Opinion ID: 164869
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: ccrd

Text: We next address whether, in the absence of her “like and related” argument, Ms. Tucker carried her burden to show that she exhausted her administrative remedies for the retaliatory-discharge claim. We hold that she has not. Section 706(c) of Title VII provides that, in cases alleging discrimination involving a state, a claimant may not file a charge of discrimination with the EEOC unless she has first filed a claim with an appropriate state agency and given that agency at least sixty days to attempt to resolve the matter (unless the state agency dismisses the claim earlier). See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(c); see also EEOC v. Commercial Office Prod. Co. , 486 U.S. 107, 110-11 (1988). The plaintiff can only satisfy this sixty-day waiting period by filing with a state (...continued) 1 does not make a hostile environment claim. - 11 - agency designated by the EEOC as a deferral agency. See 2 Arthur Larson & Lex K. Larson, Employment Discrimination § 48.12(a)(1), at 9A-23 (1992). Further, if the plaintiff dismisses her complaint pending before the state deferral agency prior to the expiration of the sixty-day waiting period, she has failed to exhaust the requirements of § 706(c). See Zugay v. Progressive Care, S.C. , 180 F.3d 901, 903 (7th Cir. 1999); cf. also Khadir v. Aspin , 1 F.3d 968, 971 (10th Cir. 1993) (holding that, in a Title VII case involving a federal employer, a complainant has not exhausted her administrative remedies if she “abandons . . . her claim before the agency has reached a determination”). Colorado has two § 706 deferral agencies. First, the EEOC has certified the CCRD as an appropriate deferral agency for all discrimination claims. See 29 C.F.R. § 1601.74. Second, the State Personnel Board is an appropriate deferral agency as to all claims except those arising under § 704(a) of Title VII (retaliatory-discharge claims). Id. n.4. As to such claims, the State Personnel Board acts only as a “Notice Agency.” Id. In applying this body of law, we glean the following. First, Ms. Tucker could not satisfy the sixty-day waiting period by pursuing her case before the State Personnel Board because it is merely a “Notice Agency” as to § 704(a) claims. Second, Ms. Tucker did not satisfy the sixty-day waiting period with the CCRD—the only available deferral agency for her § 704(a) claim—because she - 12 - dismissed her claim before the CCRD less than one month after filing. As such, the District Court correctly concluded that Ms. Tucker failed to exhaust her administrative remedies.