FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
April 7, 2011
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk of Court
RICHARD LAUGHTER; MERRIAM
ABEITA; STELLA ALCOTT; ELLA
BEGAY; ROBBIE DANIELS;
LENORA DAWES; LYLE IGNACE;
LENORA LEEKITY; GABE No. 10-2050
LONGHI; ANNETTE MULLA; (D. Ct. No. 1:08-CV-00843-WJ-ACT)
HELENA PLATERO; GEORGE (D. N.M.)
SANDERS; BLAINE SILVERSMITH;
PITA WOOD; ALICE BEGAY;
RONALD LARSON,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
and
CHARLENE AVERY,
Plaintiff,
v.
GALLUP INDIAN MEDICAL
CENTER; DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES;
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendants - Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of
law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its
persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
Before KELLY, Circuit Judge, and TACHA and HOLLOWAY, Senior Circuit
Judges.
This is an appeal from the dismissal of a complaint alleging discrimination
under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. The
district court dismissed the complaint for failure to exhaust administrative
remedies. We take jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and AFFIRM.
I. DISCUSSION
The following facts are not in dispute and are taken from the district court’s
order. The Indian Health Service (“IHS”), a federal agency within the
Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”), is responsible for providing
health services to American Indians. The Gallup Indian Medical Center
(“Center”) is a medical center funded by IHS. Plaintiff-appellant Richard
Laughter, a Native American psychiatrist employed by the Center, sought
counseling with IHS’s Equal Employment Office (“EEO”) on April 27, 2007
alleging discrimination on the basis of race (American Indian), national origin
(Native American), religion (Native American Church) and reprisal on his own
behalf and that of a class of similarly situated Center employees. After the
counseling phase was completed, the EEO issued Dr. Laughter a Notice of Right
to File a Formal Complaint. Dr. Laughter subsequently filed his formal complaint
of discrimination on behalf of the purported class with the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) on August 8, 2007.
-2-
In accordance with the governing regulations, the EEOC referred the
complaint to an administrative judge to determine whether class certification was
appropriate. Before the judge could issue a decision on whether to certify the
class, however, Dr. Laughter withdrew the class complaint and asked to appear on
his own behalf instead. On July 22, 2008, the EEOC issued an order dismissing
the complaint and directing HHS to process Dr. Laughter’s claim as an individual
complaint pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.106(e) within thirty days. The EEOC
also ordered HHS to issue an acknowledgment of receipt for all other purported
class members and process their individual complaints within thirty days.
Pursuant to the EEOC’s instructions, HHS sent letters to each of the
purported class members on September 15, 2008, advising them that they had
thirty days to contact an EEO counselor to begin the process of filing their
individual complaints. The following day, September 16, Dr. Laughter and
seventeen other plaintiffs filed this discrimination suit in federal court. Nine of
the other plaintiffs were named in the original class complaint but never filed
individual complaints of discrimination with the EEOC after the class complaint
was dismissed. Two plaintiffs were not included in the initial class complaint,
but similarly failed to file individual complaints of discrimination with the
agency. The six remaining plaintiffs have taken some steps to file an individual
complaint—either before or after the class complaint was dismissed.
On the defendants’ motion, the district court dismissed the complaint for
-3-
failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The court reasoned that Dr. Laughter
filed suit in federal district court fewer than 180 days from the July 22, 2008
filing of his individual complaint with the EEOC. As to the remaining plaintiffs,
the district court held that the class action had been dismissed and that the current
lawsuit in district court was premised only upon Dr. Laughter’s individual claim
of discrimination, which precluded them from relying on the class complaint to
demonstrate exhaustion. The court went on to conclude that none of the
remaining plaintiffs had individually exhausted their administrative remedies such
that they could sue in federal court. The plaintiffs now appeal.
II. DISCUSSION
A federal employee must first complete the following administrative
process before bringing a discrimination lawsuit in federal court. First, the
aggrieved person must consult an EEO counselor within forty-five days of the
discriminatory incident and prior to filing a formal complaint with the employing
agency. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.105(a)(1). The counselor will provide counseling and
inform the individual of his rights and responsibilities. Id. § 1614.105(b)(1). If
the matter is not resolved within thirty days, the EEO counselor must issue a
notice informing the individual of his right to file a discrimination complaint with
the employing agency. Id. § 1614.105(d). Once a complaint is filed, the agency
has 180 days to investigate the allegations. Id. § 1614.106(e)(2). The agency
may then dismiss the complaint, see id. §§ 1614.107 1614.109(b), offer to resolve
-4-
the complaint, see id. § 1614.109(c), or issue a final decision on the merits of the
complaint, see id. § 1614.110(b).
