Court Opinion

ID: 1000485
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:41:31.811375+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:11:18.834475
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

AMANDA J. MALVEAUX,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

CITY OF DUNN; DUNN POLICE
DEPARTMENT; KENNETH M. SILLS,
                                                             No. 99-1434
Police Chief,
Defendants-Appellees,

and

BOBBY EARL MAYNARD,
Defendant.

AMANDA J. MALVEAUX,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

BOBBY EARL MAYNARD,
Defendant-Appellee,
                                                             No. 99-1541
and

CITY OF DUNN; DUNN POLICE
DEPARTMENT; KENNETH M. SILLS,
Police Chief,
Defendants.

Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington.
James C. Fox, District Judge.
(CA-98-172-7-F)

Submitted: December 16, 1999

Decided: December 30, 1999
Before MURNAGHAN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and
BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Terry Terrell Zick, LAW OFFICES OF TERRY TERRELL ZICK,
Wilmington, North Carolina, for Appellant. Reginald B. Gillespie, Jr.,
Keith D. Burns, FAISON & GILLESPIE, Durham, North Carolina;
Maranda J. Freeman, CRANFILL, SUMNER & HARTZOG, L.L.P.,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, Amanda J. Malveaux appeals the
district court's dismissal of her employment discrimination action
against the City of Dunn, Dunn Police Department, and Kenneth M.
Sills (No. 99-1434); and Bobby Earl Maynard (No. 99-1541), in
which she raised claims based on violations of Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5 (1994). The district court
dismissed the suit because Malveaux failed to file a charge of dis-
crimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
("EEOC") within 180 days of the date of the alleged unlawful
employment practice. It is on this ground alone that Malveaux
appeals, claiming that she had 300 days, pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 2000e-5(e), in which to file her charge with the EEOC.

                    2
We agree with the district court that Malveaux's action is time-
barred. The aggrieved person is required to have filed a charge with
the EEOC within 180 days of the alleged discriminatory act or within
300 days of the alleged discriminatory act if state or local proceedings
were initiated. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1) (1994); Beall v. Abbott
Labs., 130 F.3d 614, 620 (4th Cir. 1997). The failure to file a timely
complaint with the EEOC bars the claim in federal court. See
McCullough v. Branch Banking & Trust Co., 35 F.3d 127, 131 (4th
Cir. 1994).

It is undisputed that December 17, 1996, the date of Malveaux's
termination, is the date of the last alleged unlawful employment prac-
tice. A review of Malveaux's complaint and its exhibits reveals that
she filed her charge with the EEOC on August 21, 1997, almost 250
days after she was terminated. Malveaux does not allege, nor does the
record reflect, that she initially filed a complaint with a State or local
agency with authority to grant or seek relief from the discriminatory
practices she alleges, such that the enlargement of the filing period to
300 days would apply to her case. Nor can she point to any discrimi-
natory action that took place within 180 days of the date she filed her
charge with the EEOC.

Accordingly, Malveaux's failure to file a timely charge of discrimi-
nation was fatal to federal jurisdiction and requires us to affirm the
district court's dismissal of her action. We dispense with oral argu-
ment on these appeals because the facts and legal contentions are ade-
quately presented in the materials before the Court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                     3