Opinion ID: 790411
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Appellant's ADEA Claim

Text: 12 Appellant first claims that his 1993 route reduction and his 1998 forced retirement constitute impermissible age discrimination. All personnel actions affecting employees or applicants for employment who are at least 40 years of age ... in the United States Postal Service and the Postal Rate Commission ... shall be made free from any discrimination based on age. 29 U.S.C. § 633a(a) (2005). An employee covered by this provision has 13 two alternative routes for pursuing a claim of age discrimination. An individual may invoke the EEOC's administrative process and then file a civil action in federal district court if he is not satisfied with his administrative remedies. See 29 U.S.C. § 633a(b) and (c). A federal employee complaining of age discrimination, however, does not have to seek relief from his employing agency or the EEOC at all. He can decide to present the merits of his claim to a federal court in the first instance. See [29 U.S.C.] § 633a(d). 14 Stevens v. Dep't of Treasury, 500 U.S. 1, 5-6, 111 S.Ct. 1562, 114 L.Ed.2d 1 (1991). If an individual alleging age discrimination has not filed a complaint with the EEOC, he may not file a civil action under section 633a until he has given the EEOC at least thirty days' notice of an intent to file such action. 29 U.S.C. § 633a(d) (2005). This notice must be filed within 180 days of the date when the alleged unlawful practice occurred. Id. 15 It is undisputed that Appellant submitted an Intent to Sue Letter to the EEOC on October 12, 2000. Because he retired on March 31, 1998, his retirement date is the latest possible date that USPS could have engaged in any discriminatory behavior toward him. Thus, Appellant had until September 27, 1998, to file his Intent to Sue Letter, and his letter of October 12, 2000, was therefore untimely. The District Court concluded as such, and granted summary judgment in favor of USPS. On appeal, Appellant argues both that the discovery rule extended the date on which his injury accrued, and the doctrine of equitable tolling halted the limitations clock, thus making his Intent to Sue Letter timely. As did the District Court, we reject these two arguments.
16 As a general rule, the statute of limitations begins to run when the plaintiff's cause of action accrues ... the accrual date is not the date on which the wrong that injures the plaintiff occurs, but the date on which the plaintiff discovers that he or she has been injured. Oshiver, 38 F.3d at 1385 (citing Cada v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 920 F.2d 446 (7th Cir.1990)) (emphasis in original). That is not to say that the accrual date is when a plaintiff learns he has been the victim of a legal wrong. Rather, a claim accrues as soon as a potential plaintiff either is aware, or should be aware after a sufficient degree of diligence, of the existence and source of an actual injury. Keystone Insurance Co. v. Houghton, 863 F.2d 1125, 1127 (3d Cir.1988); see also Cada, 920 F.2d at 450. The discovery rule delays the initial running of the statute of limitations, but only until the plaintiff has discovered: (1) that he or she has been injured; and (2) that this injury has been caused by another party's conduct. New Castle County v. Halliburton NUS Corp., 111 F.3d 1116, 1124 (3d Cir.1997). Thus, the question is when did Appellant suffer an actual injury. 17 While we understand Appellant to be citing both his 1993 route reduction and his 1998 retirement as instances of age discrimination, we shall dispense with both concurrently. Appellant had actual knowledge of his route reduction immediately, since he participated in and agreed to the reduction. Furthermore, he had actual knowledge of USPS's intent to terminate him on March 10, 1998. 6 Appellant contends that USPS's 1993 route reduction and 1998 intent to terminate or retire him was on account of his age, that this was not apparent to him until October 11, 2000 (the day he met with his attorney), and therefore the limitations period did not begin to run until then. Specifically, he contends that he did not know he had a possible injury until then. Brief of Appellant at 38. We read this as meaning that Appellant did not know he had a possible legal injury resulting from the 1993 or 1998 actions until after meeting with his attorney. However, the discovery rule is concerned with knowledge of actual injury, not legal injury. 18 Appellant does not claim he was unaware that USPS reduced his route in 1993, or that it served him with a Notice of Proposed Removal on March 10, 1998. These are the only dates when any alleged injury occurred. Therefore, the latest date on which Appellant's claim could have possibly accrued was March 31, 1998, his last day of employment. 7 The discovery rule does not excuse his failure to file his Intent To Sue Letter more than two years after the 180-day limitations period had expired. Were we to extend the reach of the discovery rule to delay accrual until a plaintiff learned that a legal injury had occurred, as Appellant requests, a statute of limitations would become effectively meaningless, as a plaintiff could, through ignorance or fraud, bring an age discrimination claim at any point in his lifetime, regardless of how long ago the underlying acts had occurred. We decline this invitation, and conclude that the discovery rule does not save Appellant's untimely ADEA claim.
