Case Name: Cheryl NYE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Carl ROBERTS; Board of Education of Cecil County, Maryland, Defendants-Appellees, and Nancy S. Grasmick, State Superintendent of Schools; Nelson Bolender, President, Defendants, Metropolitan Washington Employment Lawyers Association, Amicus Curiae
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-10-01
Citations: 47 F. App'x 247
Docket Number: No. 01-1641
Parties: Cheryl NYE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Carl ROBERTS; Board of Education of Cecil County, Maryland, Defendants-Appellees, and Nancy S. Grasmick, State Superintendent of Schools; Nelson Bolender, President, Defendants, Metropolitan Washington Employment Lawyers Association, Amicus Curiae.
Judges: Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 47
Pages: 247–248

Head Matter:
Cheryl NYE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Carl ROBERTS; Board of Education of Cecil County, Maryland, Defendants-Appellees, and Nancy S. Grasmick, State Superintendent of Schools; Nelson Bolender, President, Defendants, Metropolitan Washington Employment Lawyers Association, Amicus Curiae.
No. 01-1641.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 12, 2002.
Decided Oct. 1, 2002.
Nancy G. Black, Baltimore, MD, for Appellant. Leslie R. Stellman, Eric W. Gunderson, Towson, MD, for Appellees.
Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Cheryl Nye sued her former employer for violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, alleging that she was discriminated against on the basis of sex and in retaliation for her complaints of discrimination. The district court granted summary judgment to the employer finding that Nye's sexual harassment claims failed because they occurred more than 300 days prior to her filing a verified complaint with the relevant state deferral agency for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1) (2000); Tinsley v. First Union Nat'l Bank, 155 F.3d 435, 439 (4th Cir.1998).
The district court relied on Edelman v. Lynchburg Coll., 228 F.3d 503 (4th Cir.2000), to find that Nye's sworn but untimely charge to the EEOC could not relate back to her unsworn but timely filing with the EEOC. Subsequent to the district court's order, however, Edelman was reversed. See Edelman v. Lynchburg Coll., — U.S. -, 122 S.Ct. 1145, 152 L.Ed.2d 188 (2002). The Supreme Court held that the EEOC's regulation, 29 C.F.R. § 1601.12(b), was valid and that an untimely sworn EEOC charge could relate back to a timely but unsworn EEOC charge. Edelman, — U.S. at -, 122 S.Ct. at 1152.
Because the district court did not have the benefit of the Supreme Court's opinion in Edelman, we vacate and remand for compliance with that opinion. We decline to address the other issues raised on appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
VACATED AND REMANDED
Nye also alleged state law claims, which she has abandoned on appeal.