Geraldine Parker v. ROBERT A. MCDONALD, Secretary of Department of Veterans Affairs

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GERALDINE PARKER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ROBERT A. MCDONALD*, Secretary of
Department of Veterans Affairs,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 14-55135
D.C. No. 2:13-cv-00723-JAK-PJW
MEMORANDUM**
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
John A. Kronstadt, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 15, 2016***
Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Geraldine Parker appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing her
FILED
MAR 24 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
*
Robert A. McDonald has been substituted for his predecessor, Eric K.
Shinseki, as Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs, under Fed. R. App.
P. 43(c)(2).
** This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
*** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 2 --

employment action alleging violations of Title VII and the Rehabilitation Act. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for
failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Vinieratos v. United States, 939 F.2d
762, 768 (9th Cir. 1991). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Parker’s action because Parker failed to
allege facts showing that she complied with the administrative exhaustion
requirement of timely initiating contact with an Equal Employment Opportunity
(“EEO”) counselor. See Kraus v. Presidio Trust Facilities Div./Residential Mgmt.
Branch, 572 F.3d. 1039, 1043 (9th Cir. 2009) (federal employee must initiate
contact with an EEO counselor within forty-five days of alleged wrongful act, and
failure to do so is fatal to a federal employee’s claim in federal court absent waiver,
estoppel or equitable tolling). Contrary to Parker’s contention, Parker did not
exhaust the claims in this action, which arose in 2012 and 2013, by filing an EEO
complaint in 2011.
Because we affirm the district court’s dismissal on the basis of failure to
exhaust, we do not consider Parker’s arguments regarding the merits of her claims.
AFFIRMED.
14-55135 2

-- 2 of 2 --