Opinion ID: 199050
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Failure to Hire or Promote Claim

Text: Appellant alleges that, when Smithkline hired López to fill the position of Analytical Service Leader in 1995, its failure to hire or promote her to that position constituted sex discrimination prohibited by Title VII. However, as the district court correctly noted, any person seeking relief under Title VII must file a charge with the EEOC within one hundred and eighty days after the alleged employment practice occurred, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1), or if a claim is filed with a state or local agency within three hundred days after the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred, id. López was hired on January 16, 1995. Appellant's charge was not filed until June of 1997. Her cause of action is therefore barred. Appellant argues that the 300-day limitations period was tolled in her case because the discriminatory actions of the appellee were ongoing and systemic and subject to the continuing violation exception to the limitations period. See Provencher v. CVS Pharmacy, 145 F.3d 5, 14 (1st Cir. 1998). However, the only evidence offered by appellant to support her contention of a discriminatory policy or -15- practice by Smithkline is what she optimistically refers to as statistical evidence. Although the figures admitted by appellant undeniably demonstrate that more males than females held higher paying positions at Smithkline's facility, the numbers are not provided in a context which would lend them probative value in a statistical sense. To give just one example, no showing has been made of how many females applied for higher-paying positions, nor of how many qualified females there may have been in any relevant pool of potential employees. See Blizard v. Frechette, 601 F.2d 1217, 1223-24 (1st Cir. 1979) (upholding exclusion of statistical evidence because, inter alia, appellant's offer was in no way related to the available pool of qualified female applicants for the positions filled predominantly by males). Although we recognize that statistical evidence can be a valid, and often powerful, means of proving discriminatory practices, the numbers offered by appellant fall far short of establishing any such discrimination by Smithkline. The continuing violation doctrine has no application to appellant's case, and her failure to hire or promote claim is time-barred. -16-