Jordan Tonkin v. Shadow Management, Inc.
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:12-cv-00198-JFA. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999594306]. [14-2219]
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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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?