyback” her claim on Shempert’s charge. She relie s on Rule 24(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for the proposition that intervention is allowed when the interveno r’s claim has a question of law or fact in common with the main action

. Because Shempert failed to file a timely charge, there is no charge upon which Gibel can “piggyback” her claim. Therefore, Gibel’s motion to intervene was properly denied.

Conclusion-14-

For the reasons stated above, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.