Jordan Tonkin v. Shadow Management, Inc.


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:12-cv-00198-JFA. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999594306]. [14-2219]

Download PDF
Appeal: 14-2219 Doc: 21 Filed: 06/02/2015 Pg: 1 of 4 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-2219 JORDAN M. TONKIN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SHADOW MANAGEMENT, INC., d/b/a Platinum Plus, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (3:12-cv-00198-JFA) Submitted: May 14, 2015 Decided: June 2, 2015 Before NIEMEYER and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lovic A. Brooks, III, JANIK, L.L.P. Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Christopher Scot McDonald, Richard James Morgan, MCNAIR LAW FIRM, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 14-2219 Doc: 21 Filed: 06/02/2015 Pg: 2 of 4 PER CURIAM: Jordan M. dismissing her Tonkin Title appeals VII the district retaliation exhaust her administrative remedies. claim court’s for order failure to On appeal, Tonkin asserts that the district court erred in finding that failure to exhaust her administrative remedies deprived the court of subject matter jurisdiction, and that it erred in finding her retaliation claim did not relate back to her original EEOC charge in which she alleged only pregnancy discrimination. The failure of a plaintiff to exhaust her administrative remedies with the EEOC deprives the federal courts of subject matter jurisdiction over the claim. Jones Ltd., 551 F.3d 297, 300 (4th Cir. 2009). v. Calvert Grp., “The scope of the plaintiff’s right to file a federal lawsuit is determined by the charge’s contents.” Id. “Only those discrimination claims stated in the initial charge, those reasonably related to the original complaint, and those developed by reasonable investigation of the original complaint may be maintained in a subsequent Title VII lawsuit.” Evans v. Techs. Applications & Serv. Co., 80 F.3d 954, 963 (4th Cir. 1996). The plaintiff bears the burden of proving subject matter jurisdiction. Smith v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth., 290 F.3d 201, 205 (4th Cir. 2002). We review a dismissal 2 for lack of subject matter Appeal: 14-2219 Doc: 21 Filed: 06/02/2015 jurisdiction de novo. Pg: 3 of 4 Taylor v. Kellogg Brown & Root Servs., Inc., 658 F.3d 402, 408 (4th Cir. 2011). Applying this standard, we conclude that the district court properly determined that administrative remedies. pregnancy Tonkin to exhaust her Her initial EEOC charge alleged only discrimination, involving retaliation. failed and did not contain any facts See Sloop v. Mem’l Mission Hosp., Inc., 198 F.3d 147, 149 (4th Cir. 1999). Additionally, Tonkin had knowledge of the factual basis for her retaliation claim before she filed her charge with the EEOC. Moreover, her discrimination claim and retaliation claim focused on discrete occurrences; her involuntary pregnancy maternity leave, based on her termination. While Tonkin discrimination while her claim centered retaliation claim on was See Jones, 551 F.3d at 300. relies heavily on Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 455 U.S. 385 (1982), and Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (2006), those cases are unavailing. not address exhaustion of administrative Arbaugh does remedies. Id. Moreover, we have noted that the holding in Zipes is limited to the untimeliness of an EEOC charge. Jones, 551 F.3d at 300, n.2. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense with oral argument 3 because the facts and legal Appeal: 14-2219 Doc: 21 contentions are Filed: 06/02/2015 adequately Pg: 4 of 4 presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 4

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?