• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
 
P
HILLIP
L. C
OCHRAN
,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.No. 07-1888
E
RIC
H. H
OLDER
, J
R
., AttorneyGeneral,
 Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Courtfor the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge.(1:06-cv-01328-JCC)Argued: December 4, 2008Decided: May 4, 2009Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and TRAXLER,Circuit Judges.Reversed and remanded by published opinion. Judge Motzwrote the opinion, in which Judge Wilkinson and Judge Trax-ler joined.
COUNSELARGUED:
Phoebe Leslie Deak, Washington, D.C., forAppellant. Dennis Carl Barghaan, Jr., OFFICE OF THE
 
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, forAppellee.
ON BRIEF
: Chuck Rosenberg, United StatesAttorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
OPINION
DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, Circuit Judge:Federal employees who claim illegal discrimination bytheir employer may file a civil action within 90 days of a"final" adverse decision by the Equal Employment Opportu-nity Commission (EEOC). 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(c) (2006).This case presents the question of when an EEOC decisionbecomes "final" for the purpose of this statute. The districtcourt interpreted an EEOC regulation to require that the 90-day period began running from the conclusion of the initialEEOC appeal—
regardless
of whether the employee timelyfiles a motion for reconsideration. For this reason, the courtdismissed Phillip Cochran’s complaint as untimely. The expe-rienced district judge certainly offered a reasonable construc-tion of the EEOC regulation. But we believe that SupremeCourt precedent (never brought to the district court’s attentionby the parties), along with the consistent judicial interpreta-tion of the regulation and the notice that the EEOC providedto Cochran and routinely provides to aggrieved employees,mandates a contrary construction. Accordingly, we reverse.I.In 1986, the United States Marshals Service (USMS) hiredCochran as a Deputy United States Marshal. After a few yearson the job, Cochran began experiencing problems with hishearing; he eventually retired from the USMS in 1993. OnSeptember 28, 1995, Cochran filed a formal administrativecomplaint, charging that the USMS discriminated against himon the basis of disability. Cochran alleged that this discrimi-
2C
OCHRAN
v. H
OLDER
 
nation caused his constructive discharge in 1993 and that theUSMS unlawfully failed to reinstate him to his previous posi-tion in 1995.Cochran’s case followed a lengthy administrative pathbefore reaching the federal courts. After an investigation bythe USMS, Cochran chose to pursue a hearing before theMerit System Protection Board, which held against him onMay 31, 2001. Cochran then sought a hearing before anEEOC administrative judge, who also found against him.Cochran appealed this decision to the EEOC Office of FederalOperations (OFO), which affirmed the administrative judge’sruling on December 29, 2005. Cochran then filed a timelymotion before the OFO seeking reconsideration of theDecember 29 decision. The OFO denied this motion onMarch 10, 2006.Cochran next sought relief in federal court, filing a civilcomplaint in the district court for the District of Columbia onJune 9, 2006—exactly 90 days from the date on which theOFO denied his motion for reconsideration. That court trans-ferred the case to the Eastern District of Virginia on Novem-ber 11, 2006. The USMS then moved to dismiss Cochran’scomplaint as untimely because Cochran had filed his com-plaint more than 90 days after the OFO’s original decision of December 29, 2005. The district court, relying on the EEOCregulation defining when an EEOC decision becomes "final,"dismissed the complaint. Cochran timely filed this appeal.II.A.Federal employees alleging employment discrimination bya federal agency have the right to sue in federal district court"[w]ithin 90 days of receipt of notice of final action taken by[the EEOC]." 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(c) (2006). The partiesagree that Cochran’s federal court complaint was untimely if 
3C
OCHRAN
v. H
OLDER
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...