Bennett v. St. Mary's County ( 2000 )


Menu:
  • UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    TIMOTHY I. BENNETT,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v.
    No. 00-1037
    ST. MARY'S COUNTY SHERIFF'S
    DEPARTMENT,
    Defendant-Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
    Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge.
    (CA-99-1480-S)
    Submitted: July 31, 2000
    Decided: August 14, 2000
    Before WIDENER, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
    _________________________________________________________________
    Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    _________________________________________________________________
    COUNSEL
    Joe C. Ashworth, Leonardtown, Maryland, for Appellant. Daniel
    Karp, Victoria M. Shearer, ALLEN, JOHNSON, ALEXANDER &
    KARP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
    _________________________________________________________________
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
    Local Rule 36(c).
    OPINION
    PER CURIAM:
    Timothy I. Bennett appeals the district court's order granting
    Defendant's motion to dismiss his complaint of discrimination under
    the Americans with Disabilities Act for failure to state a claim under
    Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). We vacate and remand to the district court
    for further proceedings.
    We review Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) dismissals de novo, accept as
    true factual allegations of the complaint, and view the complaint in
    the light most favorable to Bennett. See Mylan Labs., Inc. v. Matkari,
    
    7 F.3d 1130
    , 1134 (4th Cir. 1993). Bennett's complaint alleged he
    filed an administrative charge of discrimination with the Equal
    Employment Opportunity Commission 298 days after the alleged act
    of discrimination by Defendant. The record before us is silent as to
    whether, and if so, when, the EEOC transferred the complaint to the
    Maryland Commission on Human Relations ("MCHR"). The district
    court, citing EEOC v. Techalloy Maryland, Inc. , 
    894 F.2d 676
     (4th
    Cir. 1990), found Bennett's complaint failed to state a claim upon
    which relief could be granted because his administrative charge of
    discrimination was not timely filed.
    We disagree with the district court's reading of Techalloy Mary-
    land. In Techalloy Maryland, an administrative charge of discrimina-
    tion was filed with the EEOC 281 days after the alleged act of
    discrimination. The administrative charge was received by the MCHR
    on the 299th day following the alleged act of discrimination. Upon
    these facts, we found the complaint in Techalloy Maryland to be
    timely filed. Because receipt of the charge by both the EEOC and the
    MCHR occurred within 300 days of the alleged act of discrimination,
    "we decline[d] to decide whether the charge should be considered as
    filed on the date the EEOC received it or on the date it was received
    by MCHR." 
    Id.
     at 678 n.4. Here, Bennett's complaint states that he
    filed his administrative charge with the EEOC within 300 days of the
    alleged act of discrimination. If further proceedings reveal that his
    administrative charge was also received by the MCHR within 300
    days of the alleged act of discrimination, the facts in this case will be
    indistinguishable from those in Techalloy Maryland. Thus, it is not
    2
    clear as a matter of law that no relief can be granted under any set of
    facts that can be proved consistent with Bennett's allegations. See
    Hishon v. King & Spalding, 
    467 U.S. 69
    , 73 (1984).
    Further, even if Bennett's administrative charge was not received
    by the MCHR within 300 days of the alleged act of discrimination,
    it is not plain that the district court lacked jurisdiction to entertain his
    complaint. While Techalloy Maryland explicitly declined to decide
    whether filing of the administrative charge with the EEOC alone
    within 300 days would have been timely, thus leaving that question
    unresolved, at least one other district court in Maryland has applied
    Techalloy Maryland to find that "a charge is deemed timely if it is
    sent to the EEOC within 300 days after the alleged unlawful prac-
    tice." Francis v. Board of Sch. Comm'rs, 
    32 F. Supp. 2d 316
    , 321 (D.
    Md. 1999).
    Accordingly, while we express no opinion as to either the threshold
    question of whether Bennett's administrative charge was timely filed
    or the ultimate merits of his complaint of discrimination, we vacate
    the district court's order dismissing his complaint and remand for fur-
    ther proceedings. 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