Malveaux v. City of Dunn ( 1999 )


Menu:
  • UNPUBLISHED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    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 99-1434

Filed Date: 12/30/1999

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014