Filed: Dec. 31, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Opinions of the United 2003 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 12-31-2003 Parker v. Royal Oaks Entr Inc Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 03-1494 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2003 Recommended Citation "Parker v. Royal Oaks Entr Inc" (2003). 2003 Decisions. Paper 18. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2003/18 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by th
Summary: Opinions of the United 2003 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 12-31-2003 Parker v. Royal Oaks Entr Inc Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 03-1494 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2003 Recommended Citation "Parker v. Royal Oaks Entr Inc" (2003). 2003 Decisions. Paper 18. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2003/18 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the..
More
Opinions of the United
2003 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
12-31-2003
Parker v. Royal Oaks Entr Inc
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 03-1494
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2003
Recommended Citation
"Parker v. Royal Oaks Entr Inc" (2003). 2003 Decisions. Paper 18.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2003/18
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2003 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
____________
No. 03-1494
____________
GERALD B. PARKER,
Appellant
v.
ROYAL OAK ENTERPRISES, INC.
____________________
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
(Dist. Court No. 00-cv-00363J)
District Court Judge: Hon. Terrence F. McVerry
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
December 4, 2003
Before: SLOVITER and ALITO, Circuit Judges, and OBERDORFER,* District Judge.
(Opinion Filed: December 29, 2003)
______________________
OPINION OF THE COURT
______________________
*
The Honorable Louis F. Oberdorfer, Senior District Judge for the District of
Columbia, sitting by designation.
ALITO, Circuit Judge:
This appeal arises from a grant of summary judgment against Gerald B. Parker in
his lawsuit filed under the Age Discrimination Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. §
621 et seq., against his former employer, Royal Oak Enterprises, Inc. (“Royal Oak”).
Parker alleges age discrimination resulting in his forced retirement; however, his original
filing with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) occurred 316 days
after the accrual of his claim. Parker argues that the 300-day time limit for filing with the
EEOC should be equitably tolled, but we agree with the District Court that the evidence is
insufficient to establish a basis for equitable tolling. We therefore affirm.
I.
At the time of his retirement, Parker had been employed by Royal Oak as an
activated carbon salesman for 23 years and was 65 years of age. In January of 1998,
Royal Oak hired Todd Swearingen, age 31, to sell activated carbon. In May or June of
1999, Parker’s supervisor, Randall Beech, a General Manager, spoke to Parker by
telephone and advised him that he would have to retire by the end of the year. Parker
expressed disappointment concerning the decision and, according to Parker, Beech
implied or suggested that there was a possibility that the company would retain him as a
consultant, as it had for some other employees. In September of 1999, Parker spoke with
Beech, concerning the possibility of consulting, but Beech stated that he would need to
check with other superiors. Neither party initiated any future discussions concerning
-2-
consulting. Parker retired in December of 1999 on seemingly amicable terms after Royal
Oak gave him a retirement party and a Ford Explorer.
On May 11, 2000, Parker filed a charge of age discrimination with the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). The EEOC issued Parker a Dismissal
and Notice of Rights, notifying him: “Your charge was not timely filed with the
Commission, i.e., you waited too long after the date(s) of the discrimination you allege to
file your charge.”
In December 2000, Parker initiated this action in the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania. After completion of discovery, the District
Court granted Royal Oak’s motion for summary judgment. In granting the motion, the
District Court held that Parker had filed his charge outside of the 300-day period for filing
an EEOC charge and that Parker had presented no evidence to justify equitable tolling.
Parker appealed. Parker contends that the District Court erred in refusing to apply the
doctrine of equitable tolling. Royal Oak defends the decision of the District Court and
also argues that it was entitled to summary judgment on the alternative ground that Parker
did not rebut its asserted reasons for his termination, namely, that the company had no
need for two activated charcoal salesmen and that Swearingen was paid less and lived
closer to the company’s operations in Florida.
II.
We exercise plenary review over a District Court’s grant of summary judgment,
-3-
and we therefore apply the same legal standards applied by the District Court. Gruber v.
