Brenda Crawford v. Boone Cty. ( 1999 )


Menu:
  •                     United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 98-3274
    ___________
    Brenda Crawford,                        *
    *
    Appellant,                 *
    *
    v.                               * Appeal from the United States
    * District Court for the
    Boone County, Missouri; O.J. Stone,     * Western District of Missouri
    individually & in his capacity as an    *
    employee of the Boone Cty. Sheriff&s    *       [UNPUBLISHED]
    Dep't.,                                 *
    *
    Appellees.                 *
    ___________
    Submitted: March 4, 1999
    Filed: March 26, 1999
    ___________
    Before McMILLIAN, LOKEN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Brenda Crawford appeals from the final judgment entered in the United States
    District Court1 for the Western District of Missouri. The district court granted
    summary judgment to defendants in Crawford&s employment discrimination action,
    1
    The Honorable Scott O. Wright, United States District Judge for the Western
    District of Missouri.
    in which Crawford claimed that defendants sexually harassed and subjected her to
    disparate treatment based on her sex and age, in violation of Title VII of the Civil
    Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17.
    After de novo review, see Diez v. Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co., 
    88 F.3d 672
    ,
    674 (8th Cir. 1996), we conclude summary judgment was proper because Crawford
    failed to file a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity
    Commission (EEOC) within 300 days of any alleged discriminatory employment
    practice, see 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e); Hanenburg v. Principal Mut. Life Ins. Co., 
    118 F.3d 570
    , 573 (8th Cir. 1997) (plaintiff may not assert Title VII claim unless she has
    filed timely EEOC charge); cf. Jenson v. Eveleth Taconite Co., 
    130 F.3d 1287
    , 1302-
    03 (8th Cir. 1997) (alleged violation may be deemed continuing where plaintiff
    challenges ongoing pattern or practice of discrimination, but plaintiff must establish
    violation existed during statutory period), cert. denied, 
    118 S. Ct. 2370
     (1998). We
    agree with the district court that Crawford failed to show circumstances that
    warranted equitable tolling of the 300-day filing period. See Baldwin County
    Welcome Ctr. v. Brown, 
    466 U.S. 147
    , 151 (1984) (per curiam) (listing four
    circumstances that warrant equitable tolling); Miller v. Runyon, 
    32 F.3d 386
    , 390 (8th
    Cir. 1994) (reviewing for clear error district court’s findings of facts underlying
    equitable tolling claim).
    Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. We deny plaintiff&s and defendants’
    pending motions on appeal.
    A true copy.
    Attest:
    CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
    -2-
    -3-