Bahri Begolli v. Home Depot, U.S.A.
701 F.3d 1158
7th Cir.2012Background
- Plaintiff alleged Albanian national-origin discrimination by Home Depot in hiring.
- Defendant claimed another manager told plaintiff on Aug. 27, 2007 that he would not be hired.
- Plaintiff filed EEOC/Wisconsin complaints on June 26, 2008, about 304 days after the alleged notice.
- District court held the claim time-barred after an evidentiary hearing and dismissed the suit.
- Plaintiff argued the issue should be resolved by a jury if timely; court treated it as a threshold, pre-trial issue.
- Judge acknowledged Pavey v. Conley supports judge resolution of exhaustion-like issues before trial, but distinguished Title VII deadline from exhaustion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the filing deadline is a jury-triable threshold issue. | Plaintiff argues deadline issue should be tried by jury if timely demand. | Defendants contend deadline is a judge-determined issue under Pavey. | Deadline issue resolved by judge; reversed on appeal that threshold issue could be jury-triable. |
| Whether Title VII’s 300-day deadline is a statute of limitations not requiring exhaustion. | Plaintiff contends deadline functions as statute of limitations. | Defendants assert it operates as an exhaustion-like prerequisite. | Deadline treated as a statute of limitations defense, properly decided by the court. |
| Whether exhaustion provisions like § 1997e(a) apply to Title VII discrimination claims. | Plaintiff relies on Pavey logic for court-resolution of threshold issues. | Exhaustion under Title VII is not the same as prison-PLRA exhaust. | The district court’s approach was distinguished; Title VII aims to provide a court forum for discrimination claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Delaware State College v. Ricks, 449 U.S. 250 (U.S. 1980) (timing of administrative complaint starts when notified of unlawful practice)
- Pavey v. Conley, 544 F.3d 739 (7th Cir. 2008) (court may resolve threshold exhaustion issues before trial)
- Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (U.S. 2006) (filing deadline is a statute of limitations defense, not requiring exhaustion)
- Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2003) (exhaustion issues related to prison remedies; relevance to threshold determinations)
- Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516 (U.S. 2002) (explanation of exhaustion goals in prison litigation; contrast with Title VII)
- Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U.S. 36 (U.S. 1974) (Title VII aims to provide a federal judicial forum for discrimination claims)