Opinion ID: 2974477
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Dendinger’s Title VII Claims

Text: Title VII “‘specifies with precision’ the prerequisites that a plaintiff must satisfy before filing suit.” Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 109 (2002) (quoting Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U.S. 36, 47 (1974)). One such prerequisite is that [a]n individual must file a charge [of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”)] within the statutory time period and serve notice upon the person against whom the charge is made. In a State that has an entity with the authority to grant or seek relief with respect to the alleged unlawful practice, an employee who initially files a grievance with that agency must file the charge with the EEOC within 300 days of the employment practice; in all other States, the charge must be filed within 180 days. A claim is time barred if it is not filed within these time limits. Id. (citing 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1)). The parties agree that, if this provision applies, all of Dendinger’s claims based upon events occurring before August 17, 2002 are time-barred. Dendinger argues, however, that her claims are based upon the continuing-violation doctrine, which tolls the § 2000e-5(e)(1) limitations period. We “have recognized only two narrowly limited exceptions of ‘continuing violations’ which would toll the running of a statute of limitations under 6 Title VII . . . .” EEOC v. Penton Indus. Publ’g Co., 851 F.2d 835, 838 (6th Cir. 1988). The first arises from an ongoing series of discriminatory acts, the second from a long-standing policy of discrimination. Sharpe v. Cureton, 319 F.3d 259, 266-67 (6th Cir. 2003). Dendinger can establish neither. In Morgan, the Supreme Court emphasized the inapplicability of the continuing-violation doctrine to discrete acts of discrimination, even those that are related to one another, apart from hostile environment claims. Morgan argues that the statute does not require the filing of [an EEOC] charge within 180 or 300 days of each discrete act, but that the language requires the filing of a charge within the specified number of days after an “unlawful employment practice.” “Practice,” Morgan contends, connotes an ongoing violation that can endure or recur over a period of time. In Morgan’s view, the term “practice” therefore provides a statutory basis for the . . . continuing violation doctrine. This argument is unavailing, however, given that 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2 explains in great detail the sorts of actions that qualify as “[u]nlawful employment practices” and includes among such practices numerous discrete acts. There is simply no indication that the term “practice” converts related discrete acts into a single unlawful practice for the purposes of timely filing. 536 U.S. at 110-11 (internal citations omitted). After summarizing each of its prior continuing-violation holdings, the Morgan Court continued: We derive several principles from these cases. First, discrete discriminatory acts are not actionable if time barred, even when they are related to acts alleged in timely filed charges. Each discrete discriminatory act starts a new clock for filing charges alleging that act. The charge, therefore, must be filed within the 180- or 300-day time period after the discrete discriminatory act occurred. Id. at 113. In this case, each of the violations of which Dendinger complains was a discrete occurrence of which she was aware at the time. See Bell v. Ohio State Univ., 351 F.3d 240, 247-48 (6th Cir. 7 2003) (holding that Morgan does not permit the application of the continuing-violation doctrine to “discrete acts of which [a plaintiff] was immediately aware when they occurred, [when the plaintiff] has presented no evidence of a longstanding policy of discrimination”). Moreover, Dendinger has failed to present any evidence that BCI & I had a longstanding policy of discrimination. Accordingly, the district court was correct in granting summary judgment for BCI & I on all of Dendinger’s Title VII claims premised upon events occurring before August 17, 2002. Dendinger also asserts claims arising from BCI & I’s internal investigation of her, its failure to notify her of the investigation until after it had been completed, and her supervisors’ refusal to assign cases to her in the same manner and at the same rate as to her male counterparts.5 She argues that these events constituted adverse employment actions taken by BCI & I against her. She also complains that a hostile work environment created by BCI & I resulted in her constructive discharge. We have repeatedly held, however, that neither an internal investigation into suspected wrongdoing by an employee nor that employee’s placement on paid administrative leave pending the outcome of such an investigation constitutes an adverse employment action. See Peltier v. United States, 388 F.3d 984, 988 (6th Cir. 2004) (collecting cases).6 Similarly, Dendinger has failed to explain how BCI & I’s alleged failure to notify her of the investigation qualifies as such an action.7 5 It is undisputed that these claims are timely. 6 Peltier quotes from White v. Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 364 F.3d 789, 803 (6th Cir. 2004) (en banc). Peltier, 388 F.3d at 988. The Supreme Court subsequently granted certiorari in that case and held that the definition of “adverse employment action” is broader in retaliation cases than in discrimination cases. Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, — U.S. —, 126 S. Ct. 2405 (2006). Because Dendinger does not state a retaliation claim, however, our statement in White remains applicable here. 7 It is, moreover, uncontroverted that Dendinger was in fact notified of the investigation on March 14, 2003, and was invited to attend a hearing at which she would be afforded an opportunity 8 In addition, as the district court noted, the manner in which an employer assigns job duties to an employee and the employer’s criticism of the employee’s performance “normally are insufficient to establish a constructive discharge as a matter of law,” Smith v. Henderson, 376 F.3d 529, 534 (6th Cir. 2004), and Dendinger’s evidence does not establish that her working conditions were so unbearable that she could not have remained on the job while pursuing available remedies. In any event, even were we to hold that Dendinger has satisfied the requirements of a prima facie case of constructive discharge, she has failed to produce evidence that BCI & I’s asserted legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for denying her assignments and initiating the internal investigation — namely, that she was unreliable and was suspected of falsifying reports — was pretextual. Nor can Dendinger’s hostile-environment constructive-discharge claim survive summary judgment. Even if Dendinger could show that BCI & I created a hostile environment by permitting supervisors to make sexual overtures toward her, to “[make] it very clear . . . that [they] did not like having a woman agent,”and to be “condescending, rude and mean” to her, Appellant Br. at 9, “the fact that [a] plaintiff may have proven a hostile work environment is not enough by itself to prove constructive discharge also.” Moore v. KUKA Welding Sys. & Robot Corp., 171 F.3d 1073, 1080 (6th Cir. 1999). Rather, “unless conditions are beyond ‘ordinary’ discrimination, a complaining employee is expected to remain on the job while seeking redress.” Perry v. Harris Chernin, Inc., 126 F.3d 1010, 1015 (7th Cir. 1997), cited in Pennsylvania State Police v. Suders, 542 U.S. 129, 147 (2004). The harassment alleged by Dendinger does not rise above the level of “ordinary” discrimination. to respond to the charges. She declined, however, to avail herself of the opportunity to be heard, opting instead to resign on the day before the hearing was to take place. 9