
USCA1 Opinion

	




                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                              _________________________          No. 96-1413                                JULIA TIRADO, ET AL.,                               Plaintiffs, Appellants,                                          v.                     U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, ET AL.,                                Defendants, Appellees.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO                   [Hon. Salvador E. Casellas, U.S. District Judge]                                               ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                               Torruella, Chief Judge,                                          ___________                           Selya and Stahl, Circuit Judges.                                            ______________                                 ____________________               Emilio F. Soler for appellant.               _______________               Lowell  V.  Sturgill,  Jr.,   with  whom  Frank  W.  Hunger,               __________________________                _________________          Assistant   Attorney  General,   Guillermo  Gil,   United  States                                           ______________          Attorney, and Robert S. Greenspan, Appellate Staff, Department of                        ___________________          Justice, were on brief, for appellees.                                 ____________________                                    March 11, 1997                                 ____________________                    Per  Curiam.  We affirm the judgment below on the basis                    Per  Curiam.                    ___________          of  the district  court's well-reasoned  order dated  February 5,          1996.  We add only a brief comment.                    The concept of an ordered liberty requires that the law          draw temporal  lines.  Any  time such  a line is  drawn, however,          there will always be litigants who fall just short.   Holding the          line in  those instances may seem  harsh, but it  is essential to          the proper functioning of our legal system.                    This  is such  a case.   Under  a valid  and concededly          applicable regulation, 29 C.F.R.    163.214(a)(1)(ii) (1992), the          plaintiff had  to file  her complaint charging  discrimination in          employment with the EEOC within 15 days of receipt of the  Notice          of Final Interview.   The plaintiff missed the deadline  by eight          days.   And, while equitable tolling, as the plaintiff argues, is          available in  an appropriate case, see, e.g., Irwin v. Department                                             ___  ____  _____    __________          of Veterans Affairs, 498  U.S. 89, 95-96 (1990), the  contours of          ___________________          the exception  are narrow and  its use  is rare,   see Jensen  v.                                                             ___ ______          Frank, 912  F.2d 517, 521 (1st  Cir. 1990); Mack v.  Great Atl. &          _____                                       ____     ____________          Pac. Tea Co., 871 F.2d 179, 185 (1st Cir. 1989).          ____________                    In  this case, we agree  with the lower  court that the          facts of record, even when taken  in the light most favorable  to          the  plaintiff, do  not permit  the invocation  of  the doctrine.          See, e.g., Kelley v. NLRB,  79 F.3d 1238 (1st Cir. 1996).   Among          ___  ____  ______    ____          other things, there is  no factual support for a finding that the          untimely filing resulted either  from conduct attributable to the          defendants or from circumstances beyond the plaintiff's  control.                                          2          Applying the test laid  down in Kelley, 79 F.3d at 1249-50     an                                          ______          appeal which, on  the facts, perhaps presented  a more compelling          (but, nonetheless, still unsuccessful) case for equitable tolling              the plaintiff is plainly not entitled to relief.  Her Union's          blunder, like the plaintiff's lawyer's error in  Kelley, is fully                                                           ______          chargeable to her.                    We need go no further.  The judgment below is           Affirmed.          Affirmed          ________                                          3
