Opinion ID: 217650
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Timeliness of ADEA Claims

Text: 2 We review de novo a district court’s order granting summary judgment, applying the same standards as the district court and viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Merritt v. Dillard Paper Co., 120 F.3d 1181, 1182, 1184 (11th Cir. 1997). Summary judgment is appropriate when there is “no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); see Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 2552 (1986). 8 Under the ADEA, a plaintiff must exhaust available administrative remedies by filing a charge of unlawful discrimination with the EEOC before filing suit. Bost v. Fed. Express Corp., 372 F.3d 1233, 1238 (11th Cir. 2004); 29 U.S.C. § 626(d)(1). To be timely, the charge must be filed within 180 days after the date of the allegedly unlawful act. 29 U.S.C. § 626(d)(1)(A); Jones v. Dillard’s, Inc., 331 F.3d 1259, 1263 (11th Cir. 2003) (explaining that because Alabama is a non-deferral state, ADEA plaintiffs in Alabama must comply with § 626(d)(1)(A)’s 180-day deadline). The 180-day timing requirement may be equitably tolled if the employee had no reason to believe that he was a victim of unlawful discrimination in the period preceding 180 days before the filing deadline. Turlington v. Atlanta Gas Light Co., 135 F.3d 1428, 1435 (11th Cir. 1998). Equitable tolling is not appropriate if the employee is aware of the discrimination and his legal right to obtain redress. See id. at 1435-36.3 Leach does not dispute that he did not file his EEOC charge within 180 days of November 20, 2007, the date he learned of State Farm’s decision to terminate his employment. Leach argues that the 180-day period was tolled until he learned 3 Whether equitable tolling applies is a legal question we review de novo, but the district court’s factual findings supporting that decision are reviewed for clear error. Miranda v. B & B Cash Grocery Store, Inc., 975 F.2d 1518, 1531 (11th Cir. 1992). 9 that his replacement was woman in her 20s. The problems for Leach are that (1) he was fully aware that State Farm was investigating his conduct, and (2) by November 12, 2007, Leach’s attorney wrote a letter to State Farm alleging age discrimination, threatening to file an EEOC charge and attempting to reach a settlement before filing the charge. Under these particular circumstances, equitable tolling is not appropriate.4 Accordingly, the district court did not err in dismissing Leach’s ADEA claims as untimely.