Puryear v. Roanoke

• Decision Date: 04 May 2000
• Docket Number: CA-99-351,No. 99-2359,99-2359
• Parties: (4th Cir. 2000) PATRICIA PURYEAR, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. COUNTY OF ROANOKE, Defendant-Appellant. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION; WASHINGTON LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS AND URBAN AFFAIRS, Amici Curiae. (). . Argued:
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

Page 514

214 F.3d 514 (4th Cir. 2000)

PATRICIA PURYEAR, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. COUNTY OF ROANOKE, Defendant-Appellant. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION; WASHINGTON LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS AND URBAN AFFAIRS, Amici Curiae.

No. 99-2359 (CA-99-351).

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS, FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT.

Argued: May 4, 2000.

Decided: June 13, 2000.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke.

Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge.

COUNSEL ARGUED: Jim Harold Guynn, Jr., GUYNN & DILLON, P.C., Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellant. Jane Anne Harden, ARTHUR P. STRICKLAND, P.C., Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Julie Loraine Gantz, EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Washington, D.C., for Amicus Curiae Commission. ON BRIEF: C. Gregory Stewart, General Counsel, Philip B. Sklover, Associate General Counsel, Vincent J. Blackwood, Assistant General Counsel, EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Washington, D.C., for Amicus Curiae Commission. Jeffrey G. Huvelle, Carolyn F. Corwin, Thomas W. Beimers, COVINGTON & BURLING, Washington, D.C., for Amicus Curiae Committee.

Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by published opinion. Judge King wrote the opinion, in which Judge Wilkins and Judge Motz joined.

OPINION

KING, Circuit Judge:

The County of Roanoke ("Roanoke") appeals the district court's order denying its motion to dismiss Patricia Puryear's claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII") and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"). In support of dismissal, Roanoke contends that Ms. Puryear failed to exhaust the administrative remedies available to her under Virginia state law, and that such failure deprives the district court of subject matter jurisdiction over her complaint. We reject Roanoke's contention, and we affirm the decision below.

I.

According to her complaint, Ms. Puryear was employed for approximately twenty-eight years in Roanoke's Office of Real Estate Assessments. Beginning in 1993 and continuing through 1997, she was subjected to unwelcome sexual propositions and inappropriate offensive touching by her supervisor. In 1996, based on allegations unrelated to her supervisor's sexual conduct, Ms. Puryear filed an age discrimination claim against Roanoke with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). Shortly after resolution of her 1996 EEOC claim, Roanoke removed Ms. Puryear from her supervisory responsibilities, increased her work load, assigned her less desirable tasks, and refused to clarify ambiguities in her job description. She claims that these changes in her employment status constituted a demotion and made it difficult for her to meet her employer's expectations. Ms. Puryear sought resolution of these ongoing problems with Roanoke, but after an internal investigation, Roanoke took no action.

On June 1, 1998, Ms. Puryear wrote the EEOC asserting retaliation and gender discrimination, setting forth in detail the facts supporting her assertions. Then, in July 1998, Ms. Puryear filed a formal charge against Roanoke with the EEOC on the agency's standard form. She attached to the formal EEOC charge a statement of the factual bases for her claims, expressly incorporated her June 1, 1998 letter to the EEOC, and stated her belief that she was being subjected to conduct that violated Title VII and the ADEA.

In August 1998, Ms. Puryear resigned from her position with Roanoke because her working conditions had deteriorated to an intolerable level. She then filed an amended charge with the EEOC, expanding her original allegations to include facts relating to her resignation and making a claim of constructive discharge in violation of Title VII and the ADEA. On February 17, 1999, the EEOC issued Ms. Puryear a right-to-sue letter. She thereafter filed her complaint against Roanoke in the Western District of Virginia, alleging sexual harassment and constructive discharge in violation of Title VII, and alleging retaliation in violation of the ADEA.

Roanoke moved the district court to dismiss Ms. Puryear's complaint, asserting that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). Roanoke argued that Ms. Puryear had failed to exhaust the remedies available to her under state law, as mandated by section 706(c) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(c) and that the EEOC's right-to-sue letter was therefore improperly issued. The district court denied Roanoke's motion to dismiss and certified an interlocutory appeal on whether Ms. Puryear had commenced proceedings under state law for purposes of section 706(c) of Title VII. We accepted Roanoke's interlocutory appeal and possess jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).

II.

