Barbara Brewer v. DC Office Of Employee Appeals / DC Public Schools
163 A.3d 799
D.C.2017Background
- Brewer, a DCPS teacher, was terminated and appealed to the Office of Employee Appeals (OEA); OEA dismissed for lack of jurisdiction (probationary employee).
- Brewer initially filed a petition for review in the D.C. Court of Appeals; the court dismissed for improper venue and instructed appeals must first go to Superior Court.
- Brewer then attempted to file in Superior Court: initial filings (motion to extend time and early petition) were rejected on technical grounds; a corrected petition was filed on October 15, 2014.
- The government (DCPS) did not move to dismiss for untimeliness until months later; its first filing was a late motion to intervene, which the Superior Court granted.
- The Superior Court dismissed Brewer’s Superior Court petition as untimely under Super. Ct. Agency Rev. R. 1(a), treating the 30‑day deadline as jurisdictional and mandatory.
- The D.C. Court of Appeals reviewed whether the 30‑day rule is truly jurisdictional, a mandatory claim‑processing rule, or subject to equitable tolling.
Issues
| Issue | Brewer's Argument | DCPS/OEA's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 30‑day filing deadline in Super. Ct. Agency Rev. R. 1(a) is jurisdictional | Rule is not jurisdictional; Brewer sought equitable tolling given pro se filings and clerk rejections | The 30‑day limit is mandatory and jurisdictional, so late filing divests court of jurisdiction | Not jurisdictional; Mathis controls—agency rule is a claim‑processing rule and may be equitably tolled |
| If not jurisdictional, whether the deadline is a mandatory claim‑processing rule that still requires dismissal | Even if mandatory, government forfeited timely challenge and no prejudice; equity favors tolling | As a mandatory claim‑processing rule, it requires strict enforcement and dismissal if timely raised | Could be mandatory, but government’s delay and lack of prejudice leave equitable tolling possible; case remanded for merits |
| Whether government forfeited its right to challenge timeliness by delay in raising it | Brewer argued government’s multi‑month inaction and acceptance of filings forfeited challenge | DCPS acted within its rights to raise timeliness later, and requested intervention | Court found government’s delay significant; at minimum equitable tolling inquiry warranted |
| Whether remand for merits is appropriate | Urged that finality and lack of prejudice support review on merits | Urged dismissal for procedural default | Court reversed dismissal and remanded for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Mathis v. District of Columbia Housing Authority, 124 A.3d 1089 (D.C. 2015) (agency‑appeal filing deadlines in rules are claim‑processing rules and may be equitably tolled)
- Fisher v. District of Columbia, 803 A.2d 962 (D.C. 2002) (previously described the rule deadline as mandatory and jurisdictional)
- Manrique v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1266 (2017) (distinguishes jurisdictional rules from mandatory claim‑processing rules; late objections may be forfeited)
- In re Na.H., 65 A.3d 111 (D.C. 2013) (upheld time limit as at least a mandatory claim‑processing rule in Family Court context)
- Clement v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Human Servs., 629 A.2d 1215 (D.C. 1993) (discusses finality considerations in appeals)
- Capitol Hill Restoration Soc’y v. District of Columbia Mayor’s Agency for Historic Pres., 44 A.3d 271 (D.C. 2012) (prior decision characterizing appellate‑rule deadline as jurisdictional)