Opinion ID: 2748542
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Exhaustion and Timeliness of 2013 EEOC Charge

Text: The Department argues that Stone did not exhaust her administrative remedies with respect to her 2013 EEOC charge. Specifically, the Department asserts that the 2013 EEOC charge was not perfected, as there is no evidence that a signed, verified charge was filed with the EEOC. The Department argues that the only evidence of a charge is a notice of the filing of the charge from the EEOC, which states “a copy of the perfected charge will be mailed to you once it has been received from the Charging Party.” Alternatively, the Department argues that the 2013 charge was untimely as it was not filed within 300 days of the last complained of discriminatory conduct. Stone has not produced a signed, verified charge evidencing that her 2013 charge was perfected. Instead, she produced a letter from an EEOC investigator certifying that it received a charge of discrimination on February 25, 2013, and a notice of dismissal from the EEOC, dismissing the investigation of the 2013 charge on the basis that Stone had filed a federal lawsuit. We pretermit whether Stone perfected her 2013 EEOC charge, because even if she had, the charge was untimely. Stone was required to file an employment discrimination claim with a designated state agency or the EEOC within 300 days of the alleged unlawful employment action. See Nat’l R.R. 6 Case: 14-30204 Document: 00512826702 Page: 7 Date Filed: 11/05/2014 No. 14-30204 Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 109 (2002) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 2000e– 5(e)(1)). “A claim is time barred if it is not filed within these time limits.” Id. Stone asserts that the filing of her 2013 charge was timely under the “continuing violations” doctrine. The continuing violation doctrine “reliev[es] a plaintiff of establishing that all of the complained-of conduct occurred within the actionable period if the plaintiff can show a series of related acts, one or more of which falls within the limitations period.” Huckabay v. Moore, 142 F.3d 233, 238 (5th Cir. 1998) (quoting Messer v. Meno, 130 F.3d 130, 134–35 (5th Cir. 1997)). The plaintiff must “show an organized scheme leading to and including a present violation, such that it is the cumulative effect of the discriminatory practice, rather than any discrete occurrence, that gives rise to the cause of action.” Celestine v. Petroleos de Venezuella SA, 266 F.3d 343, 352 (5th Cir. 2001). Stone fails to identify any discriminatory conduct occurring later than March 31, 2012, the date of her resignation. Thus, Stone had until January 25, 2013, to timely file claims of discrimination based on her 2013 EEOC charge. Because she did not file until February 28, 2013, her 2013 discrimination charge was untimely. 2 2 Stone also argues that her claim is not time barred due to equitable tolling. Stone argues that the deadline to file her 2013 charge should be tolled due to her unsuccessful attempts to have counsel appointed by the court. The plaintiff has the burden of providing a sufficient factual basis for tolling the filing deadline. Conaway v. Control Data Corp., 955 F.2d 358, 362 (5th Cir. 1992). This court has applied equitable tolling when (1) a suit is pending between the parties in the incorrect forum; (2) the claimant is unaware of facts supporting her claim because the defendant intentionally concealed them; and (3) the claimant is misled by the EEOC about her rights. See Manning v. Chevron Chem. Co., LLC, 332 F.3d 874, 880 (5th Cir. 2003). We have also found equitable tolling excused an untimely filing “in rare and exceptional circumstances when a plaintiff is actively misled by the defendant about the cause of action or is prevented in some extraordinary way from asserting his rights.” Lovett v. Barbour Intern., Inc., 211 F. App’x 281, 283 (5th Cir. 2006) (per curiam) (unpublished) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Although this list is not exhaustive, Stone has not provided any arguments or cited to any case law that would support equitable tolling. 7 Case: 14-30204 Document: 00512826702 Page: 8 Date Filed: 11/05/2014 No. 14-30204