Dorr v. Brown ( 1999 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
YOUNG SOON DORR,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
No. 98-2703
ANN BROWN, in her official capacity
as Chairman, Consumer Product
Safety Commission,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge.
(CA-96-3936-AW)
Submitted: June 22, 1999
Decided: July 15, 1999
Before ERVIN, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________________________________________
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
George M. Chuzi, KALIJARVI, CHUZI & NEWMAN, P.C., Wash-
ington, D.C., for Appellant. Lynne A. Battaglia, United States Attor-
ney, A. David Copperthite, Assistant United States Attorney,
Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
_________________________________________________________________
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Young Soon Dorr appeals the district court order and memorandum
opinion granting summary judgment to Ann Brown, Chair of the Con-
sumer Product Safety Commission ("Commission"), and dismissing
Dorr's employment discrimination complaint alleging a hostile work
environment due to her national origin. The district court found that
Dorr did not contact an Equal Employment Opportunity ("EEO")
counselor within 45 days of the alleged discriminatory events. See 29
C.F.R. § 1614.105 (YEAR). The court also concluded that Dorr did
not establish a hostile work environment. Finding no reversible error,
we affirm.
Despite not hearing of a supervisor's derogatory comments until
shortly before she first met with an EEO counselor, the record shows
that Dorr believed she had an actionable discrimination complaint as
early as October 1994. Furthermore, the only event that occurred
within the 45-day period prior to meeting with the EEO counselor is
insufficient to establish a continuing violation. See Beall v. Abbott
Lab., 130 F.3d 614, 620 (4th Cir. 1997). Nor can Dorr successfully
assert equitable estoppel as a bar to the Commission's assertion of
untimeliness. Dorr acknowledged that the Executive Director of the
Commission recommended she initiate formal proceedings. She did
not heed this advice. We find that she was not diligent in preserving
her legal rights. See Irwin v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 498 U.S.
89, 96 (1990).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order. 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 in the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2