Opinion ID: 3060071
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Timeliness of Tarmas’s claims

Text: Tarmas argues that all of his claims were timely under the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 because he was denied wages and compensation in the form of accrued leave, and the denials continued on a daily basis until he filed his EEOC complaint. Although he concedes that he did not raise this issue below, he asserts that the court may consider it because it raises a question of law. The Rehabilitation Act prohibits federal agencies from discriminating in employment against individuals with disabilities. Mullins v. Crowell, 228 F.3d 1305, 1313 (11th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted); see also 29 U.S.C. § 794(a); 42 9 U.S.C. § 1981a(a)(2). A plaintiff asserting a private right of action under the Rehabilitation Act must satisfy the exhaustion of administrative remedies requirement in the manner prescribed by Title VII. 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-5, 2000e-16; 29 U.S.C. § 794a; Doe v. Garrett, 903 F.2d 1455, 1459-60 (11th Cir. 1990). Under these regulations, the employee “must initiate contact with a Counselor within 45 days of the date of the matter alleged to be discriminatory or, in the case of personnel action, within 45 days of the effective date of the action.” 29 C.F.R. § 1614.105(a)(1). “Generally, when the claimant does not initiate contact within the 45-day charging period, the claim is barred for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.” Shiver v. Chertoff, 549 F.3d 1342, 1344 (11th Cir. 2008). If the employee shows that he was not notified or otherwise aware of the time limits, then he may seek an extension of the 45-day period. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.105(a)(2). The Supreme Court has held that “filing a timely charge of discrimination with the EEOC is not a jurisdictional prerequisite to suit in federal court, but a prerequisite that, like a statute of limitations, is subject to waiver, estoppel, and equitable tolling.”5 Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 455 U.S. 5 To the extent that Tarmas claims he is entitled to equitable tolling because he was unaware of the discrimination until August 2005, that claim fails. Tarmas had been experiencing difficulties with the call-out requirements and requests for accommodations as early as 2003. Beginning in 2003, Tarmas routinely challenged his supervisor’s decisions regarding his leave, his requested transfers, and his requested flexible schedule. He cannot now claim that he was unaware that he might have a claim for discrimination. 10 385, 393 (1982). Here, Tarmas first contacted an EEOC counselor on August 15, 2005. Thus, any employment action that occurred more than 45 days prior to August 15, 2005 is untimely. To circumvent this 45-day requirement, Tarmas alleges that the discriminatory acts were ongoing violations. But this claim fails; the acts of which Tarmas complains were all single and discrete acts and did not constitute continuing violations. Davis v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 516 F.3d 955, 970 (11th Cir. 2008). In another effort to circumvent the exhaustion time period, Tarmas argues that his claims were timely under the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 (the Act), Pub. L. 111-2, 123 Stat 5(2009). The Act was intended to “clarify that a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice that is unlawful under such Acts occurs each time compensation is paid pursuant to the discriminatory compensation decision or other practice, and for other purposes.” Pub. L. 111-2, 123 Stat. 5 (2009). The Act was a direct response to the Supreme Court’s decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 550 U.S. 618 (2007), which imposed a more restrictive interpretation of the limitations period for challenging discrimination in pay. “The Act amends [the Rehabilitation Act] by providing that the statute of limitations for filing an EEOC charge alleging pay discrimination 11 resets with each paycheck affected by a discriminatory decision.” Groesch v. City of Springfield, Ill., 635 F.3d 1020, 1024 (7th Cir. 2011). Under the Act, an “unlawful employment practice” occurs in the following situations: (1) “when a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice is adopted,” (2) “when an individual becomes subject to a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice,” and (3) “when an individual is affected by application of a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice, including each time wages, benefits, or other compensation is paid, resulting in whole or in part from such a decision or other practice.” Id. at 1024-25 (citing 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–5(e)(3)(A)). The Act did not, however, alter the limitations period for discrete employment actions. See Noel v. The Boeing Co., 622 F.3d 266, 271 (3d Cir. 2010). Although this court has yet to address the issue, we conclude that we need not do so here because Tarmas failed to raise the issue of discrimination in pay before the district court. A review of Tarmas’s complaint shows that he alleged that each denial of leave time and each refusal to transfer him was an unlawful employment action under the Rehabilitation Act; he did not argue that each denial impacted his compensation or benefits. See, e.g. Noel, 622 F.3d at 272-73 (explaining that the Act does not apply to failure-to-promote claims). Therefore, 12 because Tarmas raises this argument for the first time on appeal, we decline to address it.6 Accordingly, we agree with the district court’s conclusion that any actions outside the 45-day window were untimely.