19 Because the time limitations set forth in Title VII are not jurisdictional, they may be modified by equitable concerns, such as tolling. Oshiver, 38 F.3d at 1387 (citing Hart v. J.T. Baker Chemical Co., 598 F.2d 829, 831 (3d Cir.1979)). The doctrine of equitable tolling stops a statute of limitations period from running after a claim has accrued, id., but should be applied sparingly. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 113, 122 S.Ct. 2061, 153 L.Ed.2d 106 (2002); see also Irwin v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs, 498 U.S. 89, 96, 111 S.Ct. 453, 112 L.Ed.2d 435 (1990) (We have generally been much less forgiving in receiving late filings where the claimant failed to exercise due diligence in preserving his legal rights.). Appellant bears the burden of proving that the equitable tolling doctrine applies here. Courtney v. La Salle Univ., 124 F.3d 499, 505 (3d Cir.1997). There are three principal situations in which equitable tolling is appropriate: (1) where the defendant has actively misled the plaintiff respecting the plaintiff's cause of action, and that deception causes non-compliance with an applicable limitations provision; (2) where the plaintiff in some extraordinary way has been prevented from asserting his rights; or (3) where the plaintiff has timely asserted his or her rights mistakenly in the wrong forum. Oshiver, 38 F.3d at 1387 (citing Sch. Dist. of City of Allentown v. Marshall, 657 F.2d 16, 19-20 (3d Cir.1981)). Appellant makes four arguments in support of his contention that equitable tolling is appropriate here. He claims that (1) he was fooled into believing that his route was reduced because he was overworked, and that the safety violations he had committed were the basis for his forced retirement; (2) he was misled by the advice of an employee of the EEOC Pittsburgh office; (3) he timely filed a claim with the EEOC in Pittsburgh; and (4) his local USPS office failed to post an EEOC notice as required by law. Our review leads us to agree with the District Court that there is no basis to equitably toll the limitations period of Appellant's ADEA claim, which we have already concluded accrued no later than March 31, 1998. 20 Moving to his first argument, we conclude, even assuming Appellant's 1993 route reduction and his 1998 retirement were pretext for age discrimination, his noncompliance with the 180-day statute of limitations period was not the result of being misled by USPS. We find principal support for our conclusion in Appellant's own words. With regard to his 1993 route reduction, Appellant stated at deposition that he first suspected that this action was caused by age discrimination while he was in the service. Joint Appendix at 378. Reading this statement as generously as possible (since Appellant was unable at deposition to narrow the time frame to any degree), this means Appellant suspected his age played an unlawful part in his route reduction between 1993, and March 31, 1998. Giving Appellant every benefit of the doubt, this means that Appellant was not deceived into believing his route reduction was the result of being overlooked as late as March 31, 1998. Since Appellant took no action with regard to the 1993 reduction within 180 days of his retirement, tolling cannot excuse his untimely complaint. Appellant's tolling argument with regard to his forced retirement fares little better. When asked why he went to the Pittsburgh EEOC office on March 5, 1998, he replied: 21 The reason I went there was I felt that I was discriminated upon because of my age and that this EEOC was an organization set up by our government to mitigate or make easier or harder for employers to get rid of you because of age, and if I could prove that that was the case, I could go back to work. 22 Id. at 434. Appellant cannot realistically argue that he was misled to believe that the safety infractions he committed were the basis for his forced retirement when it is undisputed that he went to the EEOC office three days later to complain that these infractions were pretext for age discrimination. Regardless of whether or not the safety infractions were in fact pretext, Appellant clearly was not deceived. 8 23 Turning to his second argument, Appellant claims that the EEOC misled him by telling him to file his discrimination complaint with the Post Office. Appellant claims he began filling out an EEOC complaint, but was stopped and instructed to file with USPS instead. Even if we were to ignore the fact that Appellant's Complaint seems to indicate he was given correct advice, see Joint Appendix at 21 (stating that the EEOC told Plaintiff that he had to pursue his claim through Defendant USPS' agency EEO ) (emphasis added), any errant advice Appellant may have received from an EEOC employee did not rise to the level of an extraordinary circumstance justifying tolling of the limitations period. We have previously noted that running throughout the equitable estoppel cases is the obligation of the plaintiff to exercise due diligence to preserve his or her claim. Robinson v. Dalton, 107 F.3d 1018, 1023 (3d Cir.1997) (holding that one phone conversation with an EEO counselor [where erroneous advice was given] does not rise to the level of being prevented in an `extraordinary way' by the EEOC from asserting [one's] rights). There is nothing in the record to indicate that, following this interaction with the Pittsburgh EEOC office, he further pressed his claim in any forum until October 2000. Appellant was under a continuing duty to diligently pursue any claim of age discrimination. Had he done so, a more thorough review of the substance of his interaction with the EEO employee would be required. However, since Appellant took no further action, he cannot benefit from tolling on this point. 24 Appellant's third argument, that he in fact did timely file a claim with the EEOC on March 5, 1998, seems to belie his first two arguments, as filing an EEOC claim would demonstrate that he believed that he had been the victim of age discrimination, and that he had not been misled by an EEO employee into failing to properly file his claim. Ignoring this discrepancy, this allegation does not bring Appellant within the filing in the wrong forum portion of the equitable tolling doctrine. Since it is undisputed that Appellant did not complete an EEOC Intake Questionnaire, it is clear to us that the EEOC received no complaint from Appellant at any point in March, 1998. Therefore, Appellant cannot claim he filed a discrimination complaint in the wrong forum. 25 Finally, Appellant's fourth argument is that USPS' failure to post an EEOC notice detailing his rights tolls the limitations period. 9 While it is true that all employers must conspicuously post a notice to be prepared or approved by the EEOC setting forth information regarding the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. § 627, it is also true that failure to post the required notice will toll the running of the 180-day period until the aggrieved person seeks out an attorney or acquires actual knowledge of his rights under the ADEA. Bonham v. Dresser Industries, Inc., 569 F.2d 187, 193 (3d Cir.1977). Here, Appellant's decision to go to the EEOC office on March 5, 1998, makes clear that he was aware that he could file an age discrimination claim. The absence of an EEOC notice did not prejudice him, and as such is no basis to toll the limitations period. 26 Because it is undisputed that Appellant took no action on his ADEA claim between March 31, 1998, and October 12, 2000, and because we conclude he cannot benefit from either the discovery rule or equitable tolling, the District Court properly found that his ADEA claim was time-barred.