F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
PUBLISH
OCT 28 2003
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
TENTH CIRCUIT
ERNESTO D. MARTINEZ,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
No. 02-2252
vs.
JOHN E. POTTER, Postmaster
General, United States Postal Service,
Defendant - Appellee.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
(D.C. No. CIV-00-1567 LCS/RLP)
Michael E. Mozes, Law Offices of Michael E. Mozes, P.C., Albuquerque, New
Mexico, for Plaintiff - Appellant.
Stephan J. Boardman, Counsel of Record,(Derek W. Black and Eric J. Scharf,
Managing Counsel, United States Postal Service, Washington, D.C.; David G.
Iglesias, United States Attorney and Michael H. Hoses, Assistant United States
Attorney, with him on the brief) U.S. Department of Justice, Albuquerque, New
Mexico, for Defendant - Appellee.
Before KELLY, HOLLOWAY, and HARTZ, Circuit Judges.
KELLY, Circuit Judge.
Plaintiff-Appellant Ernesto Martinez appeals the district court’s grant of
summary judgment to Defendant-Appellee United States Postal Service (“Postal
Service”) on his claims of retaliatory treatment in violation of Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(c). As originally filed in
November 2000, Mr. Martinez’s complaint alleged instances of retaliatory
treatment occurring in May 1999, as to which he had filed a formal complaint
with the Postal Service EEO office in July 1999, and subsequent conduct he
claimed as retaliatory. In May 2002, Mr. Martinez sought to litigate subsequent
employment actions as contained in his response to the Postal Service’s motion
for summary judgment. In particular, Mr. Martinez included allegations that
disciplinary actions taken against him, namely a September 2000 reprimand
(resulting in a letter of warning and a fourteen day suspension) and his April 2001
termination, constituted retaliatory treatment. Mr. Martinez never filed formal
EEO complaints regarding these incidents. Although the letter of warning and
fourteen day suspension resulting from the September 2000 reprimand is
contained in the complaint, (Aplt. App. at 10, ¶ 24), the April 2001 termination is
not. Nor is there an amended complaint.
As to these allegations, the district court held that they could not proceed
because they were not like or reasonably related to the allegations in Mr.
Martinez’s EEO complaint, and Mr. Martinez had failed to exhaust
administrative remedies. In determining that Mr. Martinez was required to
-2-
exhaust administrative remedies with regard to the September 2000 and April
2001 disciplinary actions the district court relied on our holdings in Jones v.
Denver Post Corp., 203 F.3d 748, 755 (10th Cir. 2000) and Ingels v. Thiokol
Corp., 42 F.3d 616, 625 (10th Cir. 1994). See also Brown v. Hartshorne Pub.
Sch. Dist., 864 F.2d 680, 682 (10th Cir. 1988). Those cases explain that “[w]hen
an employee seeks judicial relief for incidents not listed in his original charge to
the EEOC, the judicial complaint nevertheless may encompass any discrimination
like or reasonably related to the allegations of the EEOC charge, including new
acts occurring during the pendency of the charge before the EEOC.” See Ingels,
42 F.3d at 625 (quotation omitted).
Although we agree with the district court that these claims were not
properly before it, the Supreme Court’s recent pronouncement in National
Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (2002), has effected
fundamental changes to the doctrine allowing administratively unexhausted claims
in Title VII actions. We agree with the government that such unexhausted claims
involving discrete employment actions are no longer viable. Morgan abrogates
the continuing violation doctrine as previously applied to claims of discriminatory
or retaliatory actions by employers, and replaces it with the teaching that each
discrete incident of such treatment constitutes its own “unlawful employment
practice” for which administrative remedies must be exhausted. Id. at 110-13.
-3-
“Discrete acts such as termination, failure to promote, denial of transfer, or
refusal to hire are easy to identify. Each incident of discrimination and each
retaliatory adverse employment decision constitutes a separate actionable
‘unlawful employment practice’” Id. at 114. In Morgan, this rule applied to bar a
plaintiff from suing on claims for which no administrative remedy had been
sought, when those incidents occurred more than 300 days prior to the filing of
plaintiff’s EEO complaint. The rule is equally applicable, however, to discrete
claims based on incidents occurring after the filing of Plaintiff’s EEO complaint.
