Apodaca v. Safeway, Inc., 346 P.3d 21

Apodaca alleged harassment, emotional distress, personal injury, loss of income, and age discrimination against Safeway.
District court dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.
EEOC charge was filed in 2013 alleging age discrimination, but the EEOC deemed it untimely.
Apodaca last worked for Safeway on December 21, 2012; charge filed November 13, 2013, exceeding the 300-day window under ADEA pre-suit exhaustion.
Court held ADEA exhaustion is a jurisdictional prerequisite; untimeliness bars federal discrimination claims.
State-law claims (emotional distress, personal injury, loss of income) were preempted or inadequately argued and were summarily affirmed against Apodaca.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Apodaca's ADEA claims were timely and properly exhausted.	Apodaca contends timely exhaustion; time frames satisfied.	Safeway argues untimeliness and lack of administrative exhaustion.	ADEA exhaustion not satisfied; claims dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Whether state-law claims were properly dismissed given potential LMRA preemption.	Apodaca did not adequately argue, cite authorities to support state claims.	CBA preemption under LMRA may apply; need cogent argument.	State-law claims summarily affirmed without merit due to lack of cogent argument.

Almond v. Unified Sch. Dist. No. 501, 665 F.3d 1174 (10th Cir. 2011) (administrative exhaustion as a jurisdictional prerequisite under the ADEA)
Shikles v. Sprint/United Mgmt. Co., 426 F.3d 1304 (10th Cir. 2005) (exhaustion is a jurisdictional prerequisite to suit under the ADEA)
Montes v. Vail Clinic, Inc., 497 F.3d 1160 (10th Cir. 2007) (exhaustion requirements are a condition precedent to suit)
Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck, 471 U.S. 202 (1985) (preemption of state-law claims under §301 LMRA when they involve interpretation of labor agreements)
Saunders v. Amoco Pipeline Co., 927 F.2d 1154 (10th Cir. 1991) (preemption considerations under LMRA §301)