Clark Philogene v. IA2, Inc., No. 15-1549 (4th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1549 CLARK PHILOGENE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. IA2, INC., Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:15-cv-00180-TSE-IDD) Submitted: September 17, 2015 Decided: October 2, 2015 Before NIEMEYER and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Clark Philogene, Appellant Pro Se. Joon Hwang, Elizabeth Anne Lalik, LITTLER MENDELSON PC, McLean, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Clark Philogene appeals the district court’s order dismissing with prejudice Philogene’s civil complaint in which he asserted employment discrimination claims. The district court found that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the complaint, because Philogene “failed to file a charge of discrimination as required by 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1) within the statutory period,” and failed to establish grounds for equitably tolling the applicable 300-day period for filing such a charge. See Philogene v. IA2, Inc., No. 1:15-cv-00180-TSE- IDD, slip op. at 2-3 (E.D. Va. Apr. 24, 2015). We have previously observed that the “failure to timely file an EEOC charge . . . does not deprive the district court of subject matter jurisdiction.” See Hentosh Univ., 767 F.3d 413, 417 (4th Cir. 2014). any ground apparent in the record. v. Old Dominion But we may affirm on See United States ex rel. Drakeford v. Tuomey, 792 F.3d 364, 375 (4th Cir. 2015). And, after review, we agree that each act of alleged discrimination set forth in the complaint took place more than 300 days before Philogene filed his EEOC charge. Accordingly, Philogene’s claims are time-barred, see Agolli v. Office Depot, Inc., 548 F. App’x 871, 875 (4th Cir. 2013), court’s order on that basis. and we affirm the district We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 2 in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.