At this point, the individual has two options: He may choose to file a civil
suit in federal district court, or he may appeal to the EEOC. If he chooses to sue,
he must do so within ninety days of notice of the agency’s final decision. See id.
§ 1614.407(a). If the agency does not issue a final decision within 180 days of
the administrative complaint, the individual may sue anytime after that date. See
id. § 1614.407(b). On the other hand, if the individual chooses to appeal to the
EEOC, he may not file a civil suit in federal court until the EEOC issues its final
decision (in which case he has ninety days from notice of that decision to file
suit) or unless 180 days have passed from the date he filed his appeal. See id.
§ 1614.407(c), (d).
The procedures are nearly identical for an individual who wishes to file a
class discrimination complaint. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.204. An individual may
move for class certification at any reasonable point in the administrative process;
if he has already completed the counseling process before moving for class
certification, he need not go through additional counseling. Id. § 1614.204(b).
When the agency receives a class complaint, it must forward the complaint
directly to the EEOC, which will assign it to an administrative judge. Id.
§ 1614.204(d)(1). The administrative judge will determine whether to accept or
dismiss a class complaint. Id. § 1614.204(d). “A dismissal of a class complaint
-5-
shall inform the [class] agent either that the complaint is being filed on that date
as an individual complaint of discrimination and will be processed under subpart
A [dealing with individual complaints] or that the complaint is also dismissed as
an individual complaint in accordance with § 1614.107.” Id. § 1614.204(d)(7).
In this case, Dr. Laughter filed a class complaint with HHS on August 8,
2007 and withdrew it on June 3, 2008, specifically requesting that he be allowed
to “appear on his own behalf and on the behalf of others pursuant to 29 C.F.R. §
1601.7.” 1 On July 22, 2008, HHS, in accordance with Dr. Laughter’s request,
informed him that his class complaint was dismissed and that it was processing
his charge as an individual complaint. Thus, HHS had 180 days from July 22,
2008 (or until approximately the end of January 2009) to investigate and take
final action on Dr. Laughter’s individual complaint before he could sue in federal
court regarding those claims. See id. § 1614.407(b). Instead of giving HHS the
requisite time to investigate, however, Dr. Laughter filed this lawsuit on
September 16, 2008. Accordingly, the lawsuit is premature as Dr. Laughter has
failed to exhaust administrative remedies.
Dr. Laughter argues that his federal lawsuit is based upon the original
1
29 C.F.R. § 1601.7 provides that “[a] charge that any person has engaged in or is
engaging in an unlawful employment practice within the meaning of title VII, the ADA,
or GINA may be made by or on behalf of any person claiming to be aggrieved.” This
procedure for filing a charge on behalf of any aggrieved person is entirely separate and
distinct from the procedure for bringing a class complaint, which is set forth at 29 C.F.R.
§ 1614.204.
-6-
agency complaint filed as a class action on August 8, 2007. One hundred and
eighty days from that date is February 2008, which would render Dr. Laughter’s
federal complaint in September 2008 timely. Even if the federal complaint could
be read to assert a class action that is based on Dr. Laughter’s original agency
complaint, however, Dr. Laughter abandoned the original complaint with HHS
when he moved to withdraw it on June 3, 2008. Abandoning a complaint of
discrimination filed with an employing agency prior to the agency’s final action
on the complaint constitutes a failure to exhaust. See Khader v. Aspin, 1 F.3d
968, 971 (10th Cir. 1993). Thus, because he withdrew the original class
complaint before the agency could act on it, Dr. Laughter was precluded from
filing suit in federal court based on that complaint.
Relatedly, we also disagree with Dr. Laughter’s position that HHS’s
dismissal of his class complaint (on his own motion) constitutes “final action”
which then allowed him to file a federal lawsuit within ninety days under 29
C.F.R. § 1614.407(a). Such a rule would effectively permit a complainant to
bypass the 180-day timeframe for agency investigations into discrimination
charges by allowing him to voluntarily withdraw his agency complaint at any
point and then immediately file suit in federal court.
