McWilliams

concurring.

Although I concur in the result, I would hold that, on the facts of this case, remand *591 is appropriate because the plaintiff is entitled to equitable tolling of any time limit that would otherwise apply to the filing of an amended charge. See Valenzuela v. Kraft, 801 F.2d 1170 (9th Cir.1986) (applying equitable tolling in a related context).

MEMORANDUM **

Robert McWilliams appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment, dismissing McWilliams’s discrimination claim under the Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”), as well as his supplemental state law claims, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The district court concluded that McWilliams failed to exhaust his administrative remedies because McWilliams filed an unverified charge of discrimination with the Idaho Human Rights Commission (“IHRC”), which also was automatically filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). In response to Latah’s challenge to the court’s jurisdiction, McWilliams filed a motion to supplement his charge before the IHRC pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1601.12 (b). The district court denied the motion, concluding that an implicit time limit must be read into 29 C.F.R. § 1601.12 (b), thereby forbidding amendments after the right to sue notice is issued. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we reverse.

To maintain a disability discrimination action under the ADA, the complainant must exhaust his administrative remedies under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5. See § 42 U.S.C. § 12117 (a). To commence the administrative…