Court Opinion

ID: 997202
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 16:52:53.334691+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:02:47.638327
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

ALADE TOKUTA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

JAMES MADISON UNIVERSITY,
Defendant-Appellee,

and
                                                                     No. 97-2445
CHARLES W. REYNOLDS,
Defendant.

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION; THE COUNCIL ON
HUMAN RIGHTS,
Amici Curiae.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg.
James H. Michael, Jr., Senior District Judge.
(CA-96-113-H)

Argued: October 29, 1998

Decided: November 23, 1998

Before ERVIN and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and
BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Vacated and remanded by unpublished opinion. Senior Judge Butzner
wrote the opinion, in which Judge Ervin and Judge Niemeyer joined.

_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL

ARGUED: Kirk Chalis Downey, Hagerstown, Maryland, for Appel-
lant. David Raymond Simonsen, Jr., Richmond, Virginia, for Amicus
Curiae Council. Guy Winston Horsley, Jr., Senior Assistant Attorney
General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Mark L. Earley, Attorney Gen-
eral of Virginia, Judith Williams Jagdmann, Deputy Attorney Gen-
eral, Neil A.G. McPhie, Senior Assistant Attorney General, OFFICE
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Richmond, Virginia, for Appel-
lee. C. Gregory Stewart, General Counsel, Vincent J. Blackwood,
Acting Associate General Counsel, Lamont N. White, EQUAL
EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Washington,
D.C., for Amicus Curiae EEOC.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge:

Alade Tokuta charged that James Madison University (JMU) dis-
criminated against him on the basis of race and national origin. With-
out the benefit of this court's recent ruling on the issue, the district
court found that Tokuta had failed to file a timely complaint with the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and granted
summary judgment in favor of JMU. Tokuta filed this appeal. We
vacate the district court's judgment and remand for consideration of
the merits.

I

On February 28, 1995, JMU notified Tokuta, an associate profes-
sor, that his application for tenure would be denied. Tokuta filed a
charge of discrimination with the EEOC on November 14, 1995, 259

                    2
days after learning of the alleged act of discrimination. Tokuta's
EEOC charge was filed with the Virginia Council on Human Rights
(VCHR) pursuant to a federal-state work-sharing agreement.

II

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 directs that discrimination
charges must be filed with the EEOC within 180 days of the alleged
unlawful employment practice. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1) (1994).
The filing period is extended to 300 days, however, when a charge is
filed, in Title VII parlance, with a state deferral agency. Id. The sole
issue in this case is whether the VCHR is a deferral agency.

We recently answered this question in the affirmative after the dis-
trict court issued its judgment. Tinsley v. First Union Nat'l Bank, 155
F.3d 435, 440 (4th Cir. 1998). See also Armstrong v. Siemans Co.,
No. 97-1222 (4th Cir. unpublished per curiam, decided Nov. 13,
1997) (concluding in a footnote that Virginia is a valid deferral state,
and thus the EEOC filing limit is 300 days). But see Childress v.
Appalachian Power Co., No. 97-2057 (4th Cir. unpublished per
curiam, decided July 21, 1998) (concluding that Virginia is not a valid
deferral state).

Governed by the precedent set forth in Tinsley , we hold that
because the VCHR is a state deferral agency, Tokuta had 300 days to
file his EEOC charge. His charge was timely. We remand this case
to the district court for consideration of Tokuta's claims on the merits.

VACATED AND REMANDED

                     3