Opinion ID: 701017
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Title VII Counts

Text: 2 Nelson applied for a postmaster position at Corder, Missouri. In September 1988 a female was selected for the position. Nelson did not file a complaint of discrimination against the Postal Service at that time. Nearly three years later, Nelson first asserted that the Postal Service's failure to hire him as postmaster was the result of gender discrimination. Title VII requires an aggrieved employee to submit a complaint within thirty days of the discriminatory act. 29 C.F.R. Sec. 1613.214(a)(1)(i) (1994). See Brown v. General Services Admin., 425 U.S. 820 (1976); Gardner v. Morris, 752 F.2d 1271 (8th Cir.1985). Because Nelson failed to file a timely complaint, his discrimination claim regarding the Corder position is barred. The district court properly granted summary judgment. 3 After the Corder position was not offered to him, Nelson applied for the postmaster position in Waverly, Missouri, in late 1988. Although he was named as a finalist, a female was selected to fill the position. Nelson filed a timely complaint with the Postal Service alleging that he had been discriminated against because of gender. In December 1989 Nelson and the Postal Service entered into a settlement agreement which provided that Nelson would receive other opportunities to gain administrative experience in exchange for Nelson withdrawing his complaint and agreeing not to bring a Title VII action. 4 In March 1991 Nelson wrote to the Postal Service claiming that it breached the settlement agreement because the management opportunities offered to him were unsatisfactory and less than promised. He later filed a formal complaint with the Postal Service in which he renewed his contention that the settlement agreement had been violated and alleged other acts of discrimination based on gender. The Postal Service found no violation of the settlement agreement. 5 Nelson then appealed to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). On January 27, 1991, the EEOC affirmed the Postal Service's finding of no breach of the settlement agreement. It advised Nelson of his right to appeal the decision to the United States District Court within thirty days. Six months later, Nelson's complaint was filed in district court. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Postal Service on the breach of settlement agreement claim because Nelson failed to seek timely judicial review of this claim. 6 We agree that summary judgment was appropriate. Nelson settled his claims with the Postal Service. The EEOC found no breach of the settlement agreement. It is clear that Nelson waited beyond the limitations period before challenging the EEOC decision in district court. 7 Nelson attempted to revive the Corder and Waverly claims with arguments of estoppel, equitable tolling, and continuing violations. None of these arguments has merit.