Patricia Hentosh v. Old Dominion University
767 F.3d 413
4th Cir.2014Background
- Hentosh appeals district court summary judgment for ODU on tenure retaliation claim.
- EEOC charge filed May 26, 2010 alleging race discrimination and retaliation for complaint about Jeng; charge dismissed Jan 26, 2012 with right-to-sue letter.
- Tenure denial occurred in fall 2011 while EEOC investigation was pending.
- April 24, 2012, Hentosh sued for Title VII discrimination and retaliation; district court dismissed untimely discrimination claims for lack of exhaustion but retained tenure retaliation claim jurisdiction.
- District court held retaliation claim related to denial of tenure was permissible to pursue in federal court despite untimely discrimination claims.
- On appeal, court held district court had jurisdiction under Nealon v. Stone to hear related retaliation claim even though underlying discrimination claims were untimely.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court lacked jurisdiction over tenure retaliation. | Hentosh argues untimely discrimination claims nullify related retaliation claim. | ODU contends Nealon allows retaliation claim to proceed despite untimely discrimination claims. | District court had jurisdiction over tenure retaliation. |
| Scope of retaliation claim related to EEOC charge. | Retaliation claim is reasonably related to exhausted/untimely discrimination allegations. | Mezu prohibits link between untimely discrimination and retaliation claims. | Retaliation claim is properly related and prosecutable. |
| Impact of untimely EEOC filing on exhaustion and jurisdiction. | Untimely filing should preclude circuit court review of all linked claims. | Untimely filing does not deprive district court of jurisdiction; equitable tolling possible. | Untimeliness does not strip jurisdiction; equitable tolling preserved jurisdiction for related retaliation claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nealon v. Stone, 958 F.2d 584 (4th Cir. 1992) (retaliation claim may be brought in federal court even when discrimination claim is untimely if connected)
- Mezu v. Morgan State Univ., 367 F. App’x 385 (4th Cir. 2010) (unpublished decision; not controlling, may be persuasive)
- Jones v. Calvert Grp., Ltd., 551 F.3d 297 (4th Cir. 2009) (exhaustion defines scope of Title VII claims)
- EEOC v. Commercial Office Products Co., 486 U.S. 107 (1988) (timeliness governs EEOC charge effectiveness; statute and relief principles)
- Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 455 U.S. 385 (1982) (timeliness/tolling relevance in retaliation context)
- Olson v. Mobil Oil Corp., 904 F.2d 198 (4th Cir. 1990) (equitable tolling considerations for deadlines)
- Smith v. First Union Nat’l Bank, 202 F.3d 234 (4th Cir. 2000) (EEOC charge defines scope of ensuing civil suit)
- King v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R., 538 F.2d 581 (4th Cir. 1976) (scope of civil suit after EEOC charge limited to charge or related investigation)