Court Opinion

ID: 2964587
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:27:57.048209+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:35.490192
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                              _________________________

          No. 96-1413

                                JULIA TIRADO, ET AL.,

                               Plaintiffs, Appellants,

                                          v.

                     U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, ET AL.,

                                Defendants, Appellees.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

                   [Hon. Salvador E. Casellas, U.S. District Judge]
                                               ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                               Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                          ___________

                           Selya and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________

                                 ____________________

               Emilio F. Soler for appellant.
               _______________
               Lowell  V.  Sturgill,  Jr.,   with  whom  Frank  W.  Hunger,
               __________________________                _________________
          Assistant   Attorney  General,   Guillermo  Gil,   United  States
                                           ______________
          Attorney, and Robert S. Greenspan, Appellate Staff, Department of
                        ___________________
          Justice, were on brief, for appellees.

                                 ____________________

                                    March 11, 1997

                                 ____________________

                    Per  Curiam.  We affirm the judgment below on the basis
                    Per  Curiam.
                    ___________

          of  the district  court's well-reasoned  order dated  February 5,

          1996.  We add only a brief comment.

                    The concept of an ordered liberty requires that the law

          draw temporal  lines.  Any  time such  a line is  drawn, however,

          there will always be litigants who fall just short.   Holding the

          line in  those instances may seem  harsh, but it  is essential to

          the proper functioning of our legal system.

                    This  is such  a case.   Under  a valid  and concededly

          applicable regulation, 29 C.F.R.    163.214(a)(1)(ii) (1992), the

          plaintiff had  to file  her complaint charging  discrimination in

          employment with the EEOC within 15 days of receipt of the  Notice

          of Final Interview.   The plaintiff missed the deadline  by eight

          days.   And, while equitable tolling, as the plaintiff argues, is

          available in  an appropriate case, see, e.g., Irwin v. Department
                                             ___  ____  _____    __________

          of Veterans Affairs, 498  U.S. 89, 95-96 (1990), the  contours of
          ___________________

          the exception  are narrow and  its use  is rare,   see Jensen  v.
                                                             ___ ______

          Frank, 912  F.2d 517, 521 (1st  Cir. 1990); Mack v.  Great Atl. &
          _____                                       ____     ____________

          Pac. Tea Co., 871 F.2d 179, 185 (1st Cir. 1989).
          ____________

                    In  this case, we agree  with the lower  court that the

          facts of record, even when taken  in the light most favorable  to

          the  plaintiff, do  not permit  the invocation  of  the doctrine.

          See, e.g., Kelley v. NLRB,  79 F.3d 1238 (1st Cir. 1996).   Among
          ___  ____  ______    ____

          other things, there is  no factual support for a finding that the

          untimely filing resulted either  from conduct attributable to the

          defendants or from circumstances beyond the plaintiff's  control.

                                          2

          Applying the test laid  down in Kelley, 79 F.3d at 1249-50     an
                                          ______

          appeal which, on  the facts, perhaps presented  a more compelling

          (but, nonetheless, still unsuccessful) case for equitable tolling

              the plaintiff is plainly not entitled to relief.  Her Union's

          blunder, like the plaintiff's lawyer's error in  Kelley, is fully
                                                           ______

          chargeable to her.

                    We need go no further.  The judgment below is 

          Affirmed.
          Affirmed
          ________

                                          3