Gore

Gore v. Potter

Good Law
146 F. App'x 85
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 3, 2005No. 04-35352California298 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Stanley Gore appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment for the Postal Service. We review de novo the district court’s determination that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiff did not exhaust administrative remedies as required by 29 C.F.R. § 1614.105 . Leong v. Potter, 347 F.3d 1117, 1121 (9th Cir.2003).

The record does not reflect that Gore timely filed an EEO complaint, as required by the regulation, before bringing this claim. Under 29 C.F.R. § 1614.105 , federal employees must initiate an EEO complaint within forty-five days of the alleged discriminatory conduct before filing a civil action under the Rehabilitation Act. Failure to exhaust these administrative remedies is a bar to bringing a claim in federal court. Boyd v. U.S. Postal Service, 752 F.2d 410, 414-15 (9th Cir.1985).

Gore filed multiple EEO complaints in 1998, but the incident that forms the basis for his claim occurred in 2001. Because Gore presented no evidence that he filed an EEO complaint after the 2001 incident, he has not shown that he exhausted administrative remedies. Therefore, his claim is barred, and we must affirm the district court’s order granting…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.