We review de novo a district court's decision to deny a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, when the underlying facts are not in dispute. Lone Star Steakhouse & Saloon, Inc. v. Alpha of Va., Inc., 43 F.3d 922, 929 n.9 (4th Cir. 1995) (citing Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac R.R. v. United States, 945 F.2d 765, 768-69 (4th Cir. 1991)). There is no factual dispute in this case, and Roanoke's assertion that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction rests entirely on its theory that Ms. Puryear failed to exhaust her state administrative remedies.

A.

Under section 706(c) of Title VII, a plaintiff must exhaust her administrative remedies prior to instituting a judicial action alleging employment discrimination. Section 706(c) provides, in pertinent part:

In the case of an alleged unlawful employment practice occurring in a State . . . which has a State or local law prohibiting the unlawful employment practice alleged and establishing or authorizing a State or local authority to grant or seek relief from such practice . . . no charge may be filed . . . by the person aggrieved before the expiration of sixty days after proceedings have been commenced under the State or local law, unless such proceedings have been earlier terminated.

42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(c) (emphasis added).¹ It is clear that the statutes of Virginia prohibit the unlawful employment practices of gender and age discrimination alleged by Ms. Puryear. See Va. Code § 2.1-716 ("unlawful discriminatory practice" includes conduct violating any Virginia or federal statute governing gender or age discrimination). Additionally, the Virginia Council on Human Rights ("VCHR") is a state authority authorized to grant or seek relief from unlawful employment practices and constitutes a "deferral agency" for section 706(c) purposes.² See Tinsley v. First Union Nat'l Bank, 155 F.3d 435, 440 (4th Cir. 1998). Therefore, in a state that has such a deferral agency, i.e., a "deferral state," such as the Commonwealth of Virginia, Title VII requires exhaustion of state and federal administrative remedies prior to a judicial remedy being sought.

The purpose of the presumptive sixty-day deferral period in a deferral state is comity -to provide states and localities the first opportunity to combat discrimination, free from premature federal intervention. See Love v. Pullman Co., 404 U.S. 522, 526 (1972) (stating that the purposes of the deferral provisions are"to give state agencies a prior opportunity to consider discrimination complaints" and "to ensure expedition in the filing and handling of those complaints"); EEOC v. Techalloy Maryland, Inc., 894 F.2d 676, 677 (4th Cir. 1990) (citing EEOC v. Commercial Office Prod. Co., 486 U.S. 107, 110-11 (1988)). If a charge of unlawful employment practices (a "charge") is first filed with the EEOC, the EEOC may retain the charge in "suspended animation" during the state agency's period of exclusive jurisdiction, and upon termination of the state agency's proceedings, the "suspended" charge is deemed filed with the EEOC.³ See Commercial Office Prod., 486 U.S. at 111-12. By entering into what is known as a "worksharing agreement" with the EEOC, a state may elect to waive its period of exclusive jurisdiction during the deferral period, while retaining concurrent jurisdiction over the discrimination charges. See id., 486 U.S. at 117 (plurality). A state's waiver of its right to initially process a charge thus constitutes a "termination" of its proceedings for purposes of section 706(c). See id., 486 U.S. at 114-15.

After a charge is properly filed with the EEOC, the aggrieved person may initiate a civil action based on the Title VII claims made in her EEOC charge only after receipt of a right-to-sue letter. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) (Title VII exhaustion of federal remedies); cf. 29 U.S.C. § 626 (aggrieved person may bring a civil action based on ADEA sixty days after filing EEOC charge).

B.

Roanoke contends that Ms. Puryear failed to exhaust her state administrative remedies here. It asserts that she failed to "commence" any proceedings under state or local law for purposes of Title VII and the ADEA, in that Ms. Puryear only filed her charge with the EEOC. However, when the EEOC accepted Ms. Puryear's charge in 1998, the worksharing agreement ("WSA") between the EEOC and VCHR had been entered into by those agencies and had been fully implemented. Indeed, Ms. Puryear's July 1998 EEOC charge, and its August 1998 amendment, were addressed to both agencies. Roanoke argues that the inter-agency cooperation implemented by the WSA is fatally flawed, notwithstanding Ms. Puryear's compliance with the requirements of those agencies.⁴

1.

First of all, Congress empowered the EEOC to enter into worksharing agreements. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-4(g)(1) (The EEOC "shall have power to cooperate with and, with their consent, utilize regional, State, local, and other agencies, both public and private, and individuals."), 2000e-8(b) (The EEOC "may enter into written agreements with such State or local agencies and such agreements may include provisions under which the Commission shall . . . relieve any person...