Finally, because we conclude that Dr. Laughter has not exhausted
administrative remedies as to his individual claim of discrimination, and because
the other plaintiffs do not contest the district court’s determination that none of
-7-
them have exhausted administrative remedies as to their individual claims of
discrimination, the “single filing” or “piggybacking” rule has no bearing in this
case. See Foster v. Ruhrpumpen, Inc., 365 F.3d 1191, 1197 (10th Cir. 2004)
(“[I]n a multiple-plaintiff, non-class action suit, if one plaintiff has filed a timely
EEOC complaint as to that plaintiff’s individual claim, then co-plaintiffs with
individual claims arising out of similar discriminatory treatment in the same time
frame need not have satisfied the filing requirement. . . . This exception to the
individual filing requirement is known alternatively as the ‘single filing rule’ or
‘piggybacking.’”) (quotations and citations omitted).
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT,
Deanell Reece Tacha
Senior Circuit Judge
-8-
No. 10-2050
Laughter v. Gallup Medical Center, et al.
HOLLOWAY, Circuit Judge, dissenting in part:
I.
I agree with the majority insofar as it holds that the plaintiffs, aside from
Dr. Laughter, have not exhausted their administrative remedies. As to Dr.
Laughter, however, I would hold that our precedent in Monreal v. Potter, 367
F.3d 1224 (10th Cir. 2004), dictates that Dr. Laughter exhausted his
administrative remedies as the class agent after 180 days passed from his filing
the class administrative complaint. Moreover, unlike the majority, I would hold
that Dr. Laughter’s subsequently withdrawing as the class agent and refiling as
an individual complainant on the same day for the express purpose of continuing
as an individual complainant did not vaporize his otherwise-achieved exhaustion
or constitute “abandonment” of his individual administrative remedies.
II.
As the class agent, Dr. Laughter’s individual grievances were expressed in
the class complaint, as they had to be for him to serve as the class agent. The
majority order does not point to any evidence that Dr. Laughter or any of the
class plaintiffs were dilatory or non-cooperative in responding to any of IHS or
the EEOC’s requests for information in their investigation of their complaint.
The administrative law judge had not issued a determination of whether to certify
the class within 180 days, nor did the EEOC or IHS issue a determination on the
merits of the class complaint.
More than 180 days after filing the class complaint, Dr. Laughter moved to
withdraw his request for class certification and requested to proceed “on his own
behalf and on behalf of others pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1601.7.” Aplt’s App. at
23.
III.
Here, the district court found that the EEOC took final action on July 22,
2008 when it dismissed the class complaint. Aplt’s App. at 157 (Order Granting
Mot. Dismiss 7, Feb. 8, 2010). Moreover, the district court found that “this
lawsuit is premised upon Dr. Laughter’s individual complaint which was not
filed until July 22, 2008—the same day his class complaint was dismissed.” Id.
The district court held that therefore, “Dr. Laughter should have waited to file
this suit until either the agency issued a final decision on his individual
complaint or 180 days passed without any agency action.” Id.
The district court did not address our precedent which Dr. Laughter
presented below in his district court briefing and that I consider to be
controlling, Monreal v. Potter, 367 F.3d 1224 (10th Cir. 2004). “The matter of
what questions may be taken up and resolved for the first time on appeal is one
left primarily to the discretion of the courts of appeals, to be exercised on the
-2-
facts of individual cases.” Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 121 (1976).
“Certainly there are circumstances in which a federal appellate court is justified
in resolving an issue not passed on below, as where the proper resolution is
beyond any doubt… or where ‘injustice might otherwise result.’” Id. (citing
Turner v. City of Memphis, 369 U.S. 350 (1962), and quoting Hormel v.
Helvering, 312 U.S. 552, 557 (1941)). I am convinced that the proper resolution
of this issue is beyond doubt and that injustice might otherwise result were Dr.
Laughter not to be allowed to proceed on his individual complaint, including the
potential foreclosure of his ability to bring his employment discrimination claim
despite having already exhausted his administrative remedies and having
followed all of the required regulations and procedures.
IV.
“‘[E]xhaustion of administrative remedies is a jurisdictional prerequisite’
to instituting a Title VII action in federal court.” Khader v. Aspin, 1 F.3d 968,
970-71 (10th Cir. 1993) (citing Johnson v. Orr, 747 F.2d 1352, 1356 (10th Cir.
1984)). “The existence of proper subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law
which we review de novo.” Id. (citing Kiehn v. United States, 984 F.2d 1100,
1102 (10th Cir. 1993); Bank of Okla. v. Muscogee (Creek) Nation, 972 F.2d
1166, 1168-69 (10th Cir. 1992)). “The requirement that a Title VII claimant
exhaust administrative remedies serves the purpose of ‘giv[ing] the agency the
-3-
information it needs to investigate and resolve the dispute between the employee
and the employer. Good faith effort by the employee to cooperate with the
agency and the EEOC and to provide all relevant, available information is all
that exhaustion requires.’” Id. (quoting Wade v. Secretary of Army, 796 F.2d
1369, 1377 (11th Cir. 1986)).
