September 26, 1996      [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________





        No. 96-1165



                                  DAVID JAMES WYATT,



                                Plaintiff, Appellant,



                                          v.



                              THE BOSTON TEACHERS UNION,



                                 Defendant, Appellee.



                                 ____________________





                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS



                       [Hon. Mark L. Wolf, U.S. District Judge]
                                           ___________________



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________

                            Cyr and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
                                           ______________



                                 ____________________



            David James Wyatt on brief pro se.
            _________________

            Matthew E. Dwyer, John P. Sheridan and Dwyer & Jenkins on brief
            ________________  ________________     _______________

        for appellee.





                                 ____________________





                                 ____________________









































                      Per Curiam.   Appellant David  James Wyatt  appeals
                      __________



            from  the dismissal  of  his action  against appellee  Boston



            Teachers  Union.  He filed a complaint in the district court,



            alleging  that  the  Union  had  retaliated  against  him  in



            violation  of  Title VII  by  refusing  to represent  him  in



            opposing his termination  from his  job as a  teacher in  the



            Boston public  school system.  The  district court determined



            that  appellant  had  not  filed  a  charge  with  the  Equal



            Employment Opportunity Commission within 300 days as required



            by  42 U.S.C.   2000e-5(e).  We agree with the district court



            for  essentially  the  reasons  stated in  its  Order,  dated



            December 14, 1995.  We add two comments.



                      1.    Appellant  raises  on appeal  a  new  theory,



            supported by new  facts, concerning his argument  that he did



            not discover  that the Union  was refusing  to represent  him



            until  June 24, 1994.  Appellant also raises the new argument



            that he was unaware of his right to sue the Union under Title



            VII until we  issued our opinion in the  appeal of his action



            against the City of Boston and others.  See Wyatt  v. City of
                                                    ___ _____     _______



            Boston,  Nos. 93-2330  and  93-2367 (1st  Cir. September  15,
            ______



            1994).



                      In the absence  of extraordinary circumstances,  we



            do not consider arguments never presented to the lower court.



            Clauson   v.   Smith,   823   F.2d   660,   666   (1st   Cir.
            _______        _____



            1987)(collecting cases).  We have reviewed the record and the



            briefs, and  do  not find  such  circumstances here.    Thus,

































            appellant  has  waived appellate  consideration of  these new



            assertions.  See id.
                         ___ ___



                      2.  Using  December 31, 1993 as  the time appellant



            learned of  the  alleged  unlawful  practice  --  retaliatory



            refusal of  representation --  we conclude that  the November



            25,  1994 filing  with the  Massachusetts Commission  Against



            Discrimination occurred 328  days after this  date.  This  is



            outside  both the 240-day  limit for  filing charges  with an



            appropriate  state agency  and the  300-day limit  for filing



            charges  with the  EEOC.   See    EEOC v.  Commercial  Office
                                       ___    ____     __________________



            Products Co.,  486 U.S.  107, 110-11 (1988)  (with exceptions
            ____________



            not relevant here, a  complainant may not file a  charge with



            the  EEOC until 60 days  have passed from  the initial filing



            with  the proper state agency; thus, to meet the 300-day time



            limit for  filing EEOC charges,  the state complaint  must be



            filed  within 240 days of  the date the  alleged unlawful act



            took place).



                      The judgment  of the  district  court is  summarily
                                                                _________



            affirmed.  See Local Rule 27.1.    
            ________   ___