Opinion ID: 176602
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Revival of Abandoned Claims

Text: Finally, we reject Elberson’s belated attempt to raise a claim that the District Court never addressed her claims concerning Jobs 4 through 6. Elberson never raised this issue with the District Court and her cursory reference to this issue in the last paragraph of her brief is insufficient to preserve this claim for appellate review. We find this effort is particularly troubling in light of the record in the District Court. In its March 31, 2008 order on the DOC’s motion to dismiss, the District Court reluctantly permitted the case to go forward on claims based on Jobs 4 through 6, 31 and 32 even though it was likely Elberson had not complied with the administrative 7 prerequisites for a lawsuit under Title VII. Elberson’s complaint did not disclose the dates associated with these positions and did not specifically state the steps taken to exhaust her administrative remedies with respect to these jobs. Instead, Elberson’s complaint included a general assertion that she had satisfied all of the procedural and administrative requirements set forth in Title VII and that she filed timely charges with the EEOC and the PHRC. Noting that the complaint was so poorly drafted it was not possible to resolve the exhaustion issue, and that counsel had previously professed ignorance of federal law and procedure, the District Court reminded counsel of his obligations under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. Counsel was specifically warned not to proceed on any claim without a reasonable belief, formed after a reasonable inquiry, that it had been exhausted; otherwise, he would risk sanctions. It was after this order, and at the conclusion of discovery, that Elberson’s statement of undisputed facts was filed. In this filing Elberson states that the only jobs that remain as part of this lawsuit are Jobs 31 and 32 and references the District Court’s March 31, 2008 order. At no time did Elberson make any effort to pursue any claims for Jobs 4 through 6. Thus, even if claims for Jobs 4 through 6 were not specifically dismissed in the March 31, 2008 or May 8, 2009 orders, Elberson was no longer pursuing them and the District Court properly considered only the claims concerning Jobs 31 and 32. We find any claim involving Jobs 4 through 6 is waived.