Opinion ID: 568368
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Timeliness of appellant's action

Text: 35 The United States Department of the Interior rejected appellant's claim pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1613.215, finding that the complaint was unduly late 10 and that the record did not indicate facts or circumstances requiring a waiver of the time limit. Appellant timely appealed to the EEOC, which affirmed the agency's decision. The EEOC subsequently sent notice to appellant of his right to file a civil action. 36 The right-to-sue letter from the EEOC indicates that Kalra exhausted his administrative remedies and was therefore properly before the district court. See Carter v. Smith Food King, 765 F.2d 916, 923 (9th Cir.1985) (A right-to-sue letter would be a contradiction in terms if it did not mean that the recipient had exhausted his administrative remedies and had met all the statutory prerequisites to the filing of a lawsuit.) There may be an issue as to whether appellant's untimely EEOC filing bars a subsequent suit in federal court despite the right-to-sue letter. 37 Because appellee has failed to give this court any direct authority which supports its contention, 11 and because the case for affirming the judgment on the merits is so strong, we need not address the timeliness issue on this appeal.