Court Opinion

ID: 998146
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:06:59.507439+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:22:32.157669
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

ANITA MASON ROWLAND,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

AMERICAN GENERAL FINANCE,
INCORPORATED,
                                                                        No. 98-2340
Defendant-Appellee,

and

GEORGE ROACH, Regional Manager,
in his individual capacity,
Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Virginia, at Lynchburg.
James C. Turk, District Judge.
(CA-97-16-L)

Submitted: February 23, 1999

Decided: March 18, 1999

Before WILKINS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and
BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Terry N. Grimes, KING, FULGHUM, SNEAD, NIXON & GRIMES,
P.C., Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellant. Robert C. Wood, III, Kristine
H. Smith, EDMUNDS & WILLIAMS, P.C., Lynchburg, Virginia, for
Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Anita Mason Rowland filed an action alleging, among other things,
that American General Finance, Inc. (American General) discrimi-
nated against her because of her gender in violation of Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964. Without the benefit of a recent ruling from
this court, the district court found that Rowland failed to file a timely
charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC) and granted summary judgment in favor of
American General. Rowland filed this appeal. We vacate the district
court's judgment and remand for further consideration.

The district court concluded that the latest possible date of the dis-
criminatory acts forming the basis of Rowland's discrimination action
was March 6, 1996. Finding that Rowland was required to file her
EEOC charge within 180 days of March 6, 1996, the district court
held that Rowland's charge, which it found was filed September 11,
1996, was filed outside the 180-day period and was untimely.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires that discrimina-
tion charges be filed with the EEOC within 180 days of the alleged
unlawful employment practice. See 42 U.S.C.§ 2000e-5(e)(1) (1994).
The filing period is extended to 300 days, however, when state law
proscribes the alleged employment practice and the charge is initially
filed with a state deferral agency. In Tinsley v. First Union Nat'l
Bank, 155 F.3d 435, 440 (4th Cir. 1998), we held that the Virginia
Counsel on Human Rights (VCHR) is a deferral agency. The record
shows that the EEOC transmitted Rowland's charge of discrimination

                     2
to the VCHR on September 17, 1996. No party argues that Virginia
state law does not proscribe discrimination based on sex. See Va.
Code Ann. § 2.1-716, 720(14) (Michie 1995 & Supp. 1998). Accord-
ingly, Rowland had 300 days to file her charge of discrimination.
Because Rowland satisfied this requirement, we vacate the district
court's judgment and remand this case to the district court for further
consideration. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

VACATED AND REMANDED

                    3