185 F. Supp. 3d 135
D.D.C.2016Background
- Five plaintiffs sued the Broadcasting Board of Governors alleging hostile-work-environment and related claims; summary judgment was previously granted for most claims.
- On March 18, 2016 the Court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment for four plaintiffs on all counts and for the fifth plaintiff on all but four counts, concluding plaintiffs failed to exhaust administrative remedies.
- Plaintiffs moved to reconsider, invoking Rules 59(e) and 60(b); the Court treated the motion as filed under Rule 54(b) because the earlier order was interlocutory.
- Plaintiffs argued they either exhausted administrative remedies or were entitled to equitable tolling due to defendant’s conduct.
- The Court found plaintiffs merely repeated prior arguments and did not present new law, new evidence, or show clear error. Plaintiffs failed to produce evidence that an EEOC officer was notified of acts within the filing period or that defendants engaged in affirmative misconduct warranting tolling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether interlocutory order should be reconsidered | Move to reconsider under Rules 59(e)/60(b); sought reversal of summary judgment rulings | Opposed; argued no basis for reconsideration | Denied; motion treated under Rule 54(b) and denied as not showing grounds for reconsideration |
| Whether plaintiffs exhausted administrative remedies for hostile work environment claims | Plaintiffs contend they notified an EEO officer of acts within the filing period | Defendant contends plaintiffs did not timely present acts to an EEO officer | Held plaintiffs failed to show evidence they notified an EEO officer of timely acts |
| Whether equitable tolling of administrative deadlines applies | Plaintiffs argue tolling justified by defendant’s misconduct or other equitable grounds | Defendant argues no affirmative misconduct or basis for tolling | Held no evidence of affirmative misconduct; equitable tolling not warranted |
| Whether plaintiffs presented new evidence or law justifying relief | Plaintiffs claim prior submissions suffice or new arguments presented | Defendant argues plaintiffs only rehashed prior arguments | Held plaintiffs did not present new evidence, change in law, or clear error to justify reconsideration |
Key Cases Cited
- Cobell v. Jewell, 802 F.3d 12 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (standard for reconsideration of interlocutory orders)
- Greene v. Union Mut. Life Ins. Co. of Am., 764 F.2d 19 (1st Cir. 1985) (reconsideration standard cited)
- Murphy v. Exec. Office for U.S. Attorneys, 11 F. Supp. 3d 7 (D.D.C. 2014) (grounds for relief under Rule 54(b))
- Zeigler v. Potter, 555 F. Supp. 2d 126 (D.D.C. 2008) (reconsideration standard)
- Keystone Tobacco Co. v. U.S. Tobacco Co., 217 F.R.D. 235 (D.D.C. 2003) (reconsideration principles)
- Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (2002) (timeliness requirement for hostile-work-environment claims)
- Baldwin Cty. Welcome Ctr. v. Brown, 466 U.S. 147 (1984) (equitable tolling requires affirmative misconduct)