100 F.3d 1515 (10th Cir. 1996), 95-6311, Mosley v. Pena

Docket Nº:95-6311
Citation:100 F.3d 1515
Party Name:PAULETTA C. MOSLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FEDERICO PENA, Secretary of the Department of Transportation, Defendant-Appellee.
Case Date:November 19, 1996
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 1515

100 F.3d 1515 (10th Cir. 1996)

PAULETTA C. MOSLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

FEDERICO PENA, Secretary of the Department of Transportation, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 95-6311

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit

November 19, 1996

Page 1516

Appeal from the United States District Court for the W. District of Oklahoma, (D.C. No. CIV-94-1353-L)

Page 1517

Jim T. Priest, McKinney, Stringer & Webster, Oklahoma City, OK (Greg L. Maguire, Dean & Associates, Jones, OK, on the brief), for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Steven K. Mullins, Assistant United States Attorney (Patrick M. Ryan, United States Attorney, and Robert J. Troester, Assistant United States Attorney, with him on the brief), Oklahoma City, OK, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before TACHA, McWILLIAMS, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

MURPHY, Circuit Judge.

Plaintiff brought this action for discrimination based on race and retaliation, alleging that defendant's actions violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Plaintiff's amended complaint included three separate claims of discrimination. The district court granted summary judgment to defendant, holding that plaintiff's first claim was timebarred; that her second claim was filed prematurely because she failed to exhaust her administrative remedies; and that she had failed to establish a prima facie case with respect to her third claim. We affirm the grant of summary judgment on each of her claims.

Plaintiff Pauletta Mosley, an African-American, was employed by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) from 1969 until 1994, when she retired. After she was denied a promotion in 1990, Mosley filed administrative complaint 91-43, alleging discrimination based on race and in retaliation for her previous charge of discrimination in another case. The agency issued a finding of no discrimination and plaintiff thereafter appealed to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The EEOC affirmed the agency's finding of no discrimination on April 29, 1994. On August 18, 1994, Mosley filed her Complaint in district court.

In January 1993, after she was passed over for promotion a second time and while her first complaint was still pending before the EEOC, Mosley filed administrative complaint 93-141, again alleging discrimination based on race and retaliation. The agency issued a finding of no discrimination and Mosley appealed the decision to the EEOC. On September 6, 1994, Mosley requested that the EEOC cancel her appeal and issue a right-to-sue letter. On September 19, 1994, before receiving a response from the EEOC, Mosley filed an Amended Complaint in district court which included claim 93-141.

On April 8, 1993, Mosley filed her last administrative complaint, 93-377, alleging discrimination in the settlement process of claim 93- 141. On November 26, 1993, while 93-377 was pending, Mosley was again denied a promotion. The agency issued its finding of no discrimination on claim 93-377 on August 18, 1994. Mosley thereafter included 93-377 in her Amended Complaint filed September 19, 1994.

The district court granted summary judgment to defendant on all three claims, holding that 91-43 was time-barred; that 93-141 was prematurely filed because Mosley had failed to exhaust her administrative remedies; and that Mosley had failed to establish a prima facie case of...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP