Ronald Emrit v. Office Depot, Inc.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:13-cv-02297-RWT. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999308780]. Mailed to: Ronald Emrit. [14-1052]

Appeal: 14-1052

Doc: 7

Filed: 03/05/2014

Pg: 1 of 5

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-1052

RONALD SATISH EMRIT,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
OFFICE DEPOT, INC.,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, Senior District Judge.
(8:13-cv-02297-RWT)

Submitted:

February 27, 2014

Decided:

March 5, 2014

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronald Satish Emrit, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-1052

Doc: 7

Filed: 03/05/2014

Pg: 2 of 5

PER CURIAM:
Ronald Satish Emrit appeals the district court’s order
dismissing

his

administrative
Finding

no

civil

action

remedies

reversible

and
error

for

failure

to

comply

for

the

with

reasons

to

a

exhaust

court

that

order.

follow,

we

affirm.
Emrit
against

filed

Defendant

experienced

an

Office

employment

employment
Depot,

discrimination

Inc.,

discrimination

asserting
due

to

an

complaint

that

he

had

unspecified

disability, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act
(“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12113 (2012).

The district court

ordered Emrit to particularize his complaint within twenty-one
days to demonstrate that he had exhausted his administrative
remedies and received a “right to sue” letter from the Maryland
Human Rights Commission (“MHRC”) (recently renamed the Maryland
Commission on Civil Rights) or the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission
pleadings

(“EEOC”). *
attempting

In
to

response,

challenge

the

Emrit

filed

exhaustion

multiple

requirement.

He also amended his complaint as a matter of course, see Fed. R.
Civ.

P.

15(a)(1),

to

clarify

that

*

his

original

claims

were

This court previously dismissed Emrit’s appeal of this
order as interlocutory. See Emrit v. Office Depot, Inc., __ F.
App’x __, 2013 WL 6153786, at *1 (4th Cir. Nov. 25, 2013) (No.
13-2141).

2

Appeal: 14-1052

Doc: 7

Filed: 03/05/2014

Pg: 3 of 5

brought under the ADA and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (2006), and to articulate
new

claims

for

intentional

infliction

of

emotional

distress

(“IIED”) and alleged violations of the National Labor Relations
Act (“NLRA”), see 29 U.S.C. §§ 151-169 (2012).

The district

court dismissed Emrit’s action for failure to comply with its
prior order and to exhaust administrative remedies.
On appeal, Emrit argues that he should not have been
required

to

seek

administrative

filing his complaint.
required

by

statute

review

as

a

prerequisite

to

It is well settled that a plaintiff is
to

exhaust

his

administrative

before filing suit under Title VII or the ADA.

remedies

See Sydnor v.

Fairfax Cnty., Va., 681 F.3d 591, 593 (4th Cir. 2012) (ADA);
Chacko v. Patuxent Inst., 429 F.3d 505, 513 (4th Cir. 2005)
(2005) (Title VII).

Emrit asserts in a conclusory fashion that

the exhaustion requirement is “unconstitutional,” but he does
not

explain

the

basis

for

this

claim—including

which

constitutional provision the requirement purportedly violates.
Contrary to Emrit’s assertion, he was not required to exhaust
remedies with the National Association for the Advancement of
Colored People or the Department of Justice, and neither the
EEOC nor the MHRC were required to represent Emrit in his suit.
Because

it

is

clear

that

Emrit

did

not

exhaust

his

administrative remedies as to his ADA and Title VII claims, and
3

Appeal: 14-1052

Doc: 7

Filed: 03/05/2014

Pg: 4 of 5

he failed to comply with the court’s order directing him to
establish

such

compliance,

we

find

no

error

in

the

court’s

dismissal of these claims.
Emrit’s IIED and NLRA claims, raised in his amended
complaint, were not subject to the same exhaustion requirement
as his employment discrimination claims.

However, we may affirm

the district court’s judgment on any basis clearly appearing
from the record.

Republican Party of N.C. v. Martin, 980 F.2d

943, 952 (4th Cir. 1992).

Insofar as Emrit fairly challenges

the dismissal of these claims, we conclude they clearly lack a
valid

legal

reversible

basis,
error

and

in

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i),

the

district

dismissing

(ii)

(2012)

court

them.

(permitting

committed

no

See

28

U.S.C.

court

to

dismiss

case sua sponte when it is “frivolous” or “fails to state a
claim on which relief may be granted”); see also Manikhi v. Mass
Transit

Admin.,

elements

of

758

IIED

A.2d

claim);

95,

113-15

Batson

v.

(Md.

2000)

Shiflett,

(describing

602

A.2d

1191,

1216-17 (Md. Ct. App. 1986) (requiring showing that conduct was
“so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of
decency,

and

to

be

regarded

as

atrocious,

and

utterly

intolerable in a civilized community” (internal quotation marks
omitted),

and

recognizing

circumstances

harassment is insufficient to establish IIED).

4

where

workplace

Appeal: 14-1052

Doc: 7

Filed: 03/05/2014

Pg: 5 of 5

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
We

dispense

contentions

with
are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the

facts

and

the

materials

legal
before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

5