
USCA1 Opinion

	




                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 97-1235                                   VANESSA PELLOT,                                Plaintiff, Appellant,                                          v.                               TRIPLE S., INC., ET AL.,                                Defendants, Appellees.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO                    [Hon. Jose Antonio Fuste, U.S. District Judge]                                              ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                Torruella, Chief Judge,                                           ___________                          Boudin and Stahl, Circuit Judges.                                            ______________                                 ____________________            Jose R. Franco on brief for appellant.            ______________            Pedro J. Manzano-Yates  and Fiddler Gonzalez & Rodriguez on  brief            ______________________      ____________________________        for appellees Triple S., Inc. and Juan Velazquez.            Rafael Baella-Silva  and Baella  & Barcelo  on brief  for appellee            ___________________      _________________        Victor Correa.                                 ____________________                                  SEPTEMBER 9, 1997                                 ____________________                 Per Curiam.   We have  reviewed the record in  this case                 __________            and  the briefs  submitted by  the  parties.   We affirm  the            decision of the  district court, essentially for  the reasons            stated  in its opinion dated  January 30, 1997.   We add only            the following.                 Plaintiff  argues the time limitation for filing an EEOC            charge should have been tolled because she suffered mental or            emotional disability.  Even  if all the facts in  plaintiff's            complaint  are true,  she has  failed to  allege the  kind of            facts which would allow a  court to toll the time limitations            imposed by Title  VII.  She does not allege she was unable to            engage  in rational  thought and deliberate  decision making.            Cf. Nunnally v.  MacCausland, 996 F.2d 1, 5  (1st Cir. 1993).            ___ _________    ___________            Though  she alleges she  was distressed by  appellee Correa's            alleged harassment and her brother's legal troubles, she does            not  allege  she  was  unable  to  function   in  society  or            comprehend  her  legal  rights and  liabilities.    Id.   The                                                                ___            threshold  set  by Nunnally  is much  higher, since  "federal                               ________            courts  have   'typically  extended  equitable   relief  only            sparingly.'"   Id. at  4 (quoting  Irwin v.  Veteran's Admin.                           ___        _______  _____     ________________            Reg'l Office, 498 U.S. 89, 96 (1990)).            ____________                 Furthermore,  even  if  appellant's  alleged  mental  or            emotional disability prevented her, for a time, from pursuing            administrative  remedies, she wholly  failed to  pursue those            remedies  after the  alleged disability  was  lifted.   While                                         -2-            Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 455 U.S. 385, 394 (1982)            ______   __________________________            held  the time  limitations under  Title VII  are subject  to            equitable  tolling, that  rule is not  a basis  for "skipping            entirely over the  'initial charge.'"  Kizas  v. Webster, 707                                                   _____     _______            F.2d 524, 546 (D.C.Cir. 1983).                 The district  court was  correct to dismiss  plaintiff's            claim for failure to pursue administrative remedies.                 The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.                 ______________________________________________                                         -3-
