Lingi Anderson v. Whirlpool Corp. , 20 F. App'x 598 ( 2001 )


Menu:
  •                     United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 01-1818
    ___________
    Lingi Anderson,                         *
    *
    Appellant,                 *
    *
    v.                                * Appeal from the United States
    * District Court for the
    Whirlpool Corporation,                  * Eastern District of Arkansas.
    *
    Appellee.                  *         [UNPUBLISHED]
    ___________
    Submitted: October 4, 2001
    Filed: October 16, 2001
    ___________
    Before McMILLIAN, MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, and BYE, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Lingi Anderson appeals the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary
    judgment in her lawsuit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.
    § 2000e et seq. We have carefully reviewed the record and the parties’ submissions
    on appeal.    For the reasons stated by the district court, we conclude that
    1
    The Honorable Beverly Stites Jones, United States Magistrate Judge for the
    Eastern District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by
    consent of the parties pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C. § 636
    (c).
    Ms. Anderson’s charge of discrimination was untimely filed, see Shempert v.
    Harwick Chem. Corp., 
    151 F.3d 793
    , 796 n.3 (8th Cir. 1998) (noting Arkansas
    plaintiff had 180 days to file charge with Equal Employment Opportunity
    Commission), cert. denied, 
    525 U.S. 1139
     (1999), and that the circumstances did not
    justify equitable tolling of the filing period, see Dring v. McDonnell Douglas Corp.,
    
    58 F.3d 1323
    , 1328-29 (8th Cir. 1995) (EEOC filing period should be tolled only
    when plaintiff is unable to obtain vital information bearing on existence of her claim;
    question is whether reasonable person in plaintiff’s situation would have been
    expected to know of existence of possible unlawful discrimination); Heideman v.
    PFL, Inc., 
    904 F.2d 1262
    , 1266 (8th Cir. 1990) (“Equitable tolling is appropriate only
    when the circumstances that cause a plaintiff to miss a filing deadline are out of his
    hands.”), cert. denied, 
    498 U.S. 1026
     (1991). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir.
    R. 47B.
    A true copy.
    Attest:
    CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 01-1818

Citation Numbers: 20 F. App'x 598

Judges: McMillian, Arnold, Bye

Filed Date: 10/16/2001

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024