Huff v. Board of Governors of the University of North Carolina

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-1793

ANNA ANITA HUFF,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA –

CONSTITUENT N.C. A&T STATE UNIVERSITY,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Jr.,

District Judge. (1:07-cv-00895-WO-RAE)

Submitted: April 30, 2009 Decided: June 12, 2009

Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Romallus O. Murphy, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant.

Roy Cooper, North Carolina Attorney General, John P. Scherer II,

Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Anna Anita Huff appeals from the district court’s

order granting the Employer’s motion to dismiss for failure to

file a timely EEOC charge of discrimination in Huff’s employment

discrimination action. Finding no error, we affirm.

We review de novo a district court’s decision granting

a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1).* See Etape v. Chertoff, 497

F.3d 379, 382 (4th Cir. 2007). A Title VII plaintiff must

comply with 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-5(e)(1) (West 2006 & Supp. 2009)

in order to pursue her claim in federal court. The statute

requires a plaintiff to file her charge of discrimination with

the EEOC within the appropriate 180- or 300-day period after an

“alleged unlawful employment practice” occurred. In determining

whether the 180- or 300-day period applies, courts look to the

state where the claim arose. In this case the 180-day period

applied. Huff filed her EEOC charge of discrimination on

August 10, 2007, well past the 180-day filing period, which

expired on March 12, 2007.

*

Although the district court stated in its ruling from the

bench that the motion should be considered under Fed. R. Civ. P.

12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), the court ruled that there was a lack of

jurisdiction and not that Huff failed to state a claim.

2

Huff alleges that the Employer deliberately delayed

stating the reasons for the termination of her employment, so

that she was unable to “obtain vital information bearing on the

existence of her claim” and argues equitable tolling or

equitable estoppel should apply. Equitable tolling and

equitable estoppel are separate methods of modifying a

limitations period. Equitable tolling applies where the

defendant has wrongfully deceived or misled the plaintiff in

order to conceal the existence of a cause of action; equitable

estoppel applies where the defendant engages in intentional

misconduct to cause a plaintiff to miss a filing deadline.

English v. Pabst Brewing Co., 828 F.2d 1047, 1049 (4th Cir.

1987); Morse v. Daily Press, Inc., 826 F.2d 1351, 1352-53 (4th

Cir. 1987).

As noted by the district court, Huff has presented no

facts that would merit the application of equitable tolling or

estoppel, nor does the record disclose any. While Huff may not

have been told the reason for the termination because of the

ongoing investigation for improperly handling funds, there is no

evidence that the Employer did this in order to conceal a cause

of action or intentionally delay an EEOC charge. Nor did the

Employer take any actions that it should have unmistakably

understood would cause Huff to delay filing her charges. See

English, 828 F.2d at 1049.

3

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 the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

4