Shonali Tahiliani v. Bayer Materialscience LLC

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 05-1738
________________
SHONALI TAHILIANI,
Petitioner
v.
*BAYER MATERIALSCIENCE LLC,
Respondent
*Amended pursuant to 6/6/05 order.
____________________________________
On Petition for Review of an Order
of the Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer
on January 13, 2005
(Agency No. 04B00060)
_______________________________________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
February 8, 2006
Before: BARRY, STAPLETON AND GREENBERG, CIRCUIT JUDGES
(Filed February 9, 2006)
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM

-- 1 of 3 --

Tahiliani has similarly failed to address the timeliness issue in her brief on appeal.1
2
Shonali Tahiliani petitions for review of an order of the Office of the Chief
Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO), dismissing her complaint alleging
immigration-related unfair employment practices in violation of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. § 1324b, because it was not timely filed. We have
jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1324b(i)(1).
Tahiliani’s complaint was based on events during her employment at Bayer
Polymers Division; from which she resigned in June of 2002. Tahiliani filed her
complaint with the Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair
Employment Practice (OSC) on February 17, 2004. Pursuant to § 1324b(d)(3), “no
complaint may be filed respecting any unfair immigration-related employment practice
occurring more than 180 days prior to the date of the filing of the charge with the Special
Counsel.” The OSC dismissed her charge on June 3, 2004, finding that it was filed more
than 180 days from when any alleged unfair immigration-related employment practice
occurred. Tahiliani appealed to the OCAHO, and Bayer filed a motion to dismiss,
arguing that the complaint was untimely. The OCAHO noted that the period in which to
file a complaint was subject to equitable tolling, and gave Tahiliani an opportunity to
provide any materials that would support a claim for equitable relief. When she failed to
do so, the OCAHO properly dismissed her charge as untimely. We therefore will deny1

-- 2 of 3 --

Although we agree that her complaint was untimely, we also agree with Bayer’s2
alternative arguments that Tahiliani’s complaint was barred because Bayer has more than
15 employees; see 8 U.S.C. § 1324b(a)(2)(B); and because she had previously filed
charges based on the same facts with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission;
see § 1324b(b)(2).
3
the petition for review.2

-- 3 of 3 --