Court Opinion

ID: 2964315
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:23:54.033037+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:53.758147
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

        September 26, 1996      [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 96-1165

                                  DAVID JAMES WYATT,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                              THE BOSTON TEACHERS UNION,

                                 Defendant, Appellee.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                       [Hon. Mark L. Wolf, U.S. District Judge]
                                           ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________
                            Cyr and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
                                           ______________

                                 ____________________

            David James Wyatt on brief pro se.
            _________________
            Matthew E. Dwyer, John P. Sheridan and Dwyer & Jenkins on brief
            ________________  ________________     _______________
        for appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                      Per Curiam.   Appellant David  James Wyatt  appeals
                      __________

            from  the dismissal  of  his action  against appellee  Boston

            Teachers  Union.  He filed a complaint in the district court,

            alleging  that  the  Union  had  retaliated  against  him  in

            violation  of  Title VII  by  refusing  to represent  him  in

            opposing his termination  from his  job as a  teacher in  the

            Boston public  school system.  The  district court determined

            that  appellant  had  not  filed  a  charge  with  the  Equal

            Employment Opportunity Commission within 300 days as required

            by  42 U.S.C.   2000e-5(e).  We agree with the district court

            for  essentially  the  reasons  stated in  its  Order,  dated

            December 14, 1995.  We add two comments.

                      1.    Appellant  raises  on appeal  a  new  theory,

            supported by new  facts, concerning his argument  that he did

            not discover  that the Union  was refusing  to represent  him

            until  June 24, 1994.  Appellant also raises the new argument

            that he was unaware of his right to sue the Union under Title

            VII until we  issued our opinion in the  appeal of his action

            against the City of Boston and others.  See Wyatt  v. City of
                                                    ___ _____     _______

            Boston,  Nos. 93-2330  and  93-2367 (1st  Cir. September  15,
            ______

            1994).

                      In the absence  of extraordinary circumstances,  we

            do not consider arguments never presented to the lower court.

            Clauson   v.   Smith,   823   F.2d   660,   666   (1st   Cir.
            _______        _____

            1987)(collecting cases).  We have reviewed the record and the

            briefs, and  do  not find  such  circumstances here.    Thus,

            appellant  has  waived appellate  consideration of  these new

            assertions.  See id.
                         ___ ___

                      2.  Using  December 31, 1993 as  the time appellant

            learned of  the  alleged  unlawful  practice  --  retaliatory

            refusal of  representation --  we conclude that  the November

            25,  1994 filing  with the  Massachusetts Commission  Against

            Discrimination occurred 328  days after this  date.  This  is

            outside  both the 240-day  limit for  filing charges  with an

            appropriate  state agency  and the  300-day limit  for filing

            charges  with the  EEOC.   See    EEOC v.  Commercial  Office
                                       ___    ____     __________________

            Products Co.,  486 U.S.  107, 110-11 (1988)  (with exceptions
            ____________

            not relevant here, a  complainant may not file a  charge with

            the  EEOC until 60 days  have passed from  the initial filing

            with  the proper state agency; thus, to meet the 300-day time

            limit for  filing EEOC charges,  the state complaint  must be

            filed  within 240 days of  the date the  alleged unlawful act

            took place).

                      The judgment  of the  district  court is  summarily
                                                                _________

            affirmed.  See Local Rule 27.1.    
            ________   ___