USCA1 Opinion

October 25, 1994

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________

No. 94-1805
EDUARDA C. AMARAL,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
RHODE ISLAND HOSPITAL TRUST, ET AL.,
Defendants, Appellees.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
[Hon. Raymond J. Pettine, Senior U.S. District Judge]
__________________________
____________________
Before
Cyr, Circuit Judge,
_____________
Bownes, Senior Circuit Judge,
____________________
and Stahl, Circuit Judge.
_____________
____________________
Eduarda C. Amaral on brief pro se.
_________________
Joseph V. Cavanagh, Jr., Michael DiBiase, Karen A. Pelczarski
_______________________ ________________ ___________________

Blish & Cavanagh on brief for appellees.

________________
____________________
____________________

Per Curiam.
___________

Appellant Eduarda

C. Amaral

appeals the

entry of summary judgment by the United States District Court

for the District of Rhode Island in favor of appellees, Rhode
Island Trust

National Bank and Christopher

claims to have suffered

Brodeur.

discrimination in violation of Title

VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.

court

dismissed the

failed to file

Amaral

action

on the

2000e.

ground that

The

Amaral had

a timely discrimination charge with the Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission

the record in this case, as well as
we affirm essentially

on the

[EEOC].

We have

reviewed

the parties' briefs, and

same grounds

as those

relied

upon by the district court.

In a

"deferral state" like

Cooley, Inc.,
____________

686

plaintiff alleging
must file

F.

Supp.

Rhode Island, see

___
377,

(D.R.I.

discrimination in violation of

an administrative

complaint with the

240 days of the challenged conduct.

Pacific Tea Co.,
______________

382

871 F.2d

179, 181

Paulo v.
_____
1988),

Title VII
EEOC within

Mack v. Great Atlantic &

____
________________
(1st Cir.

1989).

The

evidence in the instant case is uncontested that Amaral filed

a

sworn complaint with the EEOC, see 42 U.S.C.

___

29 C.F.R.

1601.9 (charge of discrimination must

and verified under

was

291 days

2000e-5(b);

oath), only on September

after the

most recent

be signed

25, 1992, which

alleged discriminatory

conduct.
Moreover, Amaral
to

entitle

her

to

has not presented

equitable tolling

sufficient evidence
of

the

limitations

-2-

period. See

Mack, 871 F.2d

at 185 (this court

"hew[s] to a

___
'narrow

____

view'

of

equitable

limitations periods").
Affirmed.
________

-3-

exceptions

to

Title

VII