At all times, Dr. Laughter’s argument has been that he exhausted his
administrative remedies through the filing of the class administrative complaint
on August 8, 2007. As the majority opinion notes, “[o]ne hundred and eighty
days from that date is February 2008, which would render Dr. Laughter’s federal
complaint in September 2008 timely.” Slip Op. at 7. On this issue, our
precedent in Monreal is instructive: a class agent can exhaust his individual
administrative remedies through exhaustion of the class administrative remedies.
367 F.3d at 1231-32. As of February 2008, then, Dr. Laughter’s individual
remedies were exhausted.
The majority holds that Dr. Laughter’s subsequent withdrawal as the class
agent and refiling as an individual complainant reset the clock, ignoring his
already-achieved exhaustion and requiring him to wait another 180 days before
proceeding in district court. We note, however, that Dr. Laughter’s withdrawal
as the class agent was effected on the same day as his refiling as an individual
complainant, on July 22, 2008, in response to his express request to proceed as
-4-
an individual. 1 On July 22, 2008, Dr. Laughter’s individual remedies were
already exhausted. Given our precedent in Monreal, Dr. Laughter did not need
to refile an individual administrative complaint.
The majority holds that Dr. Laughter’s withdrawal as the class agent and
subsequent refiling as an individual complainant constituted an “abandonment”
of his class administrative complaint, citing Khader for the proposition that
“[a]bandoning a complaint of discrimination filed with an employing agency
prior to the agency’s final action on the complaint constitutes a failure to
exhaust.” Slip Op. at 7 (citing 1 F.3d at 971). In Khader, the plaintiff filed her
formal complaint with the EEOC on October 28, 1988, alleging discrimination by
the Army and Air Force Exchange Service (AAFES). 1 F.3d at 970. In
November of 1988, David Frame, the deputy director of the AAFES EEO
program, acknowledged receipt of Khader’s complaint and outlined her
procedural rights. Id. In December of 1988, Frame requested additional
information from Khader to assist in reviewing the merits of her complaint. Id.
In March of 1989, Frame wrote again to Khader to let her know he had not yet
received a response to his December 1988 request. Id. In a response dated
March 28, 1989, Khader sent Frame a copy of a certified mail receipt showing
that correspondence of some sort was delivered to AAFES on December 21,
1
The Memorandum Opinion and Order of the Federal District Court
recognized this critical sequence of events. Aplt’s App. at 152.
-5-
1988, and also included a note saying, inter alia, “Screw you. See you in court.”
Id. On May 22, 1989, Frame wrote to Khader again, indicating that Khader’s
December correspondence had apparently been misplaced and requested a reply
within 15 calendar days of Khader’s receipt of the letter. Id. Khader did not
supply the requested information and, on June 6, 1989, filed her complaint in
district court. Id. 180 days following the filing of Khader’s formal EEOC
complaint would have been approximately April 28, 1989, thus her district court
complaint, filed on June 6, 1989, would have been after the 180-day window.
See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(c).
Khader, however, is distinguishable on two grounds. First, the 180-day
waiting period was not explicitly at issue in the court’s decision. Second, even if
it were, Khader effectively aborted the agency’s investigation prior to the 180-
day waiting period’s running by sending her note of March 28, 1989, and by
refusing to resubmit information requested by the agency. 1 F.3d at 970. Our
court noted that while it “appreciate[d] Khader’s frustration upon learning that
her materials had been misplaced by the [agency personnel], ‘impatience with the
agency does not justify immediate resort to the courts.’” Id. at 971 (quoting
Rivera v. U.S. Postal Service, 830 F.2d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 1987), superseded
by 29 C.F.R. § 1613.513 (1987), as stated in Bak v. Postal Service, 52 F.3d 241,
243-44 (9th Cir. 1995)). Thus, by abandoning her administrative complaint prior
-6-
to the 180-day period running and failing to cooperate with Frame’s requests,
Khader failed to exhaust her administrative remedies. Unlike Khader, however,
Dr. Laughter’s individual administrative remedies were already exhausted when
he filed suit in district court.
