FREDDIE L. MANNING, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
PAUL C. CARLIN, AS POSTMASTER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the thirty-day limitations period for filing an EEOC complaint under Title VII should not be tolled due to intimidation, as the circumstances did not fit recognized exceptions for equitable modification.
An employee of the U.S. Postal Service, who had previously filed EEOC complaints, was investigated for improper use of '7.01 time'. He was allegedly t…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Equitable Modification cases and more on FLexlaw
HAROLD L. MURPHY, District Judge:
In this Title VII case, the district court granted summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. We affirm.
Appellant, Freddie Manning, has worked for the United States Postal Service since 1961. Until October 2, 1981, appellant worked as a letter carrier. He was promoted to delivery supervisor, at that time, as a result of a settlement of two EEOC complaints. In the EEOC complaints, appellant claimed racial discrimination in the promotion practices of Mr. R.B. Geohagen.
Sometime in early 1984, Mr. Geohagen requested that the Postal Inspection Service investigate the use of “7.01 time” at appellant’s postal station. 7.01 time refers to the practice of rounding time cards out to 8 hours, even though a postal carrier completes his route before a full 8 hour day. Although this practice is permitted, appellant was apparently too liberal in his allowance of 7.01 time.
Mr. Geohagen demanded that appellant voluntarily step down as supervisor and resume his position as a carrier.
Appellant claims that Mr. Geohagen threatened criminal prosecution if he did not step down. Although appellant claims that Mr. Geohagen’s actions were racially motivated, appellant did not file an EEOC complaint within 30 days as required under Title VII.
The trial court entered summary judgment for the appellee and appellant argues on appeal that the thirty day limitations period should not bar his claim, because he was improperly intimidated by the threat of criminal prosecution. In Chappell v. Emco Machine Works Company, 601 F. 2d 1295 (5th Cir.1979), the court suggested that the jurisdictional requirement of exhaustion of administrative remedies in a Title VII case might be subject to “equitable modification.” In summarizing the situations in which equitable tolling of the limitations period under Title VII would be appropriate, however, the court found only three categories. The categories included: situations in which an action was pending before a state court, situations in which the defendant had concealed facts supporting a cause of action under Title VII, and situations in which the plaintiff was mislead by the defendant about the nature of his rights under Title VII. None of these situations is present in this case. As in Chappell, we find nothing to justify suspending the exhaustion requirement.
Accordingly, the summary judgment is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wash. Cnty. Sch. Bd. v. Davis (Fla. 1st DCA 2025)
-
Zillyette v. Cap. One Fin. Corp., 1 F. Supp. 2d 1435 (M.D. Fla. 1998)…r a limited set of circumstances: (1) when an action is pending in state court; (2) when a defendant has concealed facts supporting a cause of action; and (3) when a defendant misled plaintiff about the nature of her rights. Manning v. Carlin, 786 F.2d 1108, 1109 (11th Cir.1986). Under an objective standard, some courts have permitted tolling based upon allegations of mental incompetence only when the complainant has either been adjudicated mentally *1441 incompetent or institutionalized.…
-
Washington v. Ball, 890 F.2d 413 (11th Cir. 1989)…a state court action is pending; (2) when the defendant has concealed an act supporting the Title VII cause of action; and (3) when the defendant has mislead the employee regarding the nature of his rights under Title [*415] VII. Manning v. Carlin, 786 F. 2d 1108, 1109 (11th Cir.1986). In this case, Washington received his right to sue letter on August 26, 1988, and filed his complaint more than thirty-days later, on October 25, 1988. While the district court was correct that none of the three situations of…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Cleda Jean Chappell v. Emco Mach. Works Co., 601 F.2d 1295 (5th Cir. 1979)