Hubbard Bert Karle Weber, Inc., 159 F.3d 780, 786, (3rd Cir. 1998). In evaluating Royal
Oak’s motion for summary judgment, we must view the evidence in the light most
favorable to Parker and must then decide whether the evidence is sufficient to support a
judgment against Royal Oak. See F ED. R. C IV. P. 56; Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,
477 U.S.
317, 322-23 (1986). Although we must review the record in the light most favorable to
Parker and must give him the benefit of all reasonable inferences, reversal of the District
Court would require this Court to make a series of unreasonable inferences that are not
supported by the record.
III.
In a deferral state, such as Pennsylvania, a plaintiff is required to file an ADEA
charge of discrimination with the EEOC “within 300 days after the alleged unlawful
employment practice occurred.” 29 U.S.C. § 626(d)(2); Watson v. Eastman Kodak Co.,
235 F.3d 851, 854 (3d Cir. 2000). Here, there is no dispute that Parker did not file with
the EEOC within this time period. The record shows that, some time in May or June of
1999, Royal Oak unequivocally advised Parker that he would have to retire on December
31, 1999. Viewing the record in the light most favorable to Parker, the District Court
properly used June 30, 1999, as the most generous starting date for purposes of
calculating the number of days that transpired before Parker filed his ADEA claim with
the EEOC. Parker filed his claim with the EEOC in the form of a questionnaire on May
-4-
11, 2000, 316 days after the limitations period started. Consequently, Parker’s filing was
untimely.
Parker contends, however, that the running of the 300-day period should be
equitably tolled until his actual retirement date or least until the last date on which Beech
represented to him that he was checking on possibility of a consulting position.
Appellant’s Br. at 13. We do not agree.
Although the time limitation for filing with the EEOC may be equitably tolled, the
doctrine of equitable tolling is to be applied “sparingly.” National Railroad Passenger
Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 113 (2002). We have identified three “principal”
occasions when the doctrine “may” be appropriate:
(1) where the defendant has actively misled the plaintiff
respecting the plaintiff's cause of action;
(2) where the plaintiff in some extraordinary way has been
prevented from asserting his or her rights; or
(3) where the plaintiff has timely asserted his or her rights
mistakenly in the wrong forum
Oshiver v. Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman, 38 F.3d 1380, 1387 (3d Cir. 1994). Parker
bears the burden of proof to establish that the equitable tolling doctrine applies here.
Courtney v. La Salle University,
124 F.3d 499, 505 (3d Cir. 1997) (citing Ross v.
Buckeye Cellulose Corp.,
980 F.2d 648, 661 (11th Cir.1993) (plaintiffs have burden of
establishing equitable tolling in Title VII cases)).
No facts of record support an inference that any of these theories applies in this
-5-
case. The first and third theories are plainly inapplicable because Parker does not allege
that Royal Oak actively misled him respecting his cause of action, and Parker did not
timely assert his rights in the wrong forum. As for the second theory, while Parker
alleges that he was dissuaded from filing with the EEOC while he held out the hope of
obtaining a consulting position with Royal Oak, there is no evidence that Parker was “in
some extraordinary way . . . prevented from asserting his . . . rights.” Oshiver, 38 F.3d at
1387. Indeed, when Parker was asked whether Royal Oak had prevented him from
talking to the EEOC, he replied, “Heavens, no.” App. 81a. He added that Royal Oak had
not “told” him not to file with the EEOC or “misled” him.
Id. at 80a-81a. The most that
Parker claims is that when Beech told him that he would have to retire, Beech “implied”
or “suggested” that there was a “possibility” that the company would keep him on as a
consultant and that it “had done that with other people.”
Id. at 77a. Parker argues that he
“did not initiate a claim because he wanted the consulting position and felt that litigation
would hurt his chances.” Appellant’s Br. at 4. However, Parker does not explain why he
did not file with the EEOC during the more than one hundred days from the date of his
actual retirement, when he was aware that “Royal Oak had no intention of offering him a
position,”
id., and he was aware of the expiration of the 300-day period. In any event, the
record does not show that Parker was in any “extraordinary way” prevented from
asserting his rights. Nor are there any other circumstances that can justify the application
of the doctrine of equitable tolling.
-6-
IV.
For the reasons explained above, the order of the District Court is affirmed.
-7-
TO THE CLERK OF THE COURT:
Kindly file the foregoing Opinion.
/s/ Samuel A. Alito, Jr.
Circuit Judge
-8-
