Case Name: Tifarah C. McDANIEL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ashton B. CARTER, Secretary, Department of Defense, Agency (DFAS) , Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-08-04
Citations: 611 F. App'x 451
Docket Number: No. 13-55685
Parties: Tifarah C. McDANIEL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ashton B. CARTER, Secretary, Department of Defense, Agency (DFAS) , Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: CANBY, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 611
Pages: 451–452

Head Matter:
Tifarah C. McDANIEL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ashton B. CARTER, Secretary, Department of Defense, Agency (DFAS) , Defendant-Appellee.
No. 13-55685.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 21, 2015.
Filed Aug. 4, 2015.
Tifarah C. McDaniel, Victorville, CA, pro se.
Before: CANBY, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Ashton B. Carter has been substituted for his predecessor, Leon Panetta, as Secretary of the Department of Defense under Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Tifarah C. McDaniel appeals pro se from the district court's judgment in her action alleging civil rights violations and employment discrimination in connection with her . federal employment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir.2010). We vacate and remand.
The district court properly treated McDaniel's claims as Title VII claims because Title VII "provides the exclusive judicial remedy for claims of discrimination in federal employment." Brown v. Gen. Servs. Admin., 425 U.S. 820, 835, 96 S.Ct. 1961, 48 L.Ed.2d 402 (1976).
The district court dismissed McDaniel's Title VII claims as untimely without the benefit of our recent decision in Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226 (9th Cir.2015). We therefore remand for the district court to consider Escobedo in determining whether McDaniel timely filed her complaint before the ninety-day limitations period expired.
Each party shall bear its own costs on appeal.
VACATED and REMANDED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.