In addition, Rivera, the Ninth Circuit case relied upon by Khader, involved
a plaintiff who had filed an administrative appeal from an adverse decision by
the Postal Service. 830 F.2d at 1038. The Ninth Circuit held that once the
Rivera plaintiff had entered into the administrative appeal, he was statutorily
bound by 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(c) to wait 180 days or until the EEOC issued its
decision before filing suit in district court. Id. at 1039. This was true even
though had Rivera not appealed to the EEOC, he could have directly filed suit in
district court to contest the Postal Service’s decision. Id. Thus, both Khader and
Rivera involved situations where administrative proceedings were underway and
the respective plaintiffs’ “impatience” with the process resulted in
“abandonment” of the administrative process, followed by filing complaints in
district court before they exhausted their administrative remedies. In the instant
case, however, Dr. Laughter had already exhausted his individual remedies as the
class agent after 180 days following his filing of the class administrative
complaint. At all times, his actions, including the simultaneous withdrawal of
the class complaint and filing of his individual complaint, could objectively be
-7-
viewed as pursuing his claims of discrimination whether as the class agent or as
an individual. This hardly constitutes abandonment.
Indeed, the two rationales identified by Monreal in support of requiring
exhaustion, protecting administrative agency authority and promoting judicial
efficiency, 367 F.3d at 1233, both support allowing Dr. Laughter to proceed. Dr.
Laughter fully respected agency authority by waiting 180 days after filing his
class complaint before taking any action in district court. Moreover, IHS and the
EEOC were both on notice as to the nature of his claims through his individual
counseling session on April 27, 2007, and presumably through the EEO Class
Counseling Report. 2 IHS and the EEOC had 180 days to investigate his
complaints and those of the class, after which he could file suit in district court.
There was no evidence of non-cooperation as in Khader, nor did Dr. Laughter
appeal a decision for which he had to await a decision as in Rivera. See also
Munoz v. Aldridge, 894 F.2d 1489, 1493 (5th Cir. 1990) (“Where, as here, a case
languishes in the administrative phase for long beyond 180 days, indeed without
activity for over 180 days, we cannot say that abandoning the administrative
process constitutes such a lack of cooperation as to bar suit by reason of failure
2
Laughter cited the EEO Class Counseling Report in the Class Administrative
(continued...)
(...continued)
Complaint, Aplt’s App. at 18, but does not appear to have included it in the appellate
record.
-8-
to exhaust administrative remedies.”); Wade, 796 F.2d at 1378 (11th Cir. 1986)
(“[U]pon determining that the employee in fact complied with the regulations…
and that the agency therefore rejected the individual or class complaint without
cause, the court should not direct the employee or class agent to return to the
agency to give the agency a second opportunity to resolve the dispute but should
conclude that administrative remedies are exhausted and go on to try all issues in
the case on their merits.”).
Similarly, allowing Dr. Laughter’s complaint to proceed would promote
judicial efficiency. For example, assuming without deciding or agreeing with the
district court’s finding that “the EEOC took final action on July 22, 2008 when it
dismissed the class complaint,” Aplt’s App. at 157, 29 C.F.R. § 1614.407(b)
would require Dr. Laughter and the class plaintiffs to file a district court
complaint within 90 days of that decision. This conflicts with the district court’s
mandate that Dr. Laughter wait 180 days from that same date before filing an
individual complaint. As Dr. Laughter argues and as Monreal pointed out,
“requiring separate exhaustion of the class allegations and the class agent’s
individual allegations that form the basis of the class allegations could create
conflicting deadlines for filing a civil action such that all the deadlines could not
be satisfied.” 367 F.3d at 1234 (citation omitted).
Importantly also, as the class agent, Dr. Laughter had satisfied the
counseling requirements prior to filing a complaint. He followed all of the
-9-
regulations and dictated procedures. He withdrew the class complaint only to
proceed as an individual, not to “abandon” the process. Dr. Laughter’s is not a
situation where he decided that his individual complaint had no merit and thus
abandoned it, only to change his mind later and seek refiling. Nor is it a
situation where he attempted to short-circuit the administrative process.
Requiring him to reset the clock on his individual complaint would be prejudicial
insofar as it serves no purpose except as an additional hurdle that he has already
satisfied.
Thus, I would reverse the district court’s holding as to Dr. Laughter’s
individual complaint. I would remand to the district court for further
proceedings on his complaint, and for the district court to determine which of Dr.
Laughter’s co-plaintiffs could proceed under the Single Filing Rule.
Accordingly, I must respectfully dissent in part.
- 10 -