As the Court stated “[t]he existence of past acts . . . does not bar employees from
filing charges about related discrete acts so long as the acts are independently
discriminatory and charges addressing those acts are themselves timely filed.” Id.
at 113. While the Court did not apply its holding to hostile work environment
claims, those types of claims are not before us. Id. at 117.
Our decisions have unambiguously recognized Morgan as rejecting
application of the “continuing violation” theory. In Davidson v. America Online,
Inc., 337 F.3d 1179 (10th Cir. 2003), this court explained: “In Morgan, the
Supreme Court held that a continuing violation theory . . . is not permitted for
claims against discrete acts. . . . [t]hus, a claimant must file a charge . . . within
the appropriate limitations period as to each such discrete act . . . that occurred.”
Id. at 1184. Application of this rule to incidents occurring after the filing of an
-4-
EEO complaint is consistent with the policy goals of the statute. First, requiring
exhaustion of administrative remedies serves to put an employer on notice of a
violation prior to the commencement of judicial proceedings. This in turn serves
to facilitate internal resolution of the issue rather than promoting costly and time-
consuming litigation. See Brown v. Gen. Servs. Admin., 425 U.S. 820, 832-35
(1976). Those policies are particularly important here given that Mr. Martinez
claims an ongoing pattern of retaliation from March 1999 to his termination.
The September 2000 and April 2001 disciplinary actions are clearly discrete
and independent actions, though part of what Mr. Martinez must necessarily claim
is a “continuing violation.” Because the rule in Morgan requires a Title VII
plaintiff to exhaust administrative remedies for each individual discriminatory or
retaliatory act, and precludes reliance upon a continuing violation theory, we
affirm the judgment of the district court.
Consistent with the Court’s opinion in Morgan, our holding today does not
negate the relevance of allegedly retaliatory incidents as to which administrative
remedies have not been exhausted, when these incidents occurred after the filing
of the judicial complaint. As the Court in Morgan explicitly noted “[n]or does the
statute bar an employee from using prior acts as background evidence in support
of a timely claim.” Morgan, 536 U.S. at 113. Although circumstances in which
acts occurring after the filing of the complaint provide evidence of employer
-5-
motivation for prior actions may be unusual, our decision today heeds the
teaching of the Supreme Court and leaves open that very possibility. See Lyons
v. England, 307 F.3d 1092, 1109 (9th Cir. 2002).
We also think it proper to comment briefly on Mr. Martinez’s attempted
revision of his pleadings through a summary judgment response. The summary
judgment response attempted to add the April 2001 termination. Although other
circuits have rejected the validity of such attempts, see Shanahan v. City of
Chicago, 82 F.3d 776, 781 (7th Cir. 1996); Fisher v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 895
F.2d 1073, 1078 (5th Cir. 1990), our cases interpret the inclusion of new
allegations in a response to a motion for summary judgment, as a potential request
to amend the complaint. See Viernow v. Euripides Dev. Corp., 157 F.3d 785, 790
n.9 (10th Cir. 1998) (“Issues raised for the first time in a plaintiff’s response to a
motion for summary judgment may be considered a request to amend the
complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15.”); Id. at 797 n.26; Evans v. McDonald’s
Corp., 936 F.2d 1087, 1090-91 (10th Cir. 1991).
Of course, our rule does not preclude the moving party from notice and an
opportunity to be heard on whether an amendment should be permitted. After all,
a request to amend may be denied where the new theory would prejudice the
moving party. Evans, 936 F.3d at 1090-91. Here, the government vigorously
opposed amendment in its reply brief, Aplt. App. at 70-74, arguing that discovery
-6-
had been completed and it would need to depose an additional three witnesses.
We cannot exercise the district court’s discretion to allow an amendment.
Although we have recognized that permitting argument and addressing an issue in
a summary judgment order may be indicative of the district court’s decision to
permit amendment, see Viernow, 157 F.3d at 797 n.26, we do not think that is
what happened here. Instead, the district court set out the government’s
numerous objections to amendment in its decision, and never ruled upon the issue.
The court avoided the issue by holding that regardless the termination claim
would fail on the merits. In these circumstances, the complaint was not amended
and the government’s objections were entitled to be heard. If an amendment is
permitted, we think the federal rules contemplate a formal amended complaint, an
amended answer and inclusion of the issue in the initial pretrial report and the
pretrial order. Corroborative of our conclusion that the complaint was not
amended is that Plaintiff never moved to amend, and no amended complaint was
filed.
AFFIRMED.
-7-