Opinion ID: 592900
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Complaint One

Text: 8 In late August, 1984 Ransom and a white co-worker filed a suggestion with the Depot. On or about November 27, 1985, the Depot notified the men that their suggestion merited a $50 bonus. Although his co-worker accepted the bonus, Ransom did not. Maintaining that the suggestion was worth more than $50, Ransom contended that the Depot undervalued it because he was black and in reprisal for his prior claims of racial discrimination. Ransom's supervisor forwarded his appeal to the Depot review board, which affirmed the award on or about February 7, 1986. 9 Ransom sought informal counseling from an Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) counselor on February 27, 1986 and filed a formal complaint with the EEO April 24, 1986. The EEO denied Ransom's claim because he did not seek EEO counseling within 30 days of the rejection of his beneficial suggestion. His appeal to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission was denied on September 17, 1987. 10 Ransom first argues that his initial discussion with the EEO counselor was timely because he continued to dispute the $50 award with his supervisor. This argument is meritless. The time period for filing a complaint of discrimination begins to run when the facts that would support a charge of discrimination would have been apparent to a similarly situated person with a reasonably prudent regard for his rights. Boyd v. United States Postal Serv., 752 F.2d 410, 414 (9th Cir.1985). Ransom does not allege that he was unaware of his potential discrimination claim at the time his supervisor first informed him of the $50 award for his suggestion. Nor did he alter the finality of the award decision or toll the limitations period by availing himself of the internal appeals process of the Depot. United States v. Ricks, 449 U.S. 250, 261 (1980), Boyd, 752 F.2d at 414. 11 Alternatively, Ransom argues that the principles of waiver and equitable tolling should be applied to his case. Because the time limit for consulting a counselor is interpreted in this circuit as a statute of limitation rather than as a jurisdictional requirement, it is subject to waiver and equitable tolling in exceptional cases. Cosgrove v. Bolger, 775 F.2d 1078, 1080 (9th Cir.1985). However, Ransom has not given us any reason to attribute his delay to anything more than lack of diligence in pursuing his claim. In such a circumstance, equitable tolling is not appropriate. Irwin v. Veterans Administration, 111 S.Ct. 453, 457-458 (1990). 12 Finally, Rice v. Hamilton Air Force Base, 720 F.2d 1082 (9th Cir.1982), which Ransom cites in support of his position, is not helpful to him. Rice holds only that a pro se plaintiff's timely filed complaint cannot be barred